I'm not making a partisan point here but it shouldn't be a surprise to us that:
The Work Programme is not doing enough to move the hardest-to-help members of society closer to work...
Note the language - 'hardest-to-help' and 'closer to work'. The Work Programme - charged primarily with supporting all those falling off the end of six months with no work - will focus on those cases with the greatest chance of success. And they aren't 'hardest-to-help' or 'furthest from work'.
Think about this for a minute - the limited funds available (we may argue over the size of the pot but it will always be limited) are surely better spent on that 'greatest good for the greatest number' idea?
Which means that:
...those people who are homeless, have mental health issues or drug and alcohol problems...
...will probably miss out.
Maybe, instead of writing letters and trying to browbeat the government into changing the system (to the detriment of somebody else - probably more than one other unemployed person), these large charities might care to spend some of their voluntary income on helping these folk?
....
2 comments:
They obviously don't understand the 80/20 Rule.
You get 80% of the benefit for 20% of the effort.
It's not worth chasing the last 20% of the benefit, as it will cost you massively.
True enough, but a cynic might wonder whether most of those who have found work through the scheme would have done so anyway.
More to the point, though, I don't think that supplying certain (large) companies with state-subsidised labour is the sort of thing a party allegedly wedded to free market economics should be doing.
Post a Comment