The end of Universal Job Match?

That's the claim in an article in the Guardian.  "DWP plans to ditch ridiculed jobs website."  Someone has leaked what the paper calls a cache of documents showing that UJM is likely to be scrapped when the contract with Monster comes up for renewal in two years.  So don't get too excited.  There's no indication that it is to be junked immediately.  And no announcement that benefits claimants won't have to use it any more.  But it appears that the site can't be fixed without spending a huge amount of money on it, and other ideas are being discussed.
While Monster had a bad record when it got the contract, it seems that the current debacle is not all the company's fault.  Ministers (for which read Iain Duncan Smith, presumably) wanted the site to be as "open" as possible, which has meant that all the scams, repeat ads etc. are put up unchecked.  It is also obvious that the original site proved to be so bad that numerous changes were requested that would have cost too much to implement.  There is appallingly mendacious comment from our old friend the DWP spokesman, but nothing can change the fact that IDS must have known of this for a long time but didn't mention it to the Work & Pensions select committee (perhaps he regarded it as none of their business) nor in that interview on the Sunday Politics last week.
People have commented that all the figures put out by this government on the number of vacancies in the country are drastically wrong.  It is probably impossible to explain this to the mathematically challenged IDS.
Clear instructions need to go out to jobcentres and WP providers immediately that claimants should not be compelled to use UJM.  No one should be sanctioned for their use of it.  And any claimants who have been sanctioned for this (e.g. not applying for enough jobs on it) should be reimbursed.  But that's as likely as IDS being sacked.

Is anyone surprised?

This story appeared today on the BBC news website - "Swansea firm frustrated at system after job advert".  While the employer in Swansea was frustrated, few "job-seekers" will be surprised.  Why were people from as far away as Glasgow and Peterborough applying for warehouse jobs in Swansea?  The account doesn't mention that the jobs were on UJM, but we can assume that they were.  Perhaps they were coming up as local jobs, even to those many miles away, because that's what happens.  Certainly, of the 100 applicants many would simply be applying because they had to, with no intention of moving from, say, Glasgow, in order to take the job.  The story suggests that there were no more unemployed people in Swansea, which is unlikely.  We are not told anything about the jobs or the pay.  Nor are we told whether the people she short-listed were then told that they couldn't claim the costs of attending the interview.  A spokesperson for the DWP (must be a woman, or they wouldn't have used that term) said the usual things about "tough new penalties" for those failing to turn up for interviews.
A curious thing about this story is that it assumes that it's the jobcentres which are responsible, when it's more likely to be Work Programme providers.  But one thing you can be certain of - the system of forcing people to apply for a quota of jobs won't change.