Talk:New Deal (United Kingdom)

The second paragraph of the Criticism section is purely factual, but the first is clearly bias and should be removed.

"Spending on the New Deal was £1.3 billion in 2001." Citation needed.86.10.96.115 (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ipswich Unemployed Action

As you can see I have added 2 groups campaigning and some information on New Deal.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and I feel that the current article barely states much about the actually heavily criticised New Deal scheme (simply google it). Instead of registering as a generic username I have been open and honest as I am involved with the campaigning against it however it is not an advertisement as out of the handful of groups that exist criticising it - the current article doesn't provide a balanced view of the scheme and is somewhat in favour of the scheme and misses out a lot of criticisms about it especially considering it is long established and almost at the end of its life (replaced with a proposed Flexible New Deal).

This group is small and a separate wikipedia article explaining about it would be more of an advertisement which isn't the intention as wikipedia is intended to be neutral and that proposed article may be seen to be biased for obvious reasons. It therefore makes sense for the odd external link rather than an internal link to an biased and somewhat advertisement-like article.

Wikipedia uses "no follow" tags on links so any promotion is unlikely other than being a reliable resource to those who are curious about the New Deal scheme. Please do not remove the sections - debate it on here before you do - some sources still need to be cited but I am in the process of doing that now. Ipswich Unemployed Action (talk) 11:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You've got to have sources before you add content. What you added looks like a personal essay. ninety:one 16:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Points accepted. Might sound lame but I am having some large problems with my [Virgin Media] broadband so was going to do that afterwards but instead I will re-add AFTER I have the sources. I could write you an essay on it hundred times the size, interested? lol Ipswich Unemployed Action (talk) 10:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, by your own admission your additions fall foul of NPOV. A lot of the content you added is contentious and you are making some serious allegations. They need to be backed up with reliable, third-party sources. See also WP:SOAPBOX. CrispMuncher (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes I understand where you are coming from. I will add content again with sources this time. The article at current is too little on the scheme and did (at least until I just made edits) contain unreliable information without sources to back up the claims. Ipswich Unemployed Action (talk) 10:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms

The last paragraph of this section needs to be rewritten, with references, as it is unclear what is being said, particularly in the final sentence. Snigbrook 21:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, I agree with everything that section says, I've been on a non-stop cycle of NDYP since I left college - six years ago!!! It does have references by the way. Digifiend (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I was on the New Deal and none of these options were explained to me. It was more a case of "The course is mandatory, if you don't accept it you'll loose your benefit!" I would have been interested in the 'work in the voluntary sector' option, had I known about it. When I pressed for information about what the rules of the scheme were, I was told that whatever I chose to do I'd have to stay within the rules - obviously. They wouldn't tell me what the rules actually were though, since that would enable me to 'scam' the system! It was a bit like a Monty Python sketch. I personally think they had some kind of scheme going with the local chicken factory, they were probably taking backhanders.

Dischuffed (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

My Edits

Changes made to the article includes:

Changing "counselling" to "consultation" as the session is provided by your New Deal Personal Adviser who isn't qualified as a counsellor and as mentioned doesn't focus on issues what a counsellor would.

I have moved a4e to first as it is better alphabetical. Also a4e holds the largest contracts with DWP which is significantly relevant.

I have added "to continue" (as you aren't making a new claim just continuing an existing one) and "unemployment" (JSA,ESA etc.) as other benefits such as housing allowance wont necessarily be affected.

I propose that the full time education and training is removed as you can't sign on while in full time education. A separate benefit called EMA is available for those going into full time education.

I have edited the line talking about equivalent and top up... as you are continued to be paid JSA but you get an additional £15 called an Training Allowance on top.

I am unware of anyone refusing such an option to have a reduction in benefits - the procedure I am aware of is always termination of benefits. You can't get benefits "suspended" neither for refusal they simply close your claim and you have to either make a new claim (or do a rapid reclaim) or not bother claiming. Sanctions up to 26 weeks can be added for those reclaiming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipswich Unemployed Action (talk • contribs) 10:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The wording of the edits themselves seem to be fine (I would suggest removing the second person pronouns from 'refusal to participate will lead to your benefit claim being stopped and will be referred to a Decision Maker who will decide whether you should receive a sanction should you decide to reclaim.' to maintain a more encyclopaedic tone, eg 'refusal to participate leads to benefits claims being stopped and a referral to a Decision maker, who decides whether to impose a sanction should the claimant decide to reclaim'. But more pressing is the issue of sources (the whole article needs a lot more citations) - personal experience is not enough, per WP:Verifiability other editors have to be able to check your claims, not matter how true you know them to be. Maybe you yourself are unaware of the reduction in benefits option, but maybe in other areas this is common. This is the sort of thing we need to be able to check. I'd also suggest retitling the 'criticism' section to 'reception', or something similar. This would better adhere to WP:NPOV, and allow for a balanced discussion. A spokesman in a BBC report for example stated that New Deal had helped 33,000 people back to work, which can be discussed in the context of other highlighted successes and failings in this section. Benea (talk) 10:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Flexible New Deal

The section in here is barely even a stub.

I think a new article needs be created for F.N.D and a brief paragraph on F.N.D with a link in the section going to the full article. Ipswich Unemployed Action (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm on this at the moment. I've also been on the old New Deal (Adult Program). I can't tell the difference.

The provider is the same company, in the same building, with some of the same staff. You used to be able to do the Clait exam, and a couple of others I think. They don't do this any more. Other than that, we're doing exactly the same things (mostly sat around doing f.. all, with people talking a lot of bull, when they can be bothered).

I've been told they don't do the 26 week 'option' any more. No references, and I'm not sure how suitable for inclusion this is! Dannman (talk) 10:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Does it still exist

Does (Flexible) New Deal still exist? I think they're not doing it in my area any more. I know they are not really doing anything with people who would have gone on it before. Can someone update? Also, if it has gone, then should the article be in the past tense? Dannman (talk) 14:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Deal (United Kingdom). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/69qzLKbbi?url=http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199798/cmhansrd/vo970710/text/70710w22.htm to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199798/cmhansrd/vo970710/text/70710w22.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)