Here is a puzzle.
Can anyone explain how the aspirations for 1 million of the 2.7 million people who claim incapacity benefits can be fulfilled when there are only 628,900 job vacancies (Office National Statistics) and these jobs may not neatly fit the skills and capacities of people on incapacity benefits nor be available in their locality as unemployment rates tend to be high in areas with high levels of incapacity benefit claims.

Ah - you seem to misunderstand government logic. Ministers of this government can do magic things merely by stating it as a fact. How else can you explain taking a group of people who are defined as NOT CAPABLE OF WORK and simply saying we are going to HELP them into work.

Why should some inconvenient numbers bother a government who has this sort of power?

If our prime minister (peace be upon him) says he is going to solve all our problems then who are we to doubt/carp/criticise/sneer/ridicule/pour scorn on/collapse into fits of hysterical laughter, etc, etc!

On a more serious point, and as a pointer to the thinking in Whitehall, I reproduce below a quote from the Minister, David Blunket on the subject of IB reform:-

"Attitudes must change. I will be working closely with colleagues across Government and in particular the Department of Health. We know that the best form of welfare is work. So the task is to put common sense into practice".

The phrase that caught my eye was ".....the best form of welfare is work....."

===============================================================

"Just because you do not take an interest in politics
doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you.
-- Pericles (430 B.C.)"

Arbiter mach frei!

1933 - 1945.

Add in the 800000 unemployed they could all do a 3 way job share,job sorted.Now for the the Tax Credits problems.

I've only just caught up with this thread, and it seems that a vital ingredient has been missed......

What about the 1.4 million or so unemployed people who don't have bad backs that are first in the queue?

There's already twice as many of them as there are jobs.

Wouldn't Mr Blunkett have more factually said, "the best form of welfare is work; work at claiming JSA, work at battling the DWP, work at fighting poverty, work at paying the bills on below poverty income, work at affording your home, work at getting affordable childcare, work at staying alive. In fact, any work as long it's for £56.20 a week instead of £76.45"?

Q. Are there any jobs that could jobshare four to a job...?

I recently attended a tribunal where the chair stated that it would be in the best interest of your client if he was found fit for work as a push in this direction may be what he required to get his life in order and was the best medicine for his condition, (yes he did have a bad back), the chair then said unfortunately I am unable to do this at present, and promptly awarded 18 points.

Probably read Mr Plunkets report and took it to heart.

Our revered Minister said today that 40% (an interesting figure in itself) of those on Incap have some form of mental illness. Taking into account the huge number of bad backs there are (allegedly) around, I guess that only leaves a few people with any other form of illness..............

what a cynical lot you are!!!

and there was I thinking that all the ills of the world were likely to be solved my this shift in (rather extension of)govt policy.

Our own local Community Legal Services Partnership (another entire issue, I know) was recently asked to integrate with the local enterprise/economic partnership in our borough, particularly on issues of social and economic inclusion (makes sense, no?)

We then found that the same (Labour) Council (who lead the clsp and the ecomomic partnership), aswell as the JC+/DWP (who are also on both partnerships)had made the movement of Ib claimants into work THE key stategic aim of the ecomomic partnership on scial and economic inclusion. Our borough is particularly high in IB ratios of claimants.

With several issues running around my head,I asked the "innocent" question:- did the prospective employers on the ecomonomic partnership board (along with the numerous other employers they represent)understand that by taking on previous IB claimants as employees those employees were likely to demonstrate numerous workplace needs, may have additional time off/sickness issues, disability discrimination/access issues ete etc??...

it would appear by the reaction of those present that the ecomomic partnership's understanding of the situation had been just as "knee jerk" as the govt's...the employers clearly had no intention of actually thinking the thing through and acting on it...they just seemed to turn tail and run from the idea..these are worrying times indeed when whole swathes of the most influential groups in society are fed such nonesense!

Pete

For cynical read commonsense - If I apply for a job and put on the application form that I've been off work for some time with a medical problem, how many employers in the real world who need people who can work 40 hours a week, every week, will want to take the chance?

Neither are we "negative", which seems to be the latest label: it's just that when one gets into the realms of middle management and above, one tends to lose sight of the realities of what life at ground level is really like.

We are a member of the CLSP here, and they have done a lot of needs mapping etc which is all well and good, but actual advice and assiatance is limited to those who financially meet the CLS contract criteria. In addition, the number who hold contracts in Welfare rights is limited: only one solicitor in our town and one CAB contract holder.

We get the impression, rightly or wrongly that a lot of lip service is made on all these issues, but very little, if any, cash is ever forthcoming. You can produce stratagies etc ad infinitum but without decent medium to long term funding they don't go any further.

Many of us have seen similar initiatives before, hence what might appear to be a slightly cynical approach....

Answer to the problem of not enough job vacancies....

1. Bring in the new system.

2. As already stated there are not currently enough jobs.

3. HOWEVER, when the new system comes in then clearly there will be loads of new jobs ceated in the JobCentrePlus (all those interviews) and in our organisations (all those punters to represent at appeal).

Only problem then is.... how do we square this with the proposed cuts in DWP staff.... dammit thought I had this figured out for a second.

What one must also bear in mind is that everything the DWP are planning at the moment, CMS, Redundancies, Incap reforms etc are being done so on the back of an economy that is reasonably stable and healthy, with unemployment at a low level - what happens if and when it falters and people start to lose their jobs in noticable numbers - Jobcentre jobs have already been cut to the bone, and in many cases they are just about coping with demand at the moment.

Mark my words, it'll all end in tears................

In Reading, the DWP and JC+ are not coping with demand at all. I have never seen such a hideously diabolical public service in all my 10 years as an adviser - nor for the five years that I was a claimant before that!

The prospect you raise is frightening indeed....