JSA sanctions and a4e

[antone]

Interesting, DMA= Decision Making and Appeals?

 

So your saying that they have targets to get people sanctioned and that they target the vulnerable, why would they do that?

 

Flumps will, of course, have to clarify, but yeah, I can see the issue here. DMA is indeed Decision Making and Appeals, and you'll sometimes here references to LM DMA - Labour Market DMA.

 

I'd be surprised if LM DMA had sanctioning targets, but not at all surprised if the WP providers gave their advisers referral targets. I'm no "they're all out to get us!" conspiracy type, and I'm a former DWP staffer. But I'd be quite prepared to believe providers behave in an unscrupulous manner. As Flumps said, they must have thought their targets and bonuses would be easy - just hassle the lazy scroungers enough and they'll get jobs.

 

Now they're realising it's not quite the way they imagined, and they don't know what to do. So they're pushing for sanctions, because when it comes to actually getting people into work, they are lost. They are out of their depth. In an economy where jobs are hard to find, berating the unemployed and ill is a poor strategy to help people into work. But they hadn't actually given this matter any thought.

[antone]

Do you have a link for the £31B "backwater". Can you also enlighten us anymore as to why we are not actually as poor as it's made out we are?

 

Hadn't heard of the £31bn, but there is some shenanigans going on in terms of what the government are saying about the deficit. Mainly, what they're saying is that because we have large debts, we are "poor" and must make paying them back a priority. To persuade us, they point out that families with large debts are in trouble, and may be spending beyond their means.

 

This is often true, but this is a country, not a family. My debt is your income, and vice versa. Obviously, in an ideal world, we'd have a lower deficit, but this is not an ideal world, far from it. By prioritising deficit reduction, the government is removing money from the economy, and indirectly reducing demand for goods and services. Demand goes down, companies sell less and so lay off or don't hire workers, further depressing demand. A vicious circle. Of course, in situations like this the richer you are, the better you are able to weather the storm.

 

Current policy is based around discredited "supply side" theory - the idea that if taxes on corporations and the wealthy are lowered, they will hire more staff. We've got Ronnie Reagan to thank for this particular piece of ideological nonsense. Companies don't hire because they have pots of cash sitting around and nothing better to do with it. They hire in response to increased demand for their goods and services. Ah, but see above - the government is acting in a way that reduces demand.

 

Are we poor? It's the wrong question to be asking at this time. The correct question is "How do we increase demand?" And the answer is not "Cut spending, lay off public sector workers, and throw the sick and unemployed under a bus."

[antone]

this is why the ID card scheme wasnt a waste, that would have gave all of the poor free photo id.

 

but apparently everyone has a passport or drivers licence wait.....

 

It's been a while since I looked into this issue, but as I recall, the ID cards were not slated to be free. Couldn't swear to this, though.

[antone]

True! ID cards should have costed around £80 or so, to match the price of passports. I find it funny that people reject the idea of a national ID scheme on the ground of privacy, while your bank, your debit/credit card provider, Amazon, Google, Yahoo, Facebook and Paypal know just about everything of you and monitor your behaviour in real time.

 

Amazon etc have no law enforcement interest in your behaviour, and can't throw you in jail. And you can refuse to deal with them if you don't like their policies, unlike the government.

 

Actually, I think one of the most useful things the DWP could pay for would be CRB/Disclosure Scotland checks for jobseekers.