8 thoughts on “All Jobcentres to be Shut?

  1. Owen Williams

    Oh, well that’s gonna end about as well as can be expected — TOTAL BLOODY CHAOS. Damn them, and double-damn them. Can’t keep their grubby fingers out of anything, can they?

  2. Mr.Angry

    I read about this today and found it hard to believe what depths will they sink to more profit seeking contractors trying to push people into jobs that clearly don’t exist. who’s pockets will get lined when this is pushed through. !!!!!!!!!! Another staggering expense to the tax payer.

  3. Jeffrey Davies

    the jailers are now being released to be jobless by their master only trouble is they now whot they up against his privitised companys who help you off benefits ops

  4. Gazza

    Hi Mike and evryone else, a further link to this on GU:

    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/21/uk-jobcentres-competition-thinktank-policy-exchange

    My own observations are [as posted at TheVoid]:

    Problems with this ;
    – Replacement of a Gov department with a money driven profit making organisation = not customer led, but payments led. Can anyone say fraud [cue G4S et al]
    – Rebranding to “Citizen Support”, am I beiing overly suspicious but hasn’t the DWP advisors been renamed recently?
    – “advise the unemployed on the best personalised service”, but due to the change back in the 1980s DWP no longer automatically give advice on benefits that can be claimed to claimants
    – “specific barriers to work”, how about there being enough jobs to go around? You know, one that pay enough so yu don’t starve?
    – Advisors give “comparison data” – how about DWP letting us know what the death rates are as well?
    – “employment support element – should be spun out into a mutual or social enterprise” = Workfare
    – “money would be allocated to the individual claimant and then be funnelled to the provider of choice who is paid on the outcomes they achieve.” = allowing reduction of claimed benefits to indivduals no doubt
    – Finally, from Wiki about “Policy Exchange” – “the intellectual boot camp of the Tory modernisers’”.” Says it all

    Oh and on value for money, how much will a individual case cost, I’ve seen £150 per shot [thats just for attendance let alone anything else], does anyone want to bet here will not be oter steep charges added on for ‘extra’s’ like advice, training etc etc. This could bankrupt us all. Maybe that’s the point?

  5. HomerJS

    I have come up with my own ideas about replacing the work programme, and part of that plan is to allocate an ‘individual budget’ to a claimant. The trick is to make sure that this produces real competition from providers, and real choices. I can’t believe that anyone would squander their budget on a work programme provider.

    In my experience jobcentres don’t really help people find work, but they would be well placed to manage these individual budgets (so that people couldn’t misspend the money). Their main role though traditionally (as currently it is all about sanctions) is to process the payments. If this part of their role were privatised it could lead to some horrendous situations. If you thought sanctioning by the jobcentre was bad, then just wait till you see what the private sector might do. If you look at the worst behaviour of the jobcentres at present, then multiply that several fold, then it would probably not even come close as to how awful the privatised jobcentre would be. Late payments, missed payments, incorrect payments; all these would increase dramatically. This ‘welfare’ is of course a service that people like the Tories do not want to provide. If people don’t get paid they see that as a success rather than a failure. It will be a deliberately poor service with the benefit of being able to reduce costs, which will of course help to make the service worse.

  6. bad putty tat (@BadPutty)

    The only good thing about this is: The JCP staff will end up on the dole and hopefully they will get the same treatment metered to them as they gave to others, the adage what goes round comes around might be true in this case…

Comments are closed.