Ipswich Unemployed Action.

Campaigning for Unemployed Rights.

Exposed: The Government’s Love Affair with Private Companies

It has been announced that the Government intends to privatize the benefit system. At current schemes like New Deal and the upcoming Flexible New Deal scheme are outsourced to the private sector (and third sector), soon Jobcentre Plus will be run by private companies* on like an franchise model and before you know it, benefits will be paid by private companies too. Why? Ipswich Unemployed Action explains why…(* I once joked that the Ipswich Jobcentre Plus office in St Felix House will one day have a Provided by Tesco logo outside. It appears however that it will sooner rather than later come true.)

Foreword (skip if you wish)

Firstly due to the large proportion of the nation with the attitude of fuming once a new scandal comes out. The general feeling is allow these crooks to waste money we pay in taxes – we have just got to put up with it, keep our head down and life is so much more bearable to live without having to worry about it too much – politicians will be politicians and that is how things are, there is no other option – then come along privatization and to some people it seems a good idea: “people who care about the money more” (yes profits! but giving you a worse deal). It seems whatever party you choose: Labour or Conservative they are both the same in what you get (maybe a slight variation in policies) and the other parties are almost non-existent because most people never choose to vote for them.

The MPs’ expenses scandal is a big insult – 80% of law is decided directly in Europe outside Parliament to which taxpayers fork out billions of pounds annually for. We joined Europe because of the “Cold War” for extra support, now that period ended a long time ago…   all what happened is the odd-bods of Europe want to create a 2nd United States, and even though our politicians do 80% less work than they did before joining Europe, the pay packets are ever increasing andas we found out their expenses are rapidly on the increase too. In order to get rid of the corrupt state we live in we need to choose new MPs from different political parties. It wasn’t only Labour who are invovled in the scandal.

What am I getting at? The new plans are aimed at making the poor poorer… Whilst MP’s receive huge pay packets and expenses. The balance in the system has completely been lost.  Reading this site you may have realised that unemployment benefits are not proportionate to what they used to be. Most people (especially oldskool) see everyone who is claiming Jobseekers Allowance as those who don’t want to work and are getting the same rate as back-in-the-day. In fact, since it was renamed Jobseekers Allowance the benefit payments have halfed – also realise in addition of inflation the Government has stuck so much taxation into different elements of business and “red tape” that business obviously include them in prices.

The Jobcentre even commits unlawful/illegal acts into preventing genuine claimants from fulfilling their legal entitlements:

  • “Signing off” claimants without prior notice.
    Yes, thats right – the Jobcentre will just sign claimants off without notifiying them. Thus it is only until your payment don’t go in or until you sign on next when you realise what has happened. You normally receive something after 3 weeks but by then you have already clocked on with whats happening. These are typically because of clerical errors at the Jobcentre however results in payment being stopped and a couple of weeks to sort out. 
  • Not being available to work
    This might sound obvious and perfectly reasonable but the simple task of getting on public transport (which arrives late) therefore arriving late for an appointment at the Jobcentre whoms clocks are usually a few minutes forward results in your benefit being stopped. How is this not being available for work?  Considering the timescale of being able to be offered a position of employment so what if you aren’t available to work for the entire week (as long as you are the next)?
  • “No Answer at Home”
    Never submit a claim online. This seems a clever way of avoiding the long waiting on the telephone to make a telephone claim however at the time I made a new claim online I was mostly indoors during office hours waiting for the telephone call from them confirming details while recording your voice in case you werent genuine. I heard nothing from them. Several days later I got a letter asking me to phone them as they couldn’t get through. I checked the answer phone… no messages, no missed calls. I don’t even recall any telephone calls during office hours in the few days after I made that claim therefore they couldn’t have rang while phone in use. I rang up and they stuck the date to claim from as that date and NOT the date I made the online claim. They tried to get out of paying almost 2 weeks money. I appealed and backdated to the date I made the online claim and got the money in a month once it was all processed. The truth was no one bothered to ring and they had the policy of moving the claim start day to the date you phoned them to chase it up. They tried to wriggle out of it but I printed the online claim out so they couldn’t claim I did the claim via telephone.

I could go on…

The Government has a big thing regarding Jobseekers Allowance and New Deal… it aims to reduce child poverty…  I couldn’t quite understand it as to be on New Deal you have to be 18 or over so not a child… and if you had any children the JSA rate and their policies wont do anything to help reduce child poverty. Also, to mention that the Government is guilty of a £¾ billion underspend of Tax Credits… that is a scheme designed to help families.  Many people may wonder why the government loves to grab with one hand and give back with the other… it is simple, the government does quite a good job with taxation, however, when it comes to giving any form of benefit back they like putting measures in place to prevent people applying for them.

The relevance between MP expenses and Jobseekers Allowance is Parliament is doing its best to stop the poor getting benefits yet well paid MP’s took advantage (until when they were recently rumbled) of the no caps MP allowances benefit system. Why were the poor subsidising their  massive unrequired benefits?

Why does the Government love the private sector so much?

 Simple. The reasons are as follows:

  1. Secret information can stay secret. (Secret not meaning classified)
    The Freedom of Information Act allows anyone to make a request for information (that wont affect national security etc.) in the public sector. You can’t use it to find out information in the private sector. If delegated from public sector to private sector: This allows statistics to remain private and not displayed for public display. It also allows for statistics to be made up or otherwise distorted. At current any issues raised in Parliament regarding post office closures for example are  referred to the Chief Executive of Post Office Ltd. I am not fully aware of the law regarding the post office but it likely means that this separate company has no legal obligation to the state and that such a request can be denied, distorted or even lied as the CEO has obligation to the company more than the Government. It also means that elements such as internal procedures can remain Commercial in Confidence even if in breach of the law.
  2. Lack of Financial transparency.
    At current the Government has to publish expenditure. Even as mentioned in #1, if you done a Freedom of Information Act request to find out how much Parliament spent on biscuits for example they would have to respond telling you the exact figure. However, a private company only needs to produce consolidated accounts such as expenditure on staff, capital etc. and the annual acounts are made available to the public a long time afterwards so they are always outdated.
  3. Reduction of the cabinets’ responsibilities.
    At current, the Prime Minister our #1 representative gets the main stick for everything. In respects to DWP, Secretary of State (Work and Pensions) James Purnell MP is accountable. If the Jobcentre etc. is run by private businesses he would only hold responsibilities for the contract between the Government and the company. The company would be seen as responsible for the failings. It would also mean less work and probably more pay. 

Written by Universal Jobmatch

May 26, 2009 at 9:15 am

Posted in Government

39 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Not to forget…

    4. Private companies are not bound to the Human Rights Act 1998.

    Dan

    June 2, 2009 at 10:44 am

  2. […] is on top of the £750 million under spending on the Tax Credits system – resulting in 1.2 million claims not being made. We recently reported about the Jobseekers […]

  3. it has been announced that royal mail is to be sold or privatised.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11258649

    privatisation has been a disaster for the taxpayer,companies have been sold on the cheap for a number of years under conservative governments and services have suffered as a result,prices will increase as the seek for high profits becomes the number one priority standards will fall further and comes workforce discontent,job losses will also not be far behind.

    ken

    September 10, 2010 at 2:22 pm

    • Thanks for this, ken. I was wondering why my postie was looking so glum this morning.. I wanted to give him a great big hug :-).. must have known something was in the offing.

      jenny

      September 10, 2010 at 2:37 pm

    • Meanwhile this is happening round here:

      A spokeswoman from UNISON Suffolk County Branch said: “Your exposure of the county council plans to carve up and offload vital services has sent shock waves across the county.”

      http://www.eveningstar.co.uk/news/union_members_fearful_over_county_council_job_losses_1_638688

      Andrew Coates

      September 10, 2010 at 2:42 pm

    • What is the difference between privatisation and selling the business? Although I can see a specific difference between the both they are pretty much the same!

      Flexible New Deal

      September 10, 2010 at 3:10 pm

    • Privatisation means that the business is no longer in Government control. Being no longer in Government control could mean that it has been sold to a (group) of private individuals or floated on the Stock Exchange as a Public Limited Company (PLC)

      Cookie Dough

      September 10, 2010 at 4:10 pm

      • Some people! hey, just because there weren’t B&J at Tescos the other day! hehe

        My point is it is still sold from Government to private individuals or company.

        Flexible New Deal

        September 10, 2010 at 4:27 pm

      • TNT have made such a balls up of the Dutch Postal System that it is now looking like they will only do deliveries 3 days a week there.

        Its total shit about Royal Mail letter volume being down the truth is letter volumes are calculated on an estimate based on the agreed estimate for a type of box used in sorting the Royal Mail/Union agreed estimate has always been 280 letters in a box x number of boxes filled = figure. But Lord of The Rings Mandelson just decided to change the estimate down to 150 instead of 280 whith nobody’s consent so despite their being still 280 letters in a box mandelson who knows nothing about Royal Mail insists that their are only 150 so real volumes are not down Mandelson was just Lying so that explains why only Royal Mails letter volumes are down none of its competitors (becouse they use their old estimate method not mandelsons.

        Lowestoft's Finest

        September 10, 2010 at 4:28 pm

      • Well, Royal Mail has been shafted anyway. Business can get services cheaper from other companies who then still use the Royal Mail for delivery. This is because Royal Mail sells them this service as a major reduced rate (or something).

        But of course, Royal Mail has the monopoly, so without these other companies, there is really no need to sell services cheaper to these other businesses as via the current system Royal Mail loses out on much money that way, whereas without such a system in place they would have paid full price Royal Mail prices.

        Simple finance that someone has got wrong here.

        Flexible New Deal

        September 10, 2010 at 4:35 pm

      • It’s the “final mile”… or how far it is from your local sorting office to your front door… that we call it. For this Royal Mail get paid the princely sum of 1p, yes ONE FUCKING PENNY! A lot of long faces in the sorting office today at this news.

        Pissed Off Posrie Pat

        September 10, 2010 at 4:40 pm

      • It’s the same old story, Royal Mail was built by PUBLIC MONEY which which down handed over to PRIVATE BUSINESS for a song. We have been DELIBERATELY run down, to make the business ripe for PRIVATISATION. Posties work fucking hard, we are even fitted with GPS tracking devices, who the fuck can deliver mail at 4.8mph, I ask you.

        Pissed Off Posrie Pat

        September 10, 2010 at 4:44 pm

      • 1p? OUCH!

        Flexible New Deal

        September 10, 2010 at 5:26 pm

    • Royal Mail would do better as a private company I suspect.

      This has been on the cards for over 5 years that I know of.

      Hopefully would mean I would get my post at a reasonable time!

      Flexible New Deal

      September 10, 2010 at 4:31 pm

      • It all depens if you wan’t to pay £20 to send a letter to some isolated rural destination in the UK not the one price everywhere like at present….obviously this is what the Digby Jones would recomend but if you believe in a United Kingdom then you need one national postal service, look at what has happend to prices sionce they privatised the energy providers.And remember buisnessmen will only buy into something at a lower price then correct so they can make a proffit on it, like when Brown sold all the national gold reserves for next to nothing becousethe price had crashed becouse Brown idioticly anounced when he was going to sell the lot in advance, so he in reality had crashed the price for his sale….what a total knobhead.

        Lowestoft's Finest

        September 10, 2010 at 4:47 pm

      • Too Right Pissed Off Posrie Pat, Royal Mail management are total knobs who go straight from Uni to organising your round with the aid of Google Earth none of them have ever had experiance of being a Postie so are clueless as to what it takes.

        I will not comment on those two useless bum chums of Blair Crozzier and Leyton Britains two highest paid civil servants put in two run Royal mail with no experiance of running a mail network what so ever…put in just to sell it off to his old private school pals at knock down prices….look at there track records they had previously failed at everything they touched before they did a runner from the mess they created.

        Lowestoft's Finest

        September 10, 2010 at 5:01 pm

      • That cunt Crozier was put in place to DELIBERATELY FUCK UP Royal Mail, the 1p for the final mile was part of that bastards plan. That shite is costing Royal Mail a fucking fortune. I am sick and fucking tired of the way the media portray us posties as work-shy, lazy cunt. The opposite is true. If the public fall for this crap they are in for a shock when these privatised bastards take over. £20 to send a fucking postcard to your gran won’t be far off the mark. You aint seen nothing yet! Pat

        Pissed of Posrie Pat

        September 10, 2010 at 5:09 pm

      • Well, a “one price for all” seemed a silly system to me. It costs the same to send a card to the other side of town as it does to the tip of Scotland.

        It would be silly to introduce a per mile pricing system but something inbetween might be a good idea. At current, it is certain people paying the cost of others. Some services will not make money, whilst others make loads.

        Perhaps replacing “first class” with “long distance” and “second class” with “short distance”? Make both services have first class delivery times (1-3 days).

        Example: So for each East Anglia, London, South East, South West, Midlands, etc. people can post to their own region for what is currently second class prices but can still get next day delivery in some cases.

        However, go out of region you have to pay what is currently first class prices.

        Of course, most the dispute is down to business services, but I hope people get the general idea I am trying to raise?

        Flexible New Deal

        September 10, 2010 at 5:45 pm

      • At present Royal Mail use mail-planes in remote areas such as the Highland & Islands of Scotland, areas too with a very low population density, a croft every few miles. It must cost an absolute fortune; I can’t see this practice continuing under the likes the TNT. Remote communities will be completely cut off under postal privatisation.

        Postal Insider

        September 10, 2010 at 5:56 pm

      • I have to declare a vested interest in that I used to fly the mail-plane from Aberdeen to Stornoway as well as on other routes. Royal Mail has a vast network of air-links.

        Postal Insider

        September 10, 2010 at 6:00 pm

      • Flexi cost is not a matter of distance post wise in the UK its more down to rural isolation as you are talking a load of effort to deliver one letter as compared to large volumes from city to city.

        To show you this Royal Mail local delivery rounds are handed out at a depot in order of seniority so the most junior persons round would probably involve some leafy suburb miles away with huge drives to walk down, so its practicly impossible to get round the actual distance in the time given. On the other hand the senior staff have got inner city rounds involving taking large amounts of letters to tower blocks areas of multiple housing so the distance travelled is so small they can actualy do two rounds and get paid for both and finish before the poor junior sod, who no doubts when he gets back has a load of complaints from the middle classes on his round that he was late or proped his bike against their bust of Churchill etc.

        It’s the easy large volume city to city routes that the private secter firms wwant to cherry pick.

        Lowestoft's Finest

        September 10, 2010 at 7:00 pm

      • There’s been some crackpot ideas like make offenders on community service deliver mail as punishment.

        No doubt the idiots who thought this up (probably UKIP) would be the first to throw a shit fit when their Gold American Express Card disappears in the post and reserfices in Kossovo for some high value international transactions of a highly dubious nature.

        Lowestoft's Finest

        September 10, 2010 at 7:15 pm

      • Well, I mean from main depot not distance from depot to letterbox.

        I sometimes think its a bad idea giving the letters to Royal Mail, so don’t think about giving it to community service peeps!!

        Flexible New Deal

        September 10, 2010 at 7:42 pm

      • As for rural… no company wants them. That is until the Government subsidises the service. Then it sticks the whole privatisation issue into doubt. Was it better as Royal Mail or private businesses which then required help of taxpayer to deliver such services?

        Well, Royal Mail are wankers anyway. It used to be the case where all mail had to be addressed to be delivered (that is why some letters had “The Occupier” etc. on as it is a loophole…) now they stick bundles of advertisements and envelopes without an address through the letterbox. I do not want that shit coming through the door!!!

        Flexible New Deal

        September 10, 2010 at 7:48 pm

  4. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2010/0831/1224277908411.html

    Working for welfare payments

    Madam, – Why is there so little opposition to such bizarre and backward measures as those being introduced by the Department of Social Protection to force people to work for their welfare payment (Home news, August 30th)? Have people not heard of what this has led to in the US?

    These measures have distorted the jobs market, leading potential employers to choose the free labour “workfare employee” over giving someone a proper paid job – thus removing job opportunities from the labour market. One would also have to question the job commitment of anyone who is forced to work to avoid hunger or become homeless – not exactly an enlightened approach to motivation. People need to recall the arguments and justifications of the workhouses in Irish history and they might be a bit more disturbed by our 21st-century “social protection” measures. – Yours, etc,

    JOE O’BRIEN,

    Mourne View,

    Skerries, Co Dublin.

    Madam, – As a social care student in DIT, I have spent close to €5,000 on my degree (plus extras). I have spent countless hours studying subjects such as sociology, social policy, psychology and principles of professional practice and engaged in placement work too. And for what? For someone completely unqualified to do the job I will have spent three years qualifying for, for less than half the money, it seems.

    Does this make me angry? Of course! However, that is the part I can live with. What I cannot stand the injustice that is about to be done to our country’s most vulnerable people, yet again. The Kennedy report in 1970 may have specifically been looking at residential care, but its findings and recommendations need to be applied across the board. Proper staff training is a must. On-the-job training is not good enough.

    The Ryan report details how people were plucked from the dole queue to fill positions in a variety of social care positions. This led to an extremely poor quality of care for people who deserved better.

    Are we really going to ignore all of this? How many more reports and investigations do there need to be before we learn? Minister for Social Protection, Éamon Ó Cuív may think that social care is Mickey Mouse work but I can assure you that it is not. I wonder what would happen if he sent random jobseekers into hospitals to do some “on-the-job” medical training . . . Not on my granny, I say. – Yours, etc,

    JUDY MCAVOY,

    Glasnevin Hill,

    Glasnevin, Dublin 9.

    Madam, – So the Government is consideringforcing some dole recipients to work for their welfare. Why stop there? We have an ever-growing prison population and on an almost daily basis we hear we are running out of space to incarcerate offenders. Let’s get our able-bodied criminals out to work and instead of us forking out to put them up in swanky prison cells, let’s get them paying back society by doing physical labour in quarries and the like.

    There are plenty of much-needed infrastructure projects in my native west that our criminals could begin the hard graft on. One hundred prisoners could take the place of one digger, thereby helping to cut our carbon emissions. And what’s more, they could be self-sufficient – fence them into an enclosure and let them grow their own food. We could even give them some animals to rear. Surely the Greens would love this idea? It’s a win-win situation for both the environment and society. Much better than coming down on law-abiding commercial vehicle users, don’t you think? – Yours, etc,

    BRENDAN CORRIGAN,

    Cadogan Street, Belfast.

    News Wire

    September 10, 2010 at 3:14 pm

  5. New story featuring A4E from here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/sep/10/iain-duncan-smith-unemployed-families

    Iain Duncan Smith looks at German model for helping unemployed families

    Work and pensions secretary promoting ‘family futures’ scheme pioneered in Dusseldorf

    Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, is looking at a radical scheme to change the lifestyles of families in which nobody of working age has ever had a job by improving their basic skills.

    Duncan Smith is examining a German approach where long-term unemployed families have been encouraged to create a “household culture” with trips to the cinema and evening classes.

    He has been alarmed by the growth in the number of households in which nobody works. In some parts of the country, almost a quarter of households are workless, figures published this week revealed. In the past year, a further 148,000 have been added.

    The data has confirmed his beliefthat stable families are the building blocks of society.

    The announcement that the family will be a centrepiece of welfare reforms comes prior to Nick Clegg’s announcement of a family task force on Sunday.

    Within government, Duncan Smith has been promoting the “family futures” scheme, pioneered in a town near Dusseldorf, where 1,661 households had three or more individuals who were long-term unemployed.

    The welfare cost to the German exchequer was €31m (£25m) a year – and the plan to focus on families brought down the bill by one-third.

    Maximilien Dorostian, the European director for the welfare to work provider A4E, which designed the scheme, said: “The problem is that we have low esteem in such families and also there is no culture of family so that the younger members of the family do not learn respect and self-regulation.

    “We have to get them out of the home, out of being in front of the television so that they are part of the real world and can communicate both as a family and with other people. They need such basic skills it is not surprising they cannot get work.”

    Dorostian said Germany, France and Britain shared the same issues with workless households. The parents had lost the “working habit” and fear losing housing support or seeing income cut if they got a job. The younger adults, he said, often had issues with figures of authority and unrealistic expectations.

    “The younger members think they all should be the boss in an office with people working for them. It’s because they have never worked and never interacted with people,” he said. “We have to give them this habit so they can have realistic expectations of work.”

    The savings were dramatic despite the initial costs being double those of the scheme targeting unemployed individuals. Even by cutting workless households by one-third, the German taxpayer saved €10m a year – double that achieved if half the number of individuals were successfully got into work.

    “It is efficient because in each household we have at least three people who are long term unemployed so one success in a family means three times as many people benefiting,” Dorostian said.

    One of the drawbacks, acknowledged by Duncan Smith’s aides, is that money needs to be spent now to save the Treasury cash later. The chancellor, George Osborne, has a simple formula for the Department of Work and Pensions – officials must find £5 of savings for every £1 they spend reforming the benefits system.

    Using that logic, £800m would be made available if Duncan Smith could find an extra £4bn in welfare cuts demanded by the chancellor this week.

    Duncan Smith’s office confirmed he was looking at the approach in Germany. “We will not break the cycle unless we recognise that the family has a key role to play in helping people move into and sustain work,” it said.

    Cassandra

    September 10, 2010 at 6:52 pm

    • low esteem… realistic expectations of work… yadda yadda yadda… where have I heard this shite before… looks like IBS is talking out of his dirty arse again.

      Johnny Storm

      September 10, 2010 at 7:04 pm

    • Dissfunctional Unemployed German Families in which nobody of working age has ever had a job

      Like the Windsors?

      Lowestoft's Finest

      September 10, 2010 at 7:20 pm

    • Germany is a funny example to pick. From my knowledge they have the strongest economy in Europe.

      They probably have jobs over there, we don’t really have many…

      Flexible New Deal

      September 10, 2010 at 7:38 pm

      • That’s a very good point Flexi, I can only think they chose Germany as its one of the few other countries whose citizens will actualy do what the state tells them instead of telling the state to F-Off, laugh in its face and start rioting which is the traditional responce from citizens of the med countries and the French.

        Lowestoft's Finest

        September 10, 2010 at 8:19 pm

      • I think its more of the Government not having a clue…

        Picking up a dart and throwing it…

        Germany for this welfare scheme model

        France to share naval resources with

        etc.

        Flexible New Deal

        September 10, 2010 at 9:04 pm

  6. Dear Sirs,
    I am writing this to let you know that the country cannot afford the millions it spends on welfare. It will only be SOCIALLY EXCEPTABLE for you to pay something out of your benefits towards the services you use. Paying Council Tax etc is a MORAL DUTY as is JURY SERVICE

    Mr Kostas Kostandinou

    September 11, 2010 at 7:56 am

    • Next you will be saying people should pay £20 per week to do the Work Programme!!

      You are out of touch.

      I am a jobseeker yet only claim JSA. I therefore deem myself as upholding “MORAL DUTY” 🙂

      Flexible New Deal

      September 11, 2010 at 9:34 am

    • Hey Mr Kostas Kostandinou. You got a problem, buddy?

      Scarface

      September 11, 2010 at 11:56 am

    • Τι θες να πεις μαλάκα;??????

      Dr Stergios Prapavezis

      September 11, 2010 at 5:16 pm

  7. I am supposed to be on FND, but no-one seems to be able to help me.

    I’ve applied for jobs and now been told have to look for other work apart from office work and maybe get a voluntary placement for a month to keep the job centre happy or will be given a placement (not office based.

    When I approached a firm for office work and anything else (It was an undertakers as it happens), I gave them the tel no of my FND counsellor or whatever and a few days later was told by the employer that FND said I was more suited to office work!

    What’s the point of telling me to find other work than office work and possibly voluntary for a month when they turn round and tell a possible employer for voluntary work I’m more suited to office work.

    COME ON GOVERNMENT! gET US OUT OF THIS MESS AND INTO WORK, EVEN IF IT IS TO BRING BACK TRAINING SCHEMES LIKE TRAINING FOR WORK OR JUST THE JOB FOR YOU!

    It’s got to be better than what’s out there now! Jobs for people who can’t find jobs unless they are fast-tracked or their family finds them the jobs through who they know, but the person who gets employed knows nothing!

    HELP ME GET A JOB!

    Andrew Parsell

    September 16, 2010 at 6:35 pm

    • Hi Andrew

      Thanks for getting in touch.

      There are lots of jobs out there, providing that you are prepared to start at the bottom and work your way up.

      Be prepared to get your hands dirty and take absolutely anything work that is offered.

      For some fantastic advice, tips and help please visit this fabulous website: http://www.mya4e.com

      Best tip of all is to stay positive.

      Best Wishes

      Hayley

      Hayley Taylor

      September 16, 2010 at 6:52 pm

    • Can’t you get a stint doing office work for some voluntary group?

      I did a month at St Clement’s Hospital earlier this year drawing up a guide (with hyperlinks etc) for various services.

      There’s surely stuff like that around your way.

      Andrew Coates

      September 17, 2010 at 10:27 am

  8. it appears charities are abandoning the work programme as unviable.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17538046

    as usual the governments “blame them” as kicked in once more.

    this controversy goes back pre workprogramme to the days when pricewaterhouse branded the programme unviable,this asks more serious questions into this,partically as the government knew before launch that this was the case.

    Ministers have repeatedly claimed the scheme – which replaces all welfare-to-work services with one single system – would deliver “radical change”, with new players expected to bring innovation to the market.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/8560038/PricewaterhouseCoopers-opts-out-of-Governments-welfare-to-work-programme.html

    suggests something else,it appears preferred bidders was on the intial bidding for these contracts,

    The Department for Work and Pensions said the competition process was “fair”. A spokesman said: “If you put in a good bid you win, if you don’t, you don’t.”

    again serious questions need answering into this.

    ken

    March 29, 2012 at 10:09 pm


Comments are closed.