When a report comes out of the Centre for Social Justice, one can assume that it's with the approval of Iain Duncan Smith, who set up the outfit and has close links with its people. So its latest proposals could well be seen as the floating of something the government wants to do. "Break state monopoly of failing £1.4 billion job centres" is the heading of their press release.
It's an extraordinarily muddled analysis to support their wish to move to the Australian model, which uses lots of private and voluntary sector bodies (the code is "market-based") rather than a public sector jobcentre system. For Conservatives this is axiomatic, needing no justification. But the CSJ obviously has to come up with reasons. So what do they find is wrong with our current system?
Well, "Thousands of claimants lack an up-to-date CV". This preoccupation with CVs puzzles many unemployed people. Most of the jobs they apply for don't require a piece of paper headed "CV"; they want an application form completed, on paper or online.
Then there's the claim that "40 per cent of claimants who move off Jobseekers Allowance make another benefits claim within six months". Er .... yes. How many jobs today are temporary or even casual? How is this the fault of the Jobcentres? And how does this compare with the private sector Work Programme figures?
"JCP focusses far too much on arranging benefits for claimants instead of identifying the factors that are preventing them from getting work and staying in work." This is a ridiculous statement. When someone loses their job and signs on, the first role of the Jobcentre is to ensure that they get the benefits to which they are entitled. That doesn't always work properly; but I would far rather entrust that role to a civil servant than to the employee of a private company like, for instance, A4e. After that, they are supposed to help you back into work. In recent years, jobcentres have been starved of resources and money has been diverted to the private companies to deliver programmes like the Work Programme. So, does the CSJ want the money restored? Well, they admit that JCP staff are underpaid, and advocate "increased pay for effective advisers" i.e. performance-related pay based on getting people into sustained work - the private sector model.
There's more of the same in the report. But to pick holes in it is to miss the point. We are on the way to handing the unemployed to the private sector from the moment they sign on.
This is about saving money like lots of other coalition policies - UJM. In my experience some of the Disability Employment Advisors I have seen over the years have not assisted me, but they do have lots of others to see who I hope have been helped.
ReplyDeleteI really don't think it is about saving money.
ReplyDeleteMaybe not, 1.4 billion pounds is mentioned.
DeleteIt's about making sure someone somewhere is making money from providing a service, that's Conservative (Not simply Tory party but also New Labour) doctrine and they believe any service that exists simply for the sake of the service is wrong.
DeleteThey'll find any evidence they can to say it's wrong, that includes problems of their own making.
In 5-10 years time, this'll be the norm whichever government in in charge.
ReplyDeleteNever mind that the private W2W sector has constantly underperformed under ND, FND and now the WP, because presumably the same failing providers charged with running the WP will be chomping at the bit to run JCP (no doubt regionally like the WP) and top-slice their share of tax aided monies!
This is simply a dogmatic, ideological approach to solving major issues. Who cares if these private companies have failed time and time again previously? We must all believe and chant "Private sector always good, public sector always bad".
More "stock" for the poverty pimps to make money off. And this repeated phrase "getting and staying in work" puzzles me. Since we now have a flexible labour market, where for many people temporary short term work is the norm, "staying in work" for longer than a few months at a time is extremely difficult.
ReplyDeleteBlinded by ideology and completely out of touch - that's what the CSJ and it's founder IDS are.
To make a claim you do it on-line or call a helpline don't you? So long as this part works it doesn't matter to me. I had to make 3 15 minute calls to HMRC recently and about 10 minutes were spent in a queue.
DeleteUm, aren't A4E invoved in the Australian Model and I don't mean Nell McAndrew...
DeleteI read the Press release,what is astounding is the fact that the JCP has been ravaged and the resources have been redirected to the WP,which has constantly failed the unemployed.
ReplyDeleteReading between the lines,in my opinion they are trying to discredit the JCP (a problem that the DWP has created) in order to shift more money over to the WP and also keep the spotlight off the WP.
I put a comment on another post suggesting that this gov't's ultimate objective was to put ALL public services in private hands because there was no longer any work in the private sector. This proposal and the announcement today that the P.O. is to be privatised confirms this. But they won't work. Here's why?
ReplyDeleteThere is very little evidence that the private sector works better than the public sector, indeed there is lots of evidence to suggest the opposite. Remember when the utilties were privatised? The argument in favour was that if the energy market was opened up it would create competition and therefore improve the level of customer service AND lead to lower bills. In practise the energy market is rigged, with no competition and horrific bills. Indeed, bills are so high that the gov't has had to step in and part-subsidize bills (the cold weather subsidy). So, in practise the public now pays TWICE, through bills and tax being redistributed to the energy companies (via the cold weather payment). The railways are also part-subsidized by the public.
If the job centre is privitised it will STILL be subsidized by the public but we will have lost control of it's operation. It will not lead to a better service but one that will certainly MORE expensive. There is also the danger that if it is in private hands the gov't will not monitor its work and therefore abuses will be ignored e.g. unfair sanctions.
The Tories are using the public deficit as an excuse to privatise the entire public sector. They DO NOT have a mandate to do this. They are minority gov't. Worse, in the long-run it will cost the public MORE and with no guarantee of a better level of service.
If they win the next election they will have a mandate to privatise EVERYTHING. Will then be well on our way to a corporate facist state.
They are trying to do this with the probation service, failing grayling is fool. This will happen to all branches of the public sector.
ReplyDeleteTrying to save money by cutting a core instituition to restarting the economy in my mind is a very dumb idea.
ReplyDelete