Labour will on Tuesday unveil a flagship back-to-work plan that does not include a crackdown on sickness benefits in the latest blow to business.
Ministers will only commit to launching a consultation next year on cutting handouts, despite warnings that welfare spending is set to top £100 billion by 2030.
How glorious, eh? We truly are saved by decisive government.
This problem isn’t new, Fraser Nelson in particular has been banging on about it since Covid if not before, and Labour knew they were going to be forming forming the next government at least a year ago, so why don’t the clowns in the MSM ask them what they were doing for that year?
The likelihood of being ejected in 2029 increases by the minute, so Labour don’t want to go upsetting part of their client base by threatening their benefits.
Even the “Employment Support enhancements” promised sound like little more than tarting up Job Centres, so another fop to public sector workers.
TTK will have achieved his position in the legal system by networking, certainly not talent, so he’ll obey the political law of enriching the second most important people in his life. Top priority is yourself, Next come your chums who will prove useful for your further advancement. What better way to provide millions for your legal mates than a consultation about a consultation about a…?
Analysis paralysis – friend of bureaucrats and libertarians alike! To be fair normally I’d far rather they consult than just make it up like normal. At least that way they might get some knowledgeable input.
Chris, have you ever been involved in any “consultations”? I have. They get knowledgeable input all right. They even get shrewd predictions of the likely 2nd, 3rd and even 4th order effects of their proposals: there’s no such thing as “unforeseen consequences”.
They then go right ahead and ignore anything that contradicts the favoured policy, implement that policy, and feign surprise when the predicted “unforeseen” 2nd, 3rd and 4th order effects of their policy become apparent. Everything is utterly performative.
“Consultations” are simply a combination of arse-covering and political sounding board. They encourage the awkward squad to reveal themselves and give away their attack lines whilst providing covering fire from friendly academics, NGOs and vested interests.
Oh, and shitloads of remunerative consultancy fees for all the right people.
Didn’t Labour last time replace Job Centres with Job Centre Plus? I seem to remember it involved sticking the word “Plus” on the signage. What will it be now? Job Centre Double Plus?
I’m so old that I can remember when Labour MPs always denied that anyone ever drew the dole by choice. At least they now admit to it even if they do refuse to do anything about it.
Is that progress?
can’t top what @Norman says- endured too many of these farragos, albeit at a local level.
@jgh Job Centre Doubleplusungood?
Will half of the people being paid to be involved in the consultation be out on sickness leave?
@Norman – I have both run government consultations and responded to many, many! What you say is correct in some areas less so in others. It varies by team and even individual. There’s some body of work on improving matters (as has just bitten the workers rights RIA and CPS did some good if incomplete work) but at the very least the consultation and record of it normally improves matters and increases the chances they will listen 2nd time around. A consultation should happen by and large as its normally complex issues and no expert knows it all. If nothing else it’s a sanity check. (Wait , what there are mobile factories … ? etc). Worse case it makes for a good start on the public inquiry!
An often missed point is internal consultation . An external consultation means that an internal one has to happen as well . In one case GDS did that on the same public platform – and we got to comment on each others submissions. It worked so well they never did it again! 🙂
A good consultation takes account of the source and expertise of the respondents.