"Contractorisation" - a hideous word coined by David Cameron when he was questioned recently by a parliamentary committee. He was asked about Chris Grayling's statement that companies which are guilty of malpractice or gross failure could be ruled out of future contracts. (Think Serco and G4S.) Would this happen? Cameron was vague, but said he was in favour of more "contractorisation". Of course he was vague. Because it won't happen. For one thing it would be a legal minefield, and for another, who else is there? He was also asked about the timetable for bringing in Universal Credit, and was equally vague, leading people to conclude that he and the government know it's not remotely on schedule, and only Iain Duncan Smith thinks it is.
With the start of the party conference season, we can see very clearly that there is consensus among the main parties about welfare and outsourcing. Clegg waffled this morning about "making work pay" and dodged a question about the deepening poverty of those on benefits. This is the Tory attitude as well; they believe that they have won the argument. Tales of hardship can be brushed aside, because a majority of the electorate have accepted the propaganda. Michael Gove caused a bit of a fuss by saying that he thought people who used food banks were just bad at managing their money. Various Labour MPs are willing to put a different point of view, but their party would not alter anything the Tories have done. Nor would they call a halt to the outsourcing.
Cameron, Gove, Clegg et al are not necessarily bad people. They have good intentions towards people whose lives they cannot begin to understand. When they are confronted with the truth they can't accept it. And now that the economic figures aren't quite as bad as they were, they can proclaim that they were right. It's grim.
The Tories and Clegg know EXACTLY what effect their policies will have on the benefit system AND the people who use it. The coalitions economic policy is being dictated not by the needs of the people but by their right-wing idealogical beliefs. It's intentions are not good they have been DELIBERATELY constructed to hurt the out of work and underemployed.
ReplyDeleteFor example, the coalition talks about 'making work pay', yet AT THE SAME TIME time they INCREASED the Working Tax Credit claim cut-off (from 16 to 30hrs)forcing thousands of WORKING families into hardship. What they say and what they actually do are two VERY different things.
DeleteI was never entirely convinced that Gordon "Mr Casino Banker" Brown had the right idea in the first place by introducing Working Tax Credit... given that employers, in the knowledge that a candidate could apply for a taxpayer subsidy for Low Pay, would invariably pay less wage/salary than would be available otherwise.
DeleteUnfortunately, that is precisely what has happened - in due course, the pressure on wages will increase, and employers will finally realise that work will only pay when they decide to pay a suitable wage.
The reason why Working Tax Credit was introduced was to tackle low pay - it is NOT the cause of low pay and it is not inevitable that wages will rise if it is scrapped. Wages will only rise when demand outstrips labour and that ain't going to happen any time soon.
DeleteYour logic is faulty. WTC was indeed introduced to tackle low pay; but in the process it encouraged employers to pay no more than NMW (and sometimes less) because the taxpayer would make up the difference between that and enough to live on. There's a historic precedent for this; google "Speenhamland system". Sure, the market works in the way your second sentence states. But there are lots of ways of intervening in the market when governments think it necessary.
Deletethe government are paying supermarkets for 18-24 year olds to do a 26 weeks stint for nmw and they get a wage sub of £2275 quid that they keep then dump them back on the work programme for a new replacement.
ReplyDeletehttp://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk37/necromunger666/DSC_0007_01.jpg
I am 50 years old and my opinion is this happenned in the 1980s to myself and others in a simillar position too. I did have work and pay but did not think about being chucked back on the dole. I would say to any person who is an apprentice "Apply for jobs/update your CV, think about your future prospects". The things I didn't do partly because I was unaware of the future.
DeleteProbably not the right forum for this,but I have to wonder who is running this Asylum called the WP! In a previous post I questioned Travel Expenses to a Jobs fair and had it resolved,today I attended this"Fair" suited and booted,I actually figured to give it an honest effort.
ReplyDeleteI rewrote my CV and put on a positive attitude(really,no joke,I am tired off not working) upon arrival,I looked for the potential Employers...(1) The ARMY(to old,but had a chat anyway) (2,3,4,5) Training companies part funded by ESF and not allowed while on the WP,but finance available(?) (6,7) Volunteer/Charities,brief chat,but travel not refunded (8) Telesales,experienced only 15 hrs a week..Not really many opportunities and the Provider Booth six employees of the Prime..I asked is this it? "Yes" you need to apply to each booth and fill out a survey on how well we have done....But there is only (1) employer
"You still need to visit every booth" ..I calmly informed them that my opinion of how well they have done (done what?) would not be in their best interest,I am unsure who benefited from this,over 120 people were mandated to attend,although somebody might benefit overall it was a useless,ill thought out exercise and nothing more than a box checking "look at the support"
So, if you join the Army this is a "Job Outcome"?
DeleteActually???? YES. but at 50,no they will not have me,still had to apply and they were a decent bunch, highlight of my day.
ReplyDeleteThe Work Programme is part funded by the European Social Fund - shame they don't provide training isn't it?
DeleteMy understanding is The European Social Fund does provide training through the Work Programme and employers.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.google.co.uk/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=European+social+fund+training&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=YNg6UqLgM6qO0AXn0IHABg#q=European+social+fund+training&rls=en
Pity I didn't realise that three years ago when I was with a4e.
Not in Wales,makes no sense,a lad now on the WP was accepted for training by the JCP before the WP,before he started the training he was assigned to the WP by the JCP and was not allowed to start the training as he did not do it ASAP now he is in the £HIT
DeleteAfter another stellar visit to the WP,total time 6 minutes 48 seconds(waited 27 minutes) it went like this Jobsearch? yes..Change in circumstance? No..Do you need a bus ticket? Yes..See you in to weeks..Can I use your computers?..Yes,but you can't print they are broken.
ReplyDeleteThe staff at my Sub has been reduced from 12 Advisers to 3 all temp hires,after talking to a former member via Facebook I asked what the skinny was? apparently the Sub (Council) has a slight problem,they accepted the attachment fee,but have not performed and are losing money,they are not willing to invest more,but are taking a controlled loss as they will face a massive loss if the cancel the contract..This actually seems plausible,all the permanent staff have moved to other positions within the council(Leaving a sinking ship?) but the question that remains unanswered is what about the clients/unemployed? Although there has been little support throughout,now there is none,which supports the opinion all along "The WP is not there for the unemployed,rather the unemployed are there to justify the WP"
"The WP is not there for the unemployed, rather the unemployed are there to justify the WP"
DeleteGood quote. Very apt too!