Work programme breakdown in Duncan Smith’s backyard
Shrug of denial: We’re so used to Iain Duncan Smith’s stupidities that we can predict how he’ll react when confronted with them. For this, we reckon he’d just shrug off the figures.
A breakdown of the DWP’s Work Programme figures reveal that just 10 people claiming sickness benefits have found a job in Iain Duncan Smith’s constituency of Chingford and Woodford Green, iLegal has revealed.
Despite the multi billion pound programme running since June 2011, the Work Programme has done next to nothing to help claimants on incapacity benefits, including Employment & Support Allowance, back in to work. The DWP’s league table of ‘job outcomes’ for 633 Parliamentary Constituencies show that out of a total 331,290 claimants from all benefits, only 22,360 job outcomes related to those who were claiming, or had claimed, an incapacity related benefit.
The figures for Chingford & Woodford Green show that of the total 520 Job Outcomes recorded since the Work Programme started 3 years previously, between 500 and 510 related to jobs for claimants on Jobseeker’s Allowance. A different breakdown of the 520 claimants show that 60 had a self – declared disability status; – the majority being on Jobseeker’s Allowance.
Ironically it was Duncan Smith who called in to question the self – declared disability status when challenged over the punitive effect which the Bedroom Tax was having upon disabled people. Duncan Smith said on LBC radio “The figures you use are figures used for people’s self-declaration of their disability under the Disability Discrimination Act” A footnote to his own department’s Work Programme figures clarifies the definition of disability when used in their figures “Disability Indicator Disability is self-assessed as having a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term effect on their ability to carry out normal day to day activities” – yet another prime example of double standards by the Secretary of State for Work & Pensions.
Read the damning facts on the iLegal website.
Follow me on Twitter: @MidWalesMike
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
bringing you the best of the blogs!
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
its never about the claiments getting back to work he new this but getting one off sickness benefits so that he could give more monies to these private companies isnt a shame he cant tell the truth of it whose going to take a disabled person over a able bodied one nah its never been about those disabled just that jeff3
A Con-ultra-numb-t**d.
Hes just killed innocent people who have been told they are fit for work when they arnt this rat is a murdering low life b*****d
Never mind how much these outrageous programmes cost as long as they deprive those really in need of help. If the DWP were to be shut down as it deserves and replaced by a new department under Labour (social security and “decency” department) the total savings would go a long way to help the disabled and those genuinely in need.
As I waited to sign on Thursday a young Lady sat next to me,she had a baby carriage with her daughter and twin sons in it,she was nervous as she was starting MWA next week,what troubled her was that for the first time she was putting the kids in day care,I asked her how she felt about that? “The DWP will be paying over £500 per Week in costs,so I can attend MWA” ??? For what? “Child care” She went on to explain that this will be the first time that she will be apart from her babies for an extended period,she is struggling and was confused why the DWP was willing to spend so much just to make sure she complied,while not offering any real help to get her a paying job…I must admit it makes no sense.
Economics isn’t about the amount it’s about its movement (flow). Moving £500 into the hands of a child carer, will help keep her in business. The carer will use the money to purchase goods. This £500 will continue to flow from hand to hand, joining all the other cash flowing around.
The economic term is “Propensity to spend”. The opposite of this is “Propensity to save” this is when there is no flow and the money just sits in a bank account going nowhere.
That’s right. So this action is contradictory in that it helps a child carer who would put the money to good use, but only while failing to help the jobseeker (and possibly, through the Work Programme etc, giving money to organisations that are more likely to save than spend it).
And wouldn’t the children be better off with their own mother and not some stranger that they are going to have to get use to.