Govt 5 billion pound work programme FAIL

#1
Work Programme: 70% still unemployed after one year - Telegraph


A GP hereabouts was having a moan the other day. All the extra appointments made by patients, for admin not clinical reasons, because of the govt fitness for work ATOS testing scheme. Now, however, those that were pushed off incapacity on to jobseekers are being sent to GP BY THE JOBCENTRE who has found them unfit for work. Presumably he is now expected to give them a sick note to go back on ESA (new incapacity benefit)

So trying to get this right. With a view to saving 2.4 billion per year in benefits payments the govt introduced fitness for work testing. Say that costs 4 billion. Then they invest five billion in private companies whose task is to get unemployed into work.

Meanwhile Mr Gove has something to say about poor numeracy skills ??
 
#2
It is all 'smoke 'n mirrors', a bit like the YOPS and YTS programs under the Thatcher administrations - all these failed to deliver the intended results. So once again another Tory (all beit with the Limp- Dumbers) government initiative to get the lazy, fat Vicky Pollards & Waynes, bone idle, dole scrounging life style choicers off their backsides and into work.... will never hapen. Far too many individuals, families etc have become so ingrained into the whole Welfare system as clients, that they will never give up these 'Oomin Rties'. To supplement their benefits, they will indulge in some good old fashioned criminality by robbing their neighbours, selling dope, or mugging folks as they stagger back from the Pub pished.

All this is probably considered to be part of the social fabric of Dear old Blighty - a picture of a rather sad, raddled, gin soaked, piss-stained old lady pushing her shopping trolley with her life's belonging in bin bags. But we have to have hope - there is always hope for the future that we get the political and social leaders we need to 'kick erse', and get things going.
 
T

Tremaine

Guest
#3
Reading this I can't work out just where the problems are in this project. Sure we can blame the job-seekers for some of it , some are probably either frightened of a job or won't get their arrse in gear. But that won't be all of it. These social experiments and private NGO's are a recipe for dog toffee, with knobs on. Work Minister Mark Hoban is quoted saying "It’s in the interest of those work programme providers to get their act together. I think we can see some positive signs but I think there is some distance to go still.” ...That'll be those "social purpose corporations that improve people's lives by helping them find work , education, and skills". Sort of, because they're for profit, targets, numbers and results.

And this cryptic botty burp: “(Mark Hoban) The economic backdrop is different to how it was a couple of years ago,” he said. “So it does make it more challenging for people to get back into work. It also means that what work looks like is different as well.” Eh, come again?

The £5 billion great Work Rodeo Show rounding up the sick lame and lazy with its groundbreaking sheep dip, aint been a great success. Read clusterfcuk. It can't be ideal for the providers or the customers, trumpers on both sides. And failing policies pouring billions down the drain?
 
#4
All "work schemes" fail utterly, in fact a 30% success rate (if it's at all accurate) makes the current attempt the best to date, by some distance.

They're a waste of public money and everyone involved knows it, but it's that or be accused of doing nothing about unemployment.
 
#5
Ah yes, you fail to understand the intent of this scheme, money is moving and cronies have nice consultancy jobs, when money moves banks get rich and that is afterall now the sole purpose of our sham democracy, greasing the banks!
 
#6
So trying to get this right. With a view to saving 2.4 billion per year in benefits payments the govt introduced fitness for work testing. Say that costs 4 billion. Then they invest five billion in private companies whose task is to get unemployed into work.

Meanwhile Mr Gove has something to say about poor numeracy skills ??
No, his numeracy skills are top notch.

He saved £2.4bn going to poor people for free.
Spent £4bn looking like he's doing something.
And gave £5bn to his mates.

It's a win-win-win.
 
#7
It is all 'smoke 'n mirrors', a bit like the YOPS and YTS programs under the Thatcher administrations - all these failed to deliver the intended results. So once again another Tory (all beit with the Limp- Dumbers) government initiative to get the lazy, fat Vicky Pollards & Waynes, bone idle, dole scrounging life style choicers off their backsides and into work.... will never hapen. Far too many individuals, families etc have become so ingrained into the whole Welfare system as clients, that they will never give up these 'Oomin Rties'. To supplement their benefits, they will indulge in some good old fashioned criminality by robbing their neighbours, selling dope, or mugging folks as they stagger back from the Pub pished.

All this is probably considered to be part of the social fabric of Dear old Blighty - a picture of a rather sad, raddled, gin soaked, piss-stained old lady pushing her shopping trolley with her life's belonging in bin bags. But we have to have hope - there is always hope for the future that we get the political and social leaders we need to 'kick erse', and get things going.
Amazing how you skipped over all the Labour party schemes which also came to nought. Anyone would think you had a hidden agenda by skipping from Thatcher to Cameron and ignoring the bit in between.
The only job creation scheme that worked for Labour was the amount of non-jobs in the public sector.
 
#8
It's completely non-party, the only reason Thatcher need be mentioned is that the "workfare" type scheme was introduced during her tenure. They have existed under one name or another ever since and have been uniformly crap at doing anything except pissing cash into a very deep hole.
 

Wordsmith

LE
Book Reviewer
#10
Shouldn't this have drifted into 'lazy cnuts' territory by now?
More like we have a hard core of unemployable people that have been on benefits for years, have zero abilities other than to wear a hole in a sofa and the interpersonal skills of an orang-outang.

No sane employer will look at them, but these work programs at least give successive governments the ability to say that they're addressing the problem of the long term unemployed.

The only way you'll solve this specific problem is to make benefits conditional on attending on passing training courses. If employers see a hitherto unemployable chav has suddenly learnt basic English and maths, together with some form of trade, they might employ them. Nothing less will do.

The only way you'll make this program work is to take benefits away from people who don't pass courses. Otherwise they'll turn up, go through the motions and go right on being 'professionally unemployed'. Force them to learn skills and they might have a chance in life.

Wordsmith
 
#11
Before the days of relentless handouts [in the '30's for instance during the depression] able bodied men [roughly defined as those with 4 limbs and still breathing] were put on projects like road building. World's gone soft!
 
#12
I am still yet to make my mind up about the EU, but I cannot see how unemployment will ever be solved when an employer has applicants from the whole of Europe to choose between. Few workers (skilled or unskilled) could withstand that level of competition successfully.

Welfare to work programmes - the private sector has to get involved in this. Civil servants in job centres have no interest in solving unemployment and no reason to try.

The 'payment by results', figures, competition etc would also never withstand pressure from an organised (i.e. unionised) work force, which the civil service is laden with.

I don't think IDS can be blamed for trying. He is doing a lot of other things to help solve the benefits culture and welfare-to-work is simply one element of a huge number of reforms being rolled out over the next 6/7 years.
 
#13
More like we have a hard core of unemployable people that have been on benefits for years, have zero abilities other than to wear a hole in a sofa and the interpersonal skills of an orang-outang.

No sane employer will look at them, but these work programs at least give successive governments the ability to say that they're addressing the problem of the long term unemployed.

The only way you'll solve this specific problem is to make benefits conditional on attending on passing training courses. If employers see a hitherto unemployable chav has suddenly learnt basic English and maths, together with some form of trade, they might employ them. Nothing less will do.

The only way you'll make this program work is to take benefits away from people who don't pass courses. Otherwise they'll turn up, go through the motions and go right on being 'professionally unemployed'. Force them to learn skills and they might have a chance in life.

Wordsmith
My bold, I agree wholeheartedly. Why on earth doesn't the government encourage (with grants and or tax breaks) the reintroduction of apprenticeships? It could possibly help solve two problems by reducing the number of young people out of work and by creating a skill base that employers & a lot of pro immigration folks say we lack!!
 
#14
My bold, I agree wholeheartedly. Why on earth doesn't the government encourage (with grants and or tax breaks) the reintroduction of apprenticeships?
As it happens, they are.

As for unemployable useless people. They are a hopeless case and only represent less than 1% of the population. Better to give them just enough benefits to survive.

Cheaper in the long run.
 
#15
#16
Whether it was 2.4 Bn or 4 Bn wasted on trying to create jobs, it just proves how little Government can do this way to create jobs.

It does prove my general point on taxation though that it is better not to take tax off people and businesses just to give it back by some complex means which is either wasteful or open to corruption (and probably both).

If the Government had taken 4 Bn off corporation tax or Employers' National Insurance contribution, it would have created far more real jobs. They could even have lifted even more low paid out of the taxation trap altogether. The problem is the Labour Party and Unions would have howled and threatened to protest, strike or obstruct the proposal.
 
#17
My bold, I agree wholeheartedly. Why on earth doesn't the government encourage (with grants and or tax breaks) the reintroduction of apprenticeships? It could possibly help solve two problems by reducing the number of young people out of work and by creating a skill base that employers & a lot of pro immigration folks say we lack!!
They are doing so.

But there's less need to have large numbers of tradesmen than there used to be.
 
#18
Whether it was 2.4 Bn or 4 Bn wasted on trying to create jobs, it just proves how little Government can do this way to create jobs.

It does prove my general point on taxation though that it is better not to take tax off people and businesses just to give it back by some complex means which is either wasteful or open to corruption (and probably both).

If the Government had taken 4 Bn off corporation tax or Employers' National Insurance contribution, it would have created far more real jobs. They could even have lifted even more low paid out of the taxation trap altogether. The problem is the Labour Party and Unions would have howled and threatened to protest, strike or obstruct the proposal.
But it would not show them to be doing "something" for/with the unemployed. So they'd still need some form of "scheme".
 
#19
But according to this article http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/special/cepsp22.pdf , a very poor, lower level when compared with Austria, Germany, France, Switzerland and even Ireland!
You're speaking to somebody who did an apprenticeship in one of those listed countries.

I don't know exactly how good it is here in the UK, but my impression is you're absolutely correct in that it's not the same quality.
However, it's an elaborate system with vocational schools with part time/full time teachers who work or have worked in the professions they teach, while businesses also have mentors or "masters" to provide the apprentices with advice. Well, mine didn't really but nevermind...
The point is that it time to set up. I think the government has recognised the need it's the way forward and are moving away from Blair's "everybody should have a university degree" dream.
 
T

Tremaine

Guest
#20
A few questions that obviously sound naive but never mind: Is it a daft idea to place responsibility for recruitment and training squarely in the hands of (responsible) employers? If someone's not in gainful employment or at least study, and either won't or can't motivate himself to do something, there's no excuse. But if we're saturated by under-qualified employment agencies and corporations (often sales people trading as consultants) how far does the corporate job market get in the way of recruitment and retention? Recruitment is a lucrative market which doesn't always prep up and develop the people genuinely wanting work. There must be people out there who want to work but who fall at too many admin hurdles or fall foul of coffee swilling apes in cheap suits.

And do we now have too much elitism , whereby those who, for reasons best known to commercial recruiters, don't qualify as marketable prospects and are left to struggle? I'd suggest that some if not most commercial recruiters are more guilty of discrimination then they care to admit. Jobseeking can be a proper nightmare for those wanting work but faced with some right ********* putting up all sorts of barriers.

Small wonder that the average job-seeker will think "fcuk it what's the point" . Just my opinion, but the employment sector has excluded a few losers while also alienating and degrading good people. They'll most likely end up at smelly charities and adult day schools for the terminally blacklisted, learning how to write a CV, knock on doors, and talk properly.

Corporations, by and large, have shifted to online recruitment for their impersonal and discriminate cherry picking. That may be a good thing or not, and it's progress. These days jobseekers have to jump through hoops, write the "perfect" CV and come up to recruiters' expectations simply by uploading a CV and crossing his fingers. And all the while trumped up Jobsworths and chancers dig up his background and credit history without ever having met the applicant.

The government and ministers are patently investing billions in trying to get people in to work. There are good people besides the idle unwashed, so why not spend some of that cash running through corporate and recruiters' corridors with a big stick. Fcuk, I'm going to get stick for this.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top