(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...£187,500
This is the amount it cost Taxpayers to get a single Jobseeker of the dole.
This is the bombshell that stuck the final nail in the coffin of New Deal. A scheme setup by Gordon Brown for New Labour aiming to get less people claiming unemployment benefits and stop living a “life on benefits” lifestyle.
How did we come across this figure? Well… The New Deal scheme costs Taxpayers £75 billion and claimants have dropped by 400,000 people (this figure excludes the surge in new claimants due to the economical crisis) – this equates for each person who is not claiming benefit: £187,500!!
Of course, we shouldn’t presume that these 400,000 people have all obtained sustainable full time jobs, due to benefits being made more difficult to claim in this period. We also can’t presume or expect that these 400,000 less claims were a result from the New Deal courses.
What I can quite confidently state that with £75 Billion instead of the 13 week New Deal courses, the Government could have employed 9 times more people (assuming that those 400,000 people got full time jobs) – or 3.6 million people to stick it as a figure – full time on an annual salary of £20,000 for one year.
Alternatively, they could have employed over 360,000 people on a £20,000 annual salary for 10 years.
Summary of links contained in above New Deal Scandal post
Related posts
- Dear Gordon Brown
- How the Government can solve Unemployment for FREE!
- Coward: James Purnell MP resigns prior to Flexible New Deal
- Refuse New Deal VSO Programme Provision: NDYP ND25 IAP
- Information Commissioner: Jobcentre Plus sending sensitive information to Royal Mail is OK
- Emma harrison doesn't want to acknowledge the severe shortcomings of a4e
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is under severe pressure to resign as one of his ministers quit and urged Brown to step down.
James Purnell stepped down as work and pensions secretary with an open letter saying Brown’s continued leadership would be disastrous” for Britain.
Tipped as a rising star within the governing Labour Party and a possible future leader, Purnell is the fifth minister to quit in recent days, the third at Cabinet level, piling the pressure on Brown to go.
However, while the others were under fire in the ongoing row over lawmakers’ lavish expenses claims, Purnell was not and is the first government member to resign calling openly for Brown’s resignation.
News of Purnell’s departure broke as polls closed yesterday in the European Parliament and English local elections, at which the party is expected to be trounced.
Meanwhile an email letter was being circulated around party lawmakers calling for Brown to quit, while senior ministers are said to be unwilling to switch jobs in the looming Cabinet reshuffle.
In power since 1997, the Labour Party has borne the brunt of public outrage over lawmakers’ dodgy expenses claims, a row made worse by the fact Britain is struggling to climb out of its worst recession in decades.
Speculation that Brown is preparing to step down, dismissed as ”complete nonsense” by his spokesman, sent the British pound crashing against the euro and US dollar.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What a complete waste of OUR money. Before anyone says the unemployed do not pay tax, I would remind them of indirect taxation such as VAT, excise duty and the fact that benefits paid to unemployed people are counted as taxable income, for starters.
The government and their Job Centre puppets constantly talk up the New Deal, but this cost (and the fact that the only real beneficiaries are the private owned training companies, who have become extremely wealthy) is proof that it is time to confine the New Deal to the dustbin of history.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I do not agree why Jobseekers should be taxable income. It makes it more difficult for the unemployed if their jobseekers stick them over the threshold.
This just proves of the give with one hand and take back with the other approach (that is apart from Tax Credits where its take with 2 hands, and a 1 in 5 probability of giving some back!)
Even if a Jobseeker got a £500,000 per year salary job after claiming JSA for 6 months, would already be paying HUGE amount of tax; it is just an insult…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m not surprised. See my own blog-cum-website titled “The politics of unemployment”
http://peterdurwardharris7.blogspot.com/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
New Labour only listen to people like Freud, a banker. They seem to think the only solution to unemployment is privatisation. I’m not a Tory supporter, but ever since Blair became PM labour has moved so far to the right you can longer detect any difference between the Tories and Labour.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
give me 187,000 and i will sign off.. live off the interest, forever..
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
My friend has just started work on a short, temporary contract (with the very real prospect of re-entry to the labour market) after over six months of unemployment.
He qualifies for a modest amount of extra help: £100 grant (to enable survival to his first payday), plus four weeks of housingbenefit/council tax benefit relief (amounting to £400).
He is working away in a demanding, professional job – so this assistance will really help.
Only trouble is: Didsbury Jobcentre have not released his final jobseekers’ allowance payment. And they have not (as yet, viz. four days later, including the weekend) replied to his urgent phone calls.
He has run out of money and will be unable to continue to work.
Who has benefitted?
Not my friend (he will lose his job and probably his re-entry to permanent work), not the employer (who will be faced with changing horses mid-stream), not the taxpayer (who will see his tax evaporate into thin air), not the politicians (who will sustain further criticisms – mounting unemployment, failure of New Deal, etc)….
Who then?
The civil servants, perhaps? After all, it is they who are paid… they who do not face re-election… they who do not have businesses to run…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think Civil Servants should be “elected” by the local community.
Get the public involved in the recruitment process a little bit. For example, it wouldn’t typically be too much to ask for an shareholder of a company to be involved in recruitment as being a partial owner – therefore I do not see why taxpayers do not have a say in whom gets employment from their money.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
give me £187,000 i will sign off out the money in a high interest account, live off the interest for the rest of my life..
thats a solution..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A complete waste of government money. We need to do something about it. The government need to put the system back as it was. Maybe we need to riot. Will they listen then?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
there looks to be another 700 million heading down the thornbridge wishing well,throwing taxpayers money away on stupid micky mouse projects like this is just not working, and then trying to cover it up under the description of defamation while defamation is shown to their “customers” by their personal situation no fault of their own,no one should be made to feel guilty of this,its oppressive and undermining.
peoples lives are being ruined at the same time with long term unemployment,many having lost faith in the types of what little there is,no one wants to be exploited by self interested employment agencies,often telling a client one thing,the client being told something else when he/she arrives for work and then not hearing quite the same thing.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0