On January 30, 2006 3:49 PM,  Nosemonkey said...

Sod the million non-existent jobs, who does she think's going to willingly employ a lying, skiving fraudster - which is apparently what all those people are?

[insert jokes about various Blairite ministers here]  

On January 30, 2006 4:19 PM,  Unity said...

Actually a million off incap in 10 years is perfectly achieveable.

Remember these are government targets and therefore not quite what they appear.

Around 850,000 will come of incapacity benefit in the next 10 years without the government doing anything - that's the number due to retire over that period, most of whom are people, men in particular, whose working life ended when Thatcher rips the guts out of British manufacturing.

That leaves 150,000 to find, give or take the mortality rate - some of theme are genuinely sick y'know.

Thw real squeeze will be on keeping new claimants off long-term incap to begin with - once someone's been on there for more than two years they're next to unemployable anyway. A sweep will pick up a few lazy twats along the way, but the real push will be on people in those first two years, especially those with 'soft' illnesses like depression.  

On January 30, 2006 4:27 PM,  Andrew said...

Just when you think you're sufficiently cynical, Unity posts a comment like that. Sir, I salute your hard-headed world-weariness.  

On January 30, 2006 4:46 PM,  Anonymous said...

If Hodge is true to her appearances on the grauniad webchats, she'll take three questions and buzz off  

On January 30, 2006 6:20 PM,  ejh said...

You know, normally when people are forced off unemployment benefits they are able to take up opportunities in the crime industry, notably in the drugs, guns and prostitution sectors. However, whether people currently qualifying for incapacity benefits will be competitive in applying for these positions is an open question.  

On January 30, 2006 7:14 PM,  michael the tubthumper said...

Sorry for invading your blog with this but here is a chance to do something.

Please take a look at this post at amelopsis garden and lend a hand. There is an amazing old woman who needs your help.


"Truth is not only violated by falsehood; it may be equally outraged by silence."
- Henri Frederic Amiel, French philosopher and writer (1821-1881)

I encourage all to click and type a brief message of support for Rosemarie's Jackowski’s human rights and dignity. Wherever you work, whatever you believe, please think about what YOU would want done on your behalf and in your defense if and when it's your turn to displease the power structure. It is not safe, in today's political climate, to assume that YOU will never be the object of political targeting. Please, whether you're in agreement with the politics of this site or not, add your voice to the chorus of support for Rosemarie Jackowski. What's happening to her today could happen to any of us tomorrow.  

On January 30, 2006 10:47 PM,  Unity said...

Hard-headed and world-weary I may be, but those are the actual figures from transfers from Incap to State Retirement pension and income support over the next ten years.  

On January 31, 2006 9:58 AM,  Aidan said...

I can't answer your first question (because I don't know what types of work people currently on incapacity benefit would be capable of), but I can have a hack at the second:

"Do you, considering the laws of supply and demand, expect one million more workers entering the job market to have any effect on wage levels?"

Remember that someone becoming more economically productive increases both supply and demand. Their income should rise when they start working, and they will be able to consume more as well as produce more. Obviously if they all go into particular, narrow areas of work (maybe they all train as plumbers), then a glut could be created in that field leading to a fall in wages in those areas.

In addition if they are working rather than being supported by the state, this will allow a small reduction in general taxation, which will make more economic enterprises profitable and thereby stimulate the economy in general.

On the other hand it is possible that the amount that the government spends on the back-to-work programme is greater than the productivity of those who go back to work.(eg it takes 2 man-years of civil servant time to produce 1 man-year of back-to-work). In this case everyone loses as they are taking taxes and spending them on an activity that costs more than it produces.

I must admit if you look at the government's ability to successfully deliver large projects, the prospects aren't great.

As unity points out, the demographic trends are running in the government's favour, so they are probably banking on this tide to make the project appear a success, even if in reality it isn't. It's also unlikely to be possible to measure the productivity of those they get back-to-work, so we can't check if it's working even in retrospect.  

On February 01, 2006 11:09 AM,  Andrew said...

Hard-headed and world-weary I may be, but those are the actual figures from transfers from Incap to State Retirement pension and income support over the next ten years.

It was more the culling of the 150,000 that gave good wry grin.  

Post a Comment

Create a Link

Home