Saturday, 19 February 2011

Long-term Joblessness, Never Knowingly Undersold

Case #1 is the investigation into the largest and most important mystery in these files: Why?

This question may be insoluble to Man or Machine, but not to species Homo Asperger. There has to be a reason why policy-makers for at least a decade now have followed a strategy that doesn't work, that enriches the contractors that feed off of it and does nothing for those it is supposed to benefit.

I have but one viable lead, going on one assumption. Lead (a); that policy-makers believe the welfare state to be a problem, not a solution. They have forgotten what it was the solution to: a much bigger problem, one which they would not cope with for a single day when they are so vexed by the supposed one before them now. They compound this with a selective and faulty reading of the vast amount of data available to them. It fries their puny non-Autistic brains. But they are driven forward never the less because they perceive a welfare state which everyone finds acceptable(not going to happen) to be a golden grail of political achievement.

So I do not expect the bombshell scooped by Channel 4 this week that long-term Jobseekers Allowance claims lasting five years or more have fallen tenfold in the past decade to become the significant talking point it should be in the public discourse on welfare reform. Government ministers have shown that they're making substantial efforts to ignore criticism and steer debate towards a standard resembling a patch of raw sewage. The best I can do is to continue investigating Case #1 and when the usual canards about households where 'no one has worked' make an appearance, point to the more specified and relevant evidence.

Lead (a) is going to require a constant gathering of data to check each claim(nearly always originating with the Coalition government) to work out by elimination what they're really thinking, what their real motivations are. If it turns out to be a house of cards, none of the Coalition's case for 'reform' having any substance to it, it's on to the next lead. But Lead (b) will be far out of my comfort zone; it entertains the possibility of there being more direct personal gain for those involved. At this point, Lead (b) is off the table until a significant shift in discourse and available evidence changes that. For now though...

Case File #1 finds that concern for long-term unemployment to not be a credible motive for 'Why?'

No comments:

Post a Comment