The FT has a report on an interview with Therese Coffey this morning, in which it is noted that:
The UK's welfare system is prepared for a million-strong surge in the number of people claiming jobless benefits this winter, as the tapering of government wage support forces employers to take tough choices, according to the minister responsible for its smooth running.
I sincerely hope it is. It's wildly optimistic to think that there will only be one million additional unemployed people.
Thérèse Coffey, the work and pensions secretary, told the Financial Times that catastrophic job losses were not inevitable when the furlough scheme ended this month. Its successor – which will be far less generous to employers – was “well-targeted on starting to get companies to make choices”, she said, adding it was not yet clear whether they would opt for “fundamental restructuring” or keeping staff levels more stable, as they had after the last recession following the 2008 financial crisis.
But if she really thinks this crisis is like 2008 then she is living in cloud cuckoo land. 2008 was a financial crisis. This is so much more than that. Indeed, as yet the financial crisis has hardly begun this time. This time the crisis is about the real economy. If she can't spot the difference we really are in trouble.
But while insisting that the UK would not see a return to a Thatcherite era of mass unemployment, Ms Coffey acknowledged that many lower-paid workers were in the line of fire, as employers appeared to be holding on to higher-skilled staff who were harder to replace.
How wrong can you be? Johnson and Cummings are intent on making Thatcher look like an amateur.
“We've got this winter ahead of us . . . I want to make sure people keep a roof over their heads,” she said in an interview on Friday.
Well at least that bits easy. Speed up UC payments. Make sure UC covers mortgage payments. And make it sufficient to support a family. It's really not hard Therese.
But I bet she won't do it. And that's because supporting bankers and landlords is more important than keeping people in their homes.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Basically do anything and everything that Tories are ideologically opposed to.
Difficult to believe there’ll be much support from someone who openly believes the DWP has no duty of care to claimants
https://welfareweekly.com/dwp-has-no-legal-duty-to-safeguard-vulnerable-claimants-says-therese-coffey/
Yet again, low-paid being equated with low-skilled, with the implication that high-paid equals highly skilled. Of course that’s sometimes true, but many highly-skilled occupations suffer low pay, and the highest-paid often seem to be skilled only at things that bring little social benefit.
[the successor scheme to furlough]”…“well-targeted on starting to get companies to make choices”, she said,…”
It’ll do that alright, although some companies will be faced only with Hobson’s choice.
It pays com[panies to make people redundant
You are right she won’t do it.
I would add rental payments to the mortgage payments, otherwise we are going to see more people living out on the streets. A job retraining programme and job guarantee scheme would come in useful too, I do recall someone suggesting these things around here before ; )
Same nonsense spouted on Today programme without any sensible questions asked, as usual.
As already referred to in a comment, TC is not noted for either her brains or her heart.
The focus is all on saving ‘jobs’, actually code for saving big, mainly, businesses higher up the food chain – banks and landlords as you say Richard.
I suppose both businesses and people need to be helped but, ultimately, it’s individuals and their families that need protection.
Therese Coffey still seemed to be in cloud cuckoo land again this morning when interviewed on BBC Radio 4. She was not really challenged on unemployment predictions and whether government measures were adequate. Quite complaisant – everything is fine according to her.
The land that Therese Coffey inhabits is a lot, lot darker than ‘cloud cuckoo’ land. She seems to be cut from the same cloth as the Patels and Bravermans, combining heartlessness with wilful ignorance.
I agree
I can see a lot of people with savings etc., who will not qualify under the current rules – in other words, their income post Covid will still be seen as that which requires assistance. They will have to re-apply when they are really desperate.
The Guardian reporting Sunak is going on about how this Tory government will always balance the government’s books! How many centuries is this going to continue for? Till the UK becomes another Jurassic Park?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2020/oct/05/uk-coronavirus-live-news-covid-19-latest-updates-vaccine-testing-trace-lockdown?page=with:block-5f7b00308f0883329fc6ffca#block-5f7b00308f0883329fc6ffca
Since Universal Credit was brought in the DWP has been in denial about the whole scheme – the qualifications for the scheme itself as well as the IT delivery of it of which they made a complete Horlicks. Denial is now ingrained in an organisation that is supposed to help people =
Defiantly
Wrong
Principles.
‘Sunak is going on about how this Tory government will always balance the government’s books! How many centuries is this going to continue for?’
As long as we have a Tory Party and as long as the majority of people who vote continue to vote for them.
I did think once upon a time, that the age demographic would bring about change, it being the case that it is mostly older people and those living in the South-East that vote Tory, since they benefit hugely from their ‘X’ in that little box and that the Grim Reaper does most certainly come calling.
However, the ‘Red Wall’ put paid to that thought, though I think that that might have been more to do with Brexit and ‘getting it over the line’ than other things.
Rishi Sunak spouts ideology rather than a sustainable plan for the financing of the health and well-being of the citizens of this group of nation states. His pronouncement is to be deplored and is transparent to those of us who are aware that a plan, rather than an ideology, would be preferable to the majority. One can argue with the nuts and bolts of a plan but one can get horribly tangled when arguing with an ideology.