We want to share an important update with our Betfair Community users.
Over the coming months, the Betfair Community platform will be winding down. The final active day for the platform will be December 21st. From December 22nd, users will no longer be able to access the platform.
Your discussions, insights, engagement, and, most importantly, feedback have helped shape the platform and guided innovation. Your feedback continues to be important to us, and we will continue to listen via our dedicated feedback channels, as well as through product testing and innovations.
To share your feedback and experience, visit: https://support.betfair.com/app/home
Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
.....excellent article by Polly Toynbee....
Expect triumphant headlines for the latest employment figureson Wednesday. More people will be in work, which is good news: far better to have half a job than no job at all. But the last three-monthly figures showed that all the increase – yes, all of it – was not in jobs but in soaring self-employment, says Jonathan Portes of the National Institute for Economic and Social Research.
Morgan Stanley reports that 80% of all employment gains since 2007 are in self-employment: "As a result the headline employment data have significantly exaggerated the strength of the labour market." The main driver has been "lack of alternative opportunities". It notes this under-employment slack in the economy means no "significant additional upward pressure on wages". Permanent low pay may be the future. Figures later this week may show pay at last rising above inflation, but deceptively, they don't include all these self-employed people.
The TUC finds that 540,000 of the jobs created since 2010 are self-employed roles, with the over-50s in the majority and over-65s the fastest growing group. Are these thrusting entrepreneurs? No, the number running their own business has fallen by 52,000 since 2010. Most are people hanging on to work by their fingertips; freelancing and contracted out with "Fewer rights, less pay and no job security," says TUC general secretary Frances O'Grady. Agency work and zero-hours contracts are growing ever more deeply embedded in the economy – no replacement for the good jobs lost. Earnings of the self-employed have been falling: the average for self-employed women is just £10,000.
However, the better the employment figures, the more eager the government is to tighten the screws on those who are still unemployed. At last autumn's party conference George Osborne again attacked the workless: "We are saying there is no option of doing nothing for your benefits, no something-for-nothing any more. They will do useful work to put something back into the community, making meals for the elderly, clearing up litter, working for a local charity. Others will be made to attend the jobcentre every working day." So in a fortnight that Help to Work programme is due to start.
Those out of work for a year go through the Work Programme for two years, but now if they emerge with no job – as many do – Help to Work awaits them. Will workfare work? "The DWP's own analysis of existing evidence, both internationally and in the UK, suggests such schemes are generally ineffective", finds Portes. For once, instead of rushing in, the DWP has done a good control trial on this with 15,000 unemployed. The pilot's results, however, were sneaked out just before Christmas with no press release. That's no surprise when you uncover the findings.
First the unemployed were given a 13-week warning period to act as a deterrent, and then 26 weeks of either "intensive Jobcentre Plus support", or the workfare "community action programme". Or they went into the control group with nothing special. Here's what happened: exactly the same number in the control group – 18% – found themselves jobs as those doing the forced community work. Just 1% more found jobs from the group with jobcentre support. In other words, workfare didn't work. Although 68% of the control group were still on unemployment benefits at the end, so were 66% of those who did the community work and 64% of those given jobcentre support.
Good for the DWP for doing a proper pilot study – but why is it plunging ahead with Osborne's scheme at a cost of £300m a year when it knows it doesn't work? The DWP has failed to provide a cost-benefit analysis. As with the mandatory work activity scheme, the main effect of forcing this group to pick up litter is to prompt more to claim employment and support allowance for disability: many are sick in one way or another, but haven't admitted it until pushed. No savings are made from that benefit switch.
Here's another interesting finding. Portes describes this as a "very difficult client group to help back to work, with many facing severe and/or multiple barriers", already three years out of work before entering this scheme. Every society has some people with all manner of problems: however much you chivvy and bully them they are unlikely to appeal to employers. You can sanction and intimidate some away from claiming altogether, but that lands them at food banks or on the streets, not in work. Are these the skivers who need frightening out of what Iain Duncan Smith keeps calling "a lifestyle choice"? Not according to this pilot study. If they had been fraudulently claiming with other means of support, they would have disappeared off workfare – but 80% did their six months of community without being shaken off benefits. At the end, they were still no more employable than those in the control group.
I asked the DWP for more information on Help to Work, now only two weeks from its launch. How many people will go on it? What kind of community work is being found? Which brave charities or local authorities are risking their reputation by taking on free forced labourers for six months, without displacing genuine jobs? As yet, there is no answer: the names of suppliers of Community Work haven't been announced, not even the private firms paid to find the community work.
I asked for the pilot's results but the DWP always obfuscates with irrelevant information: "The vast majority of people move off jobseeker's allowance quickly – over 75% of people end their JSA claim within six months." Well, yes, it's always been the case that most people are only out of work briefly. But what about the pilot results with these long-term unemployed? No figures for the success rate were forthcoming – only these, about attitudes: a majority of those on workfare and at jobcentres "reported an increased motivation to find work". Some 84% of both groups reported "a positive shift in their attitude to work". Of those on workfare 76% reported "a sense of satisfaction from being in a work routine". Fair enough, though the surprise is they didn't give the full North Korean 100% reply.
It's just as well I already had the actual outcome figures. But why is the DWP rolling out a programme it knows is a near worthless expense? One advantage is that those on Help to Work will be counted off official unemployment figures for six months. Incidentally, these sad long-term cases will do more than twice the maximum any court can sentence a thief to on Community Payback. To be out of work is now officially morally worse than committing a crime.
Expect triumphant headlines for the latest employment figureson Wednesday. More people will be in work, which is good news: far better to have half a job than no job at all. But the last three-monthly figures showed that all the increase – yes, all of it – was not in jobs but in soaring self-employment, says Jonathan Portes of the National Institute for Economic and Social Research.
Morgan Stanley reports that 80% of all employment gains since 2007 are in self-employment: "As a result the headline employment data have significantly exaggerated the strength of the labour market." The main driver has been "lack of alternative opportunities". It notes this under-employment slack in the economy means no "significant additional upward pressure on wages". Permanent low pay may be the future. Figures later this week may show pay at last rising above inflation, but deceptively, they don't include all these self-employed people.
The TUC finds that 540,000 of the jobs created since 2010 are self-employed roles, with the over-50s in the majority and over-65s the fastest growing group. Are these thrusting entrepreneurs? No, the number running their own business has fallen by 52,000 since 2010. Most are people hanging on to work by their fingertips; freelancing and contracted out with "Fewer rights, less pay and no job security," says TUC general secretary Frances O'Grady. Agency work and zero-hours contracts are growing ever more deeply embedded in the economy – no replacement for the good jobs lost. Earnings of the self-employed have been falling: the average for self-employed women is just £10,000.
However, the better the employment figures, the more eager the government is to tighten the screws on those who are still unemployed. At last autumn's party conference George Osborne again attacked the workless: "We are saying there is no option of doing nothing for your benefits, no something-for-nothing any more. They will do useful work to put something back into the community, making meals for the elderly, clearing up litter, working for a local charity. Others will be made to attend the jobcentre every working day." So in a fortnight that Help to Work programme is due to start.
Those out of work for a year go through the Work Programme for two years, but now if they emerge with no job – as many do – Help to Work awaits them. Will workfare work? "The DWP's own analysis of existing evidence, both internationally and in the UK, suggests such schemes are generally ineffective", finds Portes. For once, instead of rushing in, the DWP has done a good control trial on this with 15,000 unemployed. The pilot's results, however, were sneaked out just before Christmas with no press release. That's no surprise when you uncover the findings.
First the unemployed were given a 13-week warning period to act as a deterrent, and then 26 weeks of either "intensive Jobcentre Plus support", or the workfare "community action programme". Or they went into the control group with nothing special. Here's what happened: exactly the same number in the control group – 18% – found themselves jobs as those doing the forced community work. Just 1% more found jobs from the group with jobcentre support. In other words, workfare didn't work. Although 68% of the control group were still on unemployment benefits at the end, so were 66% of those who did the community work and 64% of those given jobcentre support.
Good for the DWP for doing a proper pilot study – but why is it plunging ahead with Osborne's scheme at a cost of £300m a year when it knows it doesn't work? The DWP has failed to provide a cost-benefit analysis. As with the mandatory work activity scheme, the main effect of forcing this group to pick up litter is to prompt more to claim employment and support allowance for disability: many are sick in one way or another, but haven't admitted it until pushed. No savings are made from that benefit switch.
Here's another interesting finding. Portes describes this as a "very difficult client group to help back to work, with many facing severe and/or multiple barriers", already three years out of work before entering this scheme. Every society has some people with all manner of problems: however much you chivvy and bully them they are unlikely to appeal to employers. You can sanction and intimidate some away from claiming altogether, but that lands them at food banks or on the streets, not in work. Are these the skivers who need frightening out of what Iain Duncan Smith keeps calling "a lifestyle choice"? Not according to this pilot study. If they had been fraudulently claiming with other means of support, they would have disappeared off workfare – but 80% did their six months of community without being shaken off benefits. At the end, they were still no more employable than those in the control group.
I asked the DWP for more information on Help to Work, now only two weeks from its launch. How many people will go on it? What kind of community work is being found? Which brave charities or local authorities are risking their reputation by taking on free forced labourers for six months, without displacing genuine jobs? As yet, there is no answer: the names of suppliers of Community Work haven't been announced, not even the private firms paid to find the community work.
I asked for the pilot's results but the DWP always obfuscates with irrelevant information: "The vast majority of people move off jobseeker's allowance quickly – over 75% of people end their JSA claim within six months." Well, yes, it's always been the case that most people are only out of work briefly. But what about the pilot results with these long-term unemployed? No figures for the success rate were forthcoming – only these, about attitudes: a majority of those on workfare and at jobcentres "reported an increased motivation to find work". Some 84% of both groups reported "a positive shift in their attitude to work". Of those on workfare 76% reported "a sense of satisfaction from being in a work routine". Fair enough, though the surprise is they didn't give the full North Korean 100% reply.
It's just as well I already had the actual outcome figures. But why is the DWP rolling out a programme it knows is a near worthless expense? One advantage is that those on Help to Work will be counted off official unemployment figures for six months. Incidentally, these sad long-term cases will do more than twice the maximum any court can sentence a thief to on Community Payback. To be out of work is now officially morally worse than committing a crime.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 85
|
By:
Excellent article.
It's been happening for the last couple of years, this government wants the return of workhouses. The distribution of wealth, a few people having nearly all the money, leaving most of us scrabbling around for what's left. A few companies having nearly all the money, leaving less and less small businesses scrabbling around for what's left. These things suit those in power and they want to keep it that way, so they deflect attention by creating a scapegoat. The filthy, feckless, scrounging unemployed. Or, the lying, idle, disabled workshy. The only hope is that there might be enough underlying intelligence in this country to see what they're doing and never vote for them again. |
|
By:
Very true
|
|
By:
Spot on STUDYFORM
|
|
By:
Good article. The main aim of this government is to stay in power and see that the very wealthy stay that way - in fact get wealthier. Throughout the recession and "austerity" the rich haven't suffered at all - they've even got richer.
|
|
By:
under tory rule, it has always been the poorer classes, the disabled, the 'plebian' for want of a better expression, who are the scapegoats. The gov't the utility companies, the powers that be generally, get away with murder. They know perfectly well a time is coming when people cant even afford the basic necessities, the food banks agree with this; you really wouldn't believe it in this day and age, and yet we all just accept the status quo.
|
|
By:
What do people who use foodbanks spend their money on if it isnt food?
|
|
By:
There was a programme about foodbanks a few weeks ago, seemed to me that most of them had got themselves in debt, often with wonga pay day type places, so they hardly had any money. Seems to me that the kind of people that get in trouble with pay day loan companies are just not fit to be given money and so perhaps food banks and luncheon vouchers is the best way to make sure they dont go hungry.
I think personal finance should be taught in schools. |
|
By:
They spend their money on ridiculous costs to rent a roof over their heads, most of the poor having no chance of getting a mortgage. They spend it on ridiculously high utility bills - set high so the 'investors' reap the rewards for massive, ever-increasing profits. They probably do spend some on vastly overpriced food (supermarkets are a cartel who make as much as possible from everything they sell). They pay over the odds for everything (gas/electric meters are even dearer than standard d/d bills), bank charges, as they're never permitted overdrafts or loans, payg phone instead of contracts. They don't have very much coming in either.
And heaven help anyone who has the temerity to want to smoke or get sky TV or use broadband or have a nice TV to watch, eh? When it comes down to it, for whatever reason, there are more people then there are jobs. A huge proportion of what jobs there are are crap ones and/or are very lowly paid. But don't let that stop politicians telling us (from their positions of wealth and comfort and creaming off the state) that we should "go and get a job". I doubt very much that most people who use Wonga do so because it means they can spend more. The "kind of people who get in trouble" are the ones the govt keep telling potential voters are the majority of the feckless scrounging types. Whereas in reality most poor people simply don't have income to support the current extreme cost of living. |
|
By:
Even the council buildings have workzones, all brought about by gov't - I'm pretty certain - to put pressure on those claiming housing benefit.If you are in low-paid employment, the emphasis is on 'further help,' see a careers officer, update your c v, get better qualifications, almost doing exactly the same stuff as job centres, but still putting extra pressure on the likes of low earning self employed etc. and always, somewhere down the line, that chance of losing your housing benefit should you not cooperate. Why else would they start this crap up in councils? surely they don't actually think we're going to believe theyre there to help us?
|
|
By:
Regarding food banks...
The Trussell Trust run most food banks. Their chairman is a member of the board of the Shaftsbury Partnership whos board also comprises of: Patrick Shine: He has extensive experience in financial markets , social entrepreneurship and social investment. Prior to co-founding The Shaftesbury Partnership, he worked for nearly 20 years in the City, specialising in global fixed income and derivatives, and was a director of Lazard Brothers Asset Management. Anoop Maini: Anoop’s senior level experience across sectors includes planning social enterprise programmes with board members of the Home Office, working at Goldman Sachs, and leading development of commercial strategy, investor engagement and sales for an international media company across the US and Europe. Tom Rippin: Tom joined McKinsey & Company working across the private, public and non-profit sectors. Five years later, he became first the advisor on private sector matters to the CEO of Comic Relief and then the MD of (RED) Europe and Business Development Director of (RED) International, the business founded by Bono and Bobby Shriver to help eliminate AIDS in Africa. |
|
By:
The fact that there are actually ARE fecking food banks in this country is almost unbelievable, it's getting worse by the week, even if you somehow manage to get a job, you are virtually no better off because you'll be paying full rent, council tax, no more benefits, yet youre fully expected to take the minimum wage. Horseshit.
|
|
By:
The need for more and more profit (rather than just a good income), especially by the larger corporations, mean the constant need to cut the bottom line of their wage bills.
For over 30 years people have received percentage increases on their salaries by way of yearly pay rises. A form of compound interest, so now the difference between the highest paid and those doing most of the work is massive. Top jobs now command salaries well into 6 figures, politicians earn money and expenses way beyond what's needed to live. Yet all these people want the minimum wage to be low to; a, protect their profits, and b, because they don't give a flying feck about the people they don't have to mix with. I remember a passing comment a few years ago from Peter Alliss when he was commentating on the open.... "See all those people milling around? It's like the poor, always in the way when you don't need them". |
|
By:
Yes, wages are far too low. The taxpayer is subsidising large corporations in the form of tax credits and other such nonsense. Why should the public top up wages through their own taxes. If these companies can't be competitive without paying a proper wage then they shouldn't be in business! It makes me laugh when people moan about Capitalism. It's not capitalism if these companies are being propped up by the taxpayer!
|
|
By:
if this government get in for another term then expect major hardship unless you are in the small percentage who have plenty , problem is the tory voter will vote and the average working man who is being fecked left right and centre will just say something along the lines of these partys are all the same ,and my vote wont make a difference so wont bother !
|
|
By:
if this government get in for another term then expect major hardship unless you are in the small percentage who have plenty , problem is the tory voter will vote and the average working man who is being fecked left right and centre will just say something along the lines of these partys are all the same ,and my vote wont make a difference so wont bother !
|
|
By:
I reckon the Tories get most of their votes from people who think being Tory makes them of higher standing.
|
|
By:
Typical Toynbee !!
|
|
By:
^
Yes !! If you mean telling it how it really is - she always will, and good on her. Not many are telling the truth on what's actually happening in this country and what additional screws the Tories have yet to turn !! |
|
By:
I think the Labour Party are stating that they will not allow a referendum on EU membership in the next parliament if elected, this maybe a big tactical error going into the next General Election as I believe people are wanting this vote about Europe.
The Tories are the only party likely to be able to deliver a vote in the next parliament on European participation, this may be a big winner for them and may leave the Labour party in opposition for another 5 years. |
|
By:
No chance !
|
|
By:
£94bn is spent on welfare for those of working age.
Would Labour increase this?? Is that the way to go? We're already living in the most socialist times I can recall. Tax credits subsidising big companies for example. Why would a company give a pay increase when the govt with a Tory PM tops up the employee's money via benefits?? The Foodbank thing baffles me. It surely must be down to shocking housekeeping by most of those who use them. Where are the families and friends of these people in need??? Why should the govt with it's £94bn handout scheme be blamed!?? I come back to my rice buying. I get it in bulk. £14.99 for 10kg. Works out at LESS than 20p a portion. TWENTY PENCE. Do those who use foodbanks have any measure in place whatsoever for a crisis? Any stocks of dried food for example? I fear not and I fear a malaise among people not to take responsibility and not to look to family and friends. Of course there are genuine cases but 1m people using foodbanks. Really?? |
|
By:
Apologies Barry - you already made the point about tax credits...
|
|
By:
people in need cannot afford to buy in bulk. The shocking housekeeping is only partly true. the fact is, an enormous percentage of ordinary people are finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet while they watch all the big corps increase profits. I honestly cannot understand how this isn't obvious to everyone, even some die-hard tories know it and I doubt many of them will be voting for that disgraceful party again.Well, at least not the humanitarian ones. I think the tories will be smashed in the election even if a high proportion of the working classes don't bother voting, and let's face it you can't blame them.
|
|
By:
So how much should the welfare bill be Tony?
This Tory PM is borrowing £110bn this year to pay for the public sector. How much will Milliband borrow? Many of those who use foodbanks are in between job and benefits. So they had some dosh and now they don't. Why don't they stock up when they have a job and some money? 25kg of potatoes costs about £7 or less. Rice as I've said costs 20p a portion. |
|
By:
I come back to my rice buying. I get it in bulk. £14.99 for 10kg.
That's fine if you can afford to spend £14.99 for one item - have you by any chance ever heard the term "cashflow"? |
|
By:
A million people using foodbanks in this country is an absolute disgrace ,hard to believe ,not everyone wants to live on rice IMVHO 20p a portion pmsfl
 where are we living in the outbacks of Somalia That such a large number of people are using foodbanks should be an embarrassment to any government yet alone a western government ... |
|
By:
So let's assume poor people can afford to buy in bulk (they can't, btw) - they then have the issues of shelf life and storage space, which they may well be short of if they've traded down their space due to the "bedroom tax", plus they have to transport their bulk purchases home, without a car...
|
|
By:
and potatoes rot why would anyone in their right mind by 25 kg of potatoes ?
|
|
By:
By the way, Injera, does the 20p/portion include the cost of cooking?
|
|
By:
Are you related to George Osborne Injera ?
or are you a potatoe farmer |
|
By:
can you imagine trails of people leaving supermarkets carrying
sacks of rice and potatoes on their backs along the street ,u cannot make it up |
|
By:
Labour voted for a welfare cap a few weeks ago.
That means that they'll be in trouble straight away if they get elected, because they've said they're going to scrap the spare bedroom tax. So what are they going to cut to make up the shortfall? |
|
By:
The only people benefiting from these back to work schemes are the companies running them ,as for the bedroom tax ,start the number of bedrooms at 5 and treble it ,Im sure these people living in mansions can afford it ...
|
|
By:
"mmm,that rice and chips was delicious darling"
 |
|
By:
Cost of cooking - less than 10p.
Are you lot for real? Tell me, are you suggesting those who use foodbanks have never had £15 in the past year to stock up?? Again, £94bn from private sector taxes GIVEN to govt to pay for welfare handouts. £110bn in debt overspend on the public sector. Under a TORY PM. What would you Labour luvvuies liek to happen?? How much would Balls borrow? |
|
By:
Sally - you suggest the potatoes may rot.... Do you not realise these people are hungry???
Good grief... |
|
By:
last year my missus used to spend £120 per week on the supermarket shopping ,she now goes fortnightly and spends roughly £150 also saving on petrol, addmitedly she is more selective now and looks for the bogofs and special offers but shopping every 2 weeks rather than weekly can save you a good whack !
|
|
By:
think that " money savingtfred" should be revived or a new one created !
|
|
By:
Facts - the labour govnmt ran this country into the ground , always do, spend spend spend, no idea what they are doing . Conservatives now sorting it out and doing a great job - let's hope labour don;t get in for a long time !!!
If lab had got in at the last election , we'd be bankrupt and bno plan to get us out , high unemployment and inflation raging - and that's just for starters ! |