Then it was "Flexible New Deal"
Replacement for "New Deal"
From October 2009, Flexible New Deal, based on the new proposals that the government outlined in July 2008, replaced New Deal. This acheme was scrapped following the change of government in 2010. A new scheme titled the work programme replaces it in 2011.
Mission statement
The mission statement makes various promises for the future. Let's look at them.
This is a fundamental part of the government’s wider welfare reform and will underpin the principles of working towards eradicating child poverty by 2020.
Eradicating child poverty is a worthy objective, but leaving aside the fact that few people believe promises made by any politicians, there is the very obvious problem of how poverty is defined. Relative poverty is a moving target that by definition can never be eliminated. Televisions were once a luxury but most people now regard them as essential. Computers are following the same path. Truly abject poverty, as we see it in the modern third world, was eliminated in Britain long ago. In large parts of the world, televisions and computers remain luxury items. Unless we can be clear about definitions, the promise to eradicate child poverty is meaningless.
A stronger framework of rights and responsibilities to move benefit customers from being passive recipients to active jobseekers.
This sounds ominous, quite apart from the fact that unemployed people are not customers. The word suggests choice where none actually exists. As to the substantive point, I expect the government is primarily concerned with responsibilities rather than rights, further emphasising that unemployed people are not customers.
A personalised and responsive approach to individual customer needs which will provide tailored employment and skills support to meet the needs of both customers and local employers.
This would be great if true, but I don't believe it. My experience so far with Working Links confirms that they are no better than their predecessors. In some ways, they are worse.
A partnership approach with public, private and third sector organisations working together to maximise innovation, leading to more and better outcomes.
The history of public / private partnerships in Britain is atrocious. My theory for this is simple. Private companies, left to themselves, will do things more efficiently than the state, because they keep bureaucracy to a minimum. For whatever reason, government projects always seem to require extra tiers of bureaucracy. The government sees that private companies do things more cheaply, so decides to sub-contract but just to make sure the private companies are behaving themselves, adds an extra layer or three of bureaucrats to oversee them. When private companies sub-contract to other private companies, they don't see the need for that level of supervision. Thus, public / private partnerships end up being the least efficient option of all. I have no proof for this theory and would be happy for anybody to offer an alternative explanation, if there is one.
Devolving and empowering communities for future sustainable employment which will be at the heart of neighbourhood renewal.
Centralisation has been a cornerstone of government policy for many years, with the conspicuous exception of devolution to Scotland and Wales. Devolution of any other type has long been resisted by the government, partly for ideological reasons but also because it could lead to accusations of a postcode lottery. So devolution of employment policy is a nice idea but I'll believe it if I see it. Even if it happens, it could just as easily make things worse as better.
Not just jobs, but jobs that pay and offer opportunities for progression, with an emphasis on sustaining and progressing in work to ensure all customers who need help to develop their skills have access to the relevant pre-employment and in-work training.
Has the government learned that low-grade jobs are not the answer? I hope so, but I doubt it.
Threats and promises
Sharing the web page that I linked to when taking a look back at those claims for New Deal are some of the government's threats and promises about its replacement. Again, I've picked out a few comments that I feel compelled to respond to.
|
|
The government approach has failed, but has cost a lot more despite containing a significant element of cutting benefits.
|
|
These are the same old threats. If the government really wants to help unemployed people, it needs to treat those people with respect. That is the only way to rebuild their confidence, which in turn is a necessary factor in success at job interviews.
Now as we look ahead we need a reformed New Deal to help us face the challenges of the next decades. In the old days the problem may have been unemployment, but in the next decades it will be employability. If in the old days lack of jobs demanded priority action, in the new world it is lack of skills. And that means that our whole approach to welfare must move on.
I think this assertion was made just before the 2008 banking crisis and all that followed. Unemployment has risen substantially since the assertion was made. Skills and employability were a problem for me beginning with my last redundancy in 2002. I'd have had a better chance of getting them if I'd been left to my own devices.
In future the best welfare will no longer be the benefits you have today but the skills you gain for tomorrow.
I wish.
better and more targeted support for those most in need to give them the skills and advice they need to get back onto the jobs ladder
It can't be any worse than what was available on the old New Deal. The problem remains that if there is no suitable work or training, I'll be forced to do whatever I'm told to do, costing more taxpayers' money for no useful purpose beyond satisfying those who think that unemployed people should do "something".
And for those on incapacity benefits, we will focus on capability and what people can do, not on disability and what they cannot do.
This is an old mantra but while it sounds great in theory, it ignores the fact that employers are quick to spot what people cannot do. Unless Employer attitudes are addressed, the problems remain unsolved.
|
|
I'll believe it if I see it.
the use of the private and voluntary sector to deliver help to those who need more help, will see the next decade of welfare policy and the New Deal help deliver lower unemployment and inactivity and better economic prospects, not just for some, but for all.
I'll be pensioned off during that decade even if they raise the starting point for pension credits, so that's one less unemployed person. But seriously, if the economy recovers, it won't be because of New Deal or Flexible New Deal.
No comments:
Post a Comment