Remember the Work Programme? Of course you do. But, like so much of what this government has done, the WP has been forgotten by most of the media; and its successor, "Help to Work", is just being ignored.
But the businesses contracted to deliver the WP have to plough on until 2016. And A4e has resumed its practice of inviting MPs into their local offices to admire what they're doing. Rob Wilson, Tory MP for Reading East, said, “I was very pleased to hear that A4e has seen a reduction in client numbers because of the success of the Work Programme getting people back into work and off benefits. Clients are supported by A4e staff after starting work to help ensure they are able to manage in their job. This extra support is essential to keep people in the new job.” John Bercow, Tory MP for Buckingham (and Speaker of the Commons) was equally impressed by A4e's work in Milton Keynes. Another cheer-leader is Dan Finn, Professor of Social Inclusion at Portsmouth University. He's written a piece on Serco's own website asking, "Is it working?" and concluding that it is, with a few caveats. And yet .... Huge amounts of money have been spent on this, with very low targets which are not being met. It was meant to solve unemployment and certainly hasn't.
So IDS came up with "Help to Work". It was supposed, after a delay, to start yesterday, but there's another delay. Could that be because of the difficulties in finding placements for all those sentenced to workfare? There's a good piece on the Ekklesia website, and another on ThirdSector's site. A growing number of voluntary organisations and local councils have signed up to a boycott of the scheme. If they can't find placements with charities and councils the firms with the contracts will have to offer this free labour to private companies. But, ostrich-like, "A spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions said: 'Referrals to the placements have begun and the placements will begin shortly. There has been no delay. Charities are under no obligation to be in the scheme, but those who are recognise the benefits of it.'"
Despite the fact that everything he has touched has turned to dross, Iain Duncan Smith believes it's all wonderful. If you can stomach it, read his speech on welfare reform in Berlin. And if we needed confirmation that IDS has a headlock on the BBC, it comes in the Express. Talking about the Tories' promise of an EU referendum, "Iain Duncan Smith lashed out at the BBC for failing to give enough prominence to Mr Cameron’s promise of an in-out vote in 2017. The Work and Pensions Secretary said 'most people' do not even know about the pledge. A BBC spokeswoman said: 'We are satisfied that we have covered the EU referendum promise.'"
Showing posts with label Ekklesia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ekklesia. Show all posts
Tuesday, 3 June 2014
Thursday, 30 January 2014
The future of JCP
You may have missed it. It certainly wasn't well publicised. But then the report into Jobcentre Plus by the Work & Pensions select committee wasn't going to excite the media. You can read the full report and a good summary on parliament's own site. The few news sites which did pick this up highlighted the judgement that jobcentres assess claimants "haphazardly" (BBC) and that "Jobcentre staff are sanctioning benefits claimants inappropriately for minor infringements" (the Independent).
One of the most important of its recommendations was that JCP should continue to be a public service, i.e. not outsourced. The committee also picked up on the fact that its targets are focussed on getting people off benefits, rather than into work. They recognise that the two aims are different, and the focus should be on helping claimants to find work, not pushing them off the books by means of sanctions or putting them on another benefit. The jobcentres often don't know enough about the "barriers" which individuals face, such as homelessness.
The report is scathing about sanctions. The committee wants an independent enquiry into the regime, as well as the urgent monitoring of the financial hardship they cause. They say that data on the numbers "signposted" by JCP to food banks should be collected and published (Iain Duncan Smith has refused to do this). And the stress on conditionality must be balanced by greater efforts to actually help and support people.
Finally, they point to the increasing work-load being pushed onto the jobcentres (including making people on in-work benefits sign on), with no indication of what extra resources will be put in to cope with it.
It's a good report. What a pity that it will be ignored.
We've all noticed the rubbish uttered by the anonymous DWP spokeswoman (or, occasionally, spokesperson) in response to media stories. None of the media ever name her, although they will all know who she is. She is part of a sinister trend in the DWP, well covered by Simon Barrow on the Ekklesia website, for people who are paid to be neutral civil servants to, instead, play a party-political role in the way it churns out propaganda. Since this is so obvious, there is no reason to maintain the anonymity.
Those getting by on £71 a week JSA will have been amused (or not) to read about the £75,000 of taxpayers' money spent on media training for Lord Freud and others at the DWP. The Huffington Post lists what it calls "the 5 crassest statements made by ministers" at the DWP, to show how much they need this training. Alternatively, of course, you could just sack them and hire somebody competent.
One of the most important of its recommendations was that JCP should continue to be a public service, i.e. not outsourced. The committee also picked up on the fact that its targets are focussed on getting people off benefits, rather than into work. They recognise that the two aims are different, and the focus should be on helping claimants to find work, not pushing them off the books by means of sanctions or putting them on another benefit. The jobcentres often don't know enough about the "barriers" which individuals face, such as homelessness.
The report is scathing about sanctions. The committee wants an independent enquiry into the regime, as well as the urgent monitoring of the financial hardship they cause. They say that data on the numbers "signposted" by JCP to food banks should be collected and published (Iain Duncan Smith has refused to do this). And the stress on conditionality must be balanced by greater efforts to actually help and support people.
Finally, they point to the increasing work-load being pushed onto the jobcentres (including making people on in-work benefits sign on), with no indication of what extra resources will be put in to cope with it.
It's a good report. What a pity that it will be ignored.
We've all noticed the rubbish uttered by the anonymous DWP spokeswoman (or, occasionally, spokesperson) in response to media stories. None of the media ever name her, although they will all know who she is. She is part of a sinister trend in the DWP, well covered by Simon Barrow on the Ekklesia website, for people who are paid to be neutral civil servants to, instead, play a party-political role in the way it churns out propaganda. Since this is so obvious, there is no reason to maintain the anonymity.
Those getting by on £71 a week JSA will have been amused (or not) to read about the £75,000 of taxpayers' money spent on media training for Lord Freud and others at the DWP. The Huffington Post lists what it calls "the 5 crassest statements made by ministers" at the DWP, to show how much they need this training. Alternatively, of course, you could just sack them and hire somebody competent.
Tuesday, 7 January 2014
Benefits Street
No, I didn't watch Channel 4's latest contribution to the government's campaign to abolish welfare. But many of those who did have reacted strongly. Shane Croucher in the International Business Times calls it "the latest dropping from this beastly documentary genre" and gives some real figures. Bernadette Meaden on the Ekklesia website calls it "a misleading, harmful caricature" and describes the death threats now being received by some of those who took part. For the mainstream press, the issue seems to be that the police are investigating possible criminal activity shown on the programme. The Guardian quotes at length from police Superintendent Danny Long, and also from a Channel 4 spokesman who describes it as "a fair and balanced observational documentary series". But the Guardian had to close its comments facility after 5 people had reacted with the same disgust (and 814 people up to now have approved a comment which is a re-post of Owen Jones' Facebook reaction). The Independent hasn't allowed comments at all under its piece on the subject.
There is some feeling that, in the light of the threats to the participants, the rest of the series may be pulled. That would be the best outcome, of course - apart from some sort of apology from the producers and Channel 4. But I doubt it. However, there is a glimmer of a backlash against this sort of trash.
We read that the five former A4e staff who are charged with fraud (the second group) have had their case moved to the Crown Court, where it will be heard on 3 February.
There is some feeling that, in the light of the threats to the participants, the rest of the series may be pulled. That would be the best outcome, of course - apart from some sort of apology from the producers and Channel 4. But I doubt it. However, there is a glimmer of a backlash against this sort of trash.
We read that the five former A4e staff who are charged with fraud (the second group) have had their case moved to the Crown Court, where it will be heard on 3 February.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)