“the new and untested Work Programme, which has helped fewer than 1 in 20 people into jobs lasting at least six months.”

…which, lest we forget, is the same proportion of people the government would have expected to find sustained work *without* any ‘help’ from the Work Programme.

It’s the same story with RDAs vs. the Regional Growth Fund and LEPs. They take office, hurriedly dismantle whatever pro-growth programmes have Labour’s fingerprints on them, then wonder why the economy is stagnating while they scrabble to get their half-baked, costly and ineffective replacements off the ground.

So what’s the difference between the FJF and the Work Programme that makes the latter so much less effective?

Sorry Don but all government work schemes have been utterly useless at getting people into work. They cost way to much per place and don’t place nearly enough people into lasting roles.

We need an environment where businesses expand, and feel confident to employ more. Not another useless dead end government scheme.

Yeah Don, never mind the evidence – just ask Freeman if it worked or not. ‘DWP report’ indeed.

As Freeman @ 3 says: “…all government work schemes have been utterly useless at getting people into work.”

You see, Don, governments do not create wealth-generating and sustainable employment, except on the back of a thriving local/national economy.

And such job-creation schemes cost a huge amount per place, while not creating lasting jobs.

As Freeman @ 3 says: “We need an environment where businesses expand, and feel confident to employ more. Not another useless dead end government scheme.”

Exactly!

I love that our token Tory trolls are merrily ignoring actual evidence of benefit/cost ratio > 1, and instead relying on proof by crazed ideological assertion.

John B @ 6:

“actual evidence of benefit/cost ratio > 1″

That’s a meaningless piece of jargon. Whose benefit, whose cost???

@ TONE

“governments do not create wealth-generating and sustainable employment, except on the back of a thriving local/national economy.”

And businesses do not create a thriving local/national economy, except on the back of state action to build and maintain infrastructure, establish and enforce a legal framework within which business can be transacted, avert or mitigate crises in the banking system, control the supply of money, and do a hundred and one other things ranging from clearing rubbish off the streets to defending national borders to – yes – ensuring that a lack of skills and job experience among young people doesn’t translate into long-term unemployment for them, a long-term inability of employers to fill vacancies with suitable candidates, and a long-term loss of productive capacity in the economy.

As I see it, government job creation schemes are intended to guard against those long-term dangers – not to generate wealth in the short term. (Obviously the government is not thinking ‘Great! A recession! What a golden opportunity for everyone to make pots of cash by taking on new workers!)

TONE: from the original post –

a net benefit to participants of approximately £4,000 per participant;
– a net benefit to employers of approximately £6,850 per participant;
– a net cost to the Exchequer of approximately £3,100 per participant;
and
– a net benefit to society of approximately £7,750 per participant.