From the BBC:
The Conservatives could guarantee loans to private and voluntary groups to help them fund welfare-to-work programs. Theresa May said such support could encourage groups to get involved and would be more than recouped by a long-term decline in the benefits bill. The shadow work and pensions secretary said the recession meant "radical" welfare reform was even more essential.
Labour is proposing its own shake-up of the system to require most people to look for work in return for benefits.
*sigh*
"Loans"??? Every fly-by-night operator will set up, bank the loans and be long gone before anybody notices they have achieved nothing. Or is this just an excuse to create hundreds of fakecharities?
It is not up to "private and voluntary groups" to get people into work, it is up to employers and potential employees. And there is such a thing as private employment agencies - from super-posh headhunters down to humble employment agencies for shelf-stackers and street-sweepers. These agencies are paid for what they do by the employer (and thus don't cost the taxpayer a penny), so they have every incentive to find work for people.
As things stand, the tax, welfare and regulatory systems drive a huge wedge between employers and employees:
Employers are more likely to take people on (or not make them redundant in the first place!) if e.g. there were less stupid regulations and Employer's National Insurance were reduced/simplified and ideally scrapped outright. And once we're out of the EU, we can scrap VAT as well, another tax on productive activity, different topic.
There are those with proper skills who have been made redundant recently who are actively seeking work - they will be helped if employers are helped (see above). But ultimately, people are far more likely to take on work if it makes them significantly better off. So Frank Field's idea of paying people higher benefits if they have worked but been made redundant is rubbish, far better to use that money to cut people's taxes a bit so that they can save up for a rainy day while they're in work.
And for the hard-core unemployed, there's no point taking on a job because welfare is quite cushy (once you've sorted out your IB and your free council flat etc) and if you take on a low paid, part time or temporary job, you lose as much in benefits as you can earn. This would be fixed at a stroke with a Citizen's Income-style welfare - slightly lower basic benefits but no income-based means testing (above and beyond normal income tax) and no constant registration and de-registration for different kinds of in-work and out-of-work benefits.
And while I'm on the topic, let's get rid of the National Minimum Wage as well, it is better to keep two-thirds of £2 an hour (under a Citizen's Income scheme) than it is to keep five per cent of £5.73 an hour (under the present rules, once you take benefits withdrawal into account).
As to Labour's "requirement to look for work" this is just so much rubbish and gimmicks, they and the Tories before them have been spouting this for thirty years and it has made no difference.
*/sigh*
Christmas Day: readings for Year C
9 hours ago
2 comments:
You can see why the Conservatives - even pitched against this corrupt, incompetent and completely loathsome government - have only a 10-12% lead in the opinion polls. Really, what is the point of voting Conservative if this is a sample of the drivel that passes for an "alternative" to Labour policy?
I agree totally on your main thrust re: the loans and the use of fake voluntary groups.
Maybe we need to change the phrase to "He who loans to the piper, calls the tune".
Hop-skip-jump you end up with a series of geographical monopolies depending on which company becomes a pet of the arbiter or if the arbiter becomes a pet of a company. Take your pick.
Who loses? People.
Post a Comment