DWP Block Report To Cover Up Work Programme Shambles

[ttosca]

The DWP are refusing to release an evaluation of the floundering £6 billion pound Work Programme despite the report having recently featured on Channel 4 news.

The evaluation is believed to be critical of the Work Programme and in particular benefit sanctions, warning that they found: “no conclusive evidence that sanctions were changing job search behaviour or increasing job entry rates.”

A Freedom of Information request asking to see the report has today been refused by the DWP on the grounds that they plan to publish it at an unspecified later date (PDF). The evaluation was scheduled to be released in the Summer of last year.

This is not the first time the DWP have treated Freedom of Information (FOI) rules with contempt in a shoddy effort to conceal what’s really going on, and wrong, with the department. A ruling by the Information Commissioner;s Office (ICO) ordering the release of the names of charities benefiting from free labour under the Mandatory Work Activity (MWA) scheme has been completely ignored. A second ICO ruling (PDF) ordering the DWP to confirm whether a charity was involved in workfare was issued last month, and has so far been snubbed. The DWP were found in breach of the FOI again (PDF) at the end of last month when they were slammed in a ruling for not taking the reasonable steps required to clarify another request relating to Mandatory Work Activity.

The DWP have claimed that if the public were allowed to know who is using workfare then the scheme might collapse. They pretend this would stop people benefiting from the ‘disciplines’ that workfare offers and may even harm the economy. After all, if people knew that household names such as The Salvation Army, the YMCA, Groundwork and The Conservation Volunteers were all forcing people to work without pay then they might decide these charities were a bunch of wankers and never give them a penny again.

There is no such excuse for refusing to release an evaluation into the Work Programme however – a report produced with our money. The only person likely to look like a wanker if people see this document is Iain Duncan Smith himself who is still pretending how wonderful the Work Programme is. The Work Programme statistics already show the scheme is a disaster and steadily getting worse. No doubt the DWP hope they can hide just how much of a wanker Iain Duncan Smith actually is until after the next election. But it’s too late. Everybody knows.

johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2014/04/16/dwp-block-report-to-cover-up-work-programme/

Was 2.5 million new migrants not a WHOLESALE betrayal of jobs and homes the poor? Answer the question.

Was the inability to build more than 115,000 homes a year (with that immigration policy) under Labour during the 'boom', more of an issue than the Consevatives attempts to stimulate home building during Labour's 'bust' - who are now seeing more home starts than pre 2007 boom levels???

Talk about 'red rose tinted spectacles', you lot make me laugh, questioning Conservative policies that are only needed thanks to a 13-year Labour legacy of incompetence - yet asking me how I can still want a conservative administration over a Labour one. lolololol

who lot?
anwser my question

what ideology
Answer my question

i answered any question concerning labour in the post of: Fri 18-Apr-14 00:54:31

home building is not the same as investing in housing for the poor.

conservative policies of making their friends richer, are not good policies. The fact that labour did it ( albeit nowhere near to the extreme that the tories are) is not a defence for having shit policies giving million £ contracts to your friends and party donors

btw, i managed to do all that...and not embolden my words once.

In 2010 he UK had a £157 billion a year budget deficit, tell me another European country with one as big as that?

The UK will have £1,500,000,000,000 of National Debt by 2015, more than 4 times what it was under the the Conservatives in 1997, WHO HAS MORE THAN THAT IN EUROPE, HOW ARE WE GOING TO PAY THAT OFF?

Under Labour in 2010, our 10-year Gilts needed 5% to attract investors to fund our debt, slightly more than Italy; yet under 'the Osbourne plan' it went down to interest rates of sub 2%, yet still costs us £33 billion a year in debt interest payments alone, never mind paying it off.

With all that debt and fussy investors back in 2010, a re-elected Labour would have put us on the road to Greece.

Drastic measures were needed and were taken, if Labour through electoral cowardice WHILE IN GOVERNMENT refused to tell 'the people' what they'd do after 2010 and encourage a proper debate - blame them, as if they had better ideas, they'd have been elected.

you didn't answer my questions

conservative policies of making their friends richer, are not good policies. The fact that labour did it ( albeit nowhere near to the extreme that the tories are) is not a defence for having shit policies giving million £ contracts to your friends and party donors

btw, i managed to do all that...and not embolden my words once.

drastic measures toward the poor
we aren't all in this together. see the recent Miller debacle

Custardo...you are full of micro shit, and clearly either have an inability or refusal to look at the bigger picture - so while you don't understand the main problems the coalition faced, I don't see the point micro arguing policies or comparing them with whoevers electoral box you tick.

Brown had to adopt the Conservatives budgets in 1997 to be trusted by those fearing Old Labour and by 2001 we had A BALANCED BUDGET.

Any fool of a political party can spend money we have not got, so just salivate on what could have been done, policy wise, if we didn't have a £157 billion deficit in 2010, around £108 billion now - and had the option of spending that money on something more useful, like social homes?

A government can build their own homes with the £trillions Brown wasted, but a government with a £100 billion plus deficit and £1.3 billion (currently) national debt, NEEDS OTHER PEOPLE TO FUND THEM, and our nuclear power station come to that.

UK would have a higher debt and deficit than most countries because, we are the sixth largest economy. Hence, its laughable to compare UK's debt and deficit with one who only have a GDP/Income of £24 million whilst, the UK's income is £1.7 Trillion.

Labour in 1997 inherited a debt of 42% of GDP. By the start of the global banking crises 2008 the debt had fallen to 35% - a near 22% reduction page 6 ONS Surprisingly, a debt of 42% was not seen as a major problem and yet at 35% the sky was falling down?

The much banded about 2010 deficit of over 11% is false. This is the PSNB (total borrowings) and not the actual budget deficit which was -7.7% - OBR Economic and Fiscal Outlook March 2012 page 19 table 1.2

budgetresponsibility.independent.gov.uk/economic-and-fiscal-outlook-march-2012

in 1997 Labour inherited a deficit of 3.9% of GDP (not a balanced budget ) and by 2008 it had fallen to 2.1% - a reduction of a near 50% - Impressive! Hence, it's implausible and ludicrous to claim there was overspending. The deficit was then exacerbated by the global banking crises after 2008. See HM Treasury. Note, the 1994 deficit of near 8%

twitpic.com/8tpev3

the IMF have also concluded the same. They reveal the UK experienced an increase in the deficit as result of a large loss in output/GDP caused by the global banking crisis and not even as result of the bank bailouts, fiscal stimulus and bringing forward of capital spending. It's basic economics: when output falls the deficit increases.touchstoneblog.org.uk/2011/10/19040

Custardo....there is no attack on the poor, there is a long overdue attempt to reform Welfare/benefits that Labour wanted to get around to, but never got a round to-it, but when you inherit a £157 billion deficit it has to be done.

I'm sure in your world there was no widespread abuse, or those who still spend more on booze and fags than food.

For those that truely are in need, if local authorities are competent enough, will get help - I came from a council estate, people can't blow smoke up my rear end that there is not abuse and those who see benefits as a way of life.

Get those back to work; more money to spend on those that need it AND a huge increase in funding we'll need for supporting the elderly, who did work all their lives.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10574376/Graphic-Britain-outstrips-Europe-on-welfare-spending.html

“Welfare spending in Britain has increased faster than almost any other country in Europe since 2000, new figures show.”

“The cost of unemployment benefits, housing support and pensions as share of the economy has increased by more than a quarter over the past thirteen years – growing at a faster rate than in most of the developed world.”

“In the developed world, only the United States and the stricken eurozone states of Ireland, Portugal and Spain - which are blighted by high unemployment - have increased spending quicker than Britain.”

“It means Britain has risen in the developed world rankings for welfare spending from 20th in 2000 to 13th in 2013 – leapfrogging Norway, Luxembourg, Hungary, Poland, Greece and New Zealand.

“Despite Mr Osborne’s promise to get welfare under control, the benefits bill is due to increase rapidly in cash terms, from £180bn this year to £203bn in 2018-19.”

“Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, last year admitted he had given up trying to cut the welfare bill and was instead “managing growth at a lower level”.”

“And in Britain since 2010, when the Coalition came to power, spending on welfare as share of GDP has barely moved – falling by just a quarter of one per cent over three years, according to OECD data.”

“By contrast, more than a third of developed nations have cut their welfare bills steeply in that period. Germany has cut social security spending as a share of GDP by 3.4 per cent, Canada by 3 per cent, Iceland by 4.2 per cent, Switzerland by 7 per cent and Estonia by 11 per cent.”

why is anti tory = socialist?

when does highlighting the greed of the very rich, tax dodging utter cunts = socialist

when does pointing out that these fuckers are screwing people over = socialist?

And when did being anti tory scum = pro Labour

and when did Labour = socialist lol.

suggested Labour election slogan 'Not quite as cunty as the Tories'

suggested Tory election slogan 'Ruthlessly incompetent'

David Cameron would like people to believe the markets lend in the same way as retail banks lend to you and I. These juvenile deficit narratives and sound bites ("mere words and no evidence") simply fail to stand up to the actual facts. The deficit myth is the grosses lie ever enforced upon the people and it has been sold by exploiting people's economic illiteracy.

'Not quite as cunty as the Tories'
love it!

47% of UK benefit spending goes on state pensions of £74.22bn a year, more than the £48.2bn the UK spends on servicing its debt.

Myth: The welfare bill has ballooned out of control

Reality: The government has repeatedly claimed that welfare expenditure grew unsustainably under Labour. In fact, total expenditure on welfare was 11.6 per cent of GDP in 1996/97; under Labour it averaged 10.7 per cent up to the crash. Afterwards benefits for children and working age adults rose from an average 4.9 per cent of GDP up to 2007/08 to 6 per cent. This is what you would expect during a recession.

Custardo….dear me I’ve had this with ttosca several times, how can you look at Debt to GDP ratio or any other comparisons here or internationally when the UK’s totally unbalanced economy relied on the City tax receipts of £60 to £100 billion, bloated bank balance sheet lending, Housing Stamp duty and other proceeds of speculation, and government spending/debt and consumer spending/debt – all at high or record levels BEFORE the crash, but now nowhere near ‘contributing’ in the same way e.g. £108 billion deficit spending, rather than £157 billion Labour ‘enjoyed’?

Which European country do you know with a similar unbalanced economy as the UK, relying on finance/speculation now curbed, pre or post crash???

When the public sector was taking over 53% of our out put bloating GDP one way and manufacturing halved to 11% affecting our Exports-Imports figure, debt to GDP built on sand is meaningless yet Brown's spending went up 50% from 2001 to 2008 and when the tax receipts dried up, the fixed cost Brown built up still had to be paid = £157 billion deficit.

I explained this better on another post, but on the one below 30 march 14.00;18;18 I put something down, but I’ll provide more details if you still think Labour’s GDP was worth a light to sustain our economy or anything else.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/politics/2039071-Iain-Duncan-Smith-to-simplify-all-his-cock-ups-into-one-Universal-Cock-Up

BTW from 1997 to 2010, Public Sector employment/quangocracy went up 18%, Private Sector that pays for it up 7% - sez it all really.

And now we have a Public Sector pension liability of £1.2 trillion, ON TOP of the current £1.3 trillion National debt, that has to be paid annually out of the budget of that year, when comes due – more financial pressure for future generations to fund, thanks Labour.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1214001/The-cost-quango-Britain-hits-170bn--seven-fold-rise-Labour-came-power.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358144/Labours-3m-town-hall-jobs-bonanza-employed-deliver-frontline-services.html

www.taxpayersalliance.com/economics/2009/09/new-book-reveals-the-total-cost-of-gordon-browns-mishandling-of-the-economy-as-3-trillion-or-3000000.html

i refer you to this: David Cameron would like people to believe the markets lend in the same way as retail banks lend to you and I. These juvenile deficit narratives and sound bites ("mere words and no evidence") simply fail to stand up to the actual facts. The deficit myth is the grosses lie ever enforced upon the people and it has been sold by exploiting people's economic illiteracy.

and this: UK would have a higher debt and deficit than most countries because, we are the sixth largest economy. Hence, its laughable to compare UK's debt and deficit with one who only have a GDP/Income of £24 million whilst, the UK's income is £1.7 Trillion.

really, quoting rightwing press as your references, does nothing for your argument

The much banded about 2010 deficit of over 11% is false. This is the PSNB (total borrowings) and not the actual budget deficit which was -7.7% - OBR Economic and Fiscal Outlook March 2012 page 19 table 1.2

budgetresponsibility.independent.gov.uk/economic-and-fiscal-outlook-march-2012

in 1997 Labour inherited a deficit of 3.9% of GDP (not a balanced budget ) and by 2008 it had fallen to 2.1% - a reduction of a near 50% - Impressive! Hence, it's implausible and ludicrous to claim there was overspending. The deficit was then exacerbated by the global banking crises after 2008. See HM Treasury. Note, the 1994 deficit of near 8%

twitpic.com/8tpev3

Ignoring the facts from whoever presented, does nothing for your 'red/rose tinted specs - if you want me to find alternative sources without needing to subscribe, I'll try.

AS the the post before, I haven't got the first clue of what you are talking about.

What does international institutional investors like pension funds, who have the choice in buying/selling/ignoring government debt throughout the globe, have to do with retail banks???

So if you don't want to compare us with Greece (only £24 million income?), how about the levels of debt/austerity and interest rates Ireland, Portugal and Spain had to pay after 2010 - and what were their more economically balanced basket case IMF annual budget deficits, higher than £157 billion?

Bearing in mind the lack of quality (sustainability) of GDP in the UK heavily financed by the City/bloated bank balance sheet, and higher government and consumer spending/debt than other countries - and other countries were paying down debt not increasing it through the boom years;

www.economicshelp.org/blog/5509/economics/government-spending-under-labour/

“During the years 2001-2007, there was a sharp rise in government spending. In real terms, government spending increased from just over £400bn (2009 prices) to £618bn in 2008-09.

As a % of GDP Government spending also increased from 36% of GDP in 2000 to 46% of GDP by the end of 2008-09

This increase in government spending contributed to budget deficits and higher public sector debt.

After a short period of budget surplus (due to spending restraint) in the late 1990s, the UK experienced a budget deficit of 2-3% of GDP between 2002-2007.

By historical standards, this is relatively low. It still met the Maastricht criteria of keeping budget deficits to less than 3% of GDP.

However, the budget situation was also improved by impressive tax revenues from the housing and financial boom. When the credit crunch hit, tax revenues rapidly dwindled causing a marked deterioration in public finances.”

• If the government had entered the credit crunch with a budget surplus and lower public sector debt, the government would have had much more room to pursue a real and sustained economic stimulus. However, because there was already a deficit, the recession caused a rise in the cyclical deficit. The deficit of 2009-10 of 11% of GDP was primarily due to the deterioration in public finances, only a small part of this deficit was due to expansionary fiscal policy (VAT cut)

• A great failure of spending decisions of the 2000s, was to allow budget deficits during rapid economic expansion. A budget deficit of 3% of GDP may have sounded relatively low. But, in hindsight, this exaggerated the underlying deficit because tax revenues were boosted by tax revenues which evaporated during the credit crunch.

Labour in 1997 inherited a debt of 42% of GDP. By the start of the global banking crises 2008 the debt had fallen to 35% - a near 22% reduction page 6 ONS Surprisingly, a debt of 42% was not seen as a major problem and yet at 35% the sky was falling down?

Calm down dears

So what solution do you all have then?