Recent Articles
5 thoughts on the great Work Programme fiasco
The government published figures for their Work Programme, designed to help unemployed people to find work. Here are five thoughts on the figures:
1. Performance has been way below the minimum threshold… The Guardian is reporting that 3.5% of people have got jobs lasting at least six months, against a minimum performance target of 5.5%. But today’s figures cover a fourteen month period. So the like for like comparison is that just 2.3% of people have got long term jobs, less than half the minimum performance level.
2. …and the Work Programme has been especially ineffective at helping disabled people. The proportion of people in receipt of Employment Support Allowance who have been helped by the Work Programme to find long term work is 0.93%, according to analysis by the Social Market Foundation. Scope’s analysis found that out of 79,000 Employment and Support Allowance claimants, only 1,000 have been in work for six months.
3. As predicted, workfare doesn’t work. One element of the Work Programme which government ministers have been keen to talk up is about forcing people to participate in ‘workfare’ schemes, where their benefits are conditional on them doing work. It’s worth remembering that this is only one element of the Work Programme, and that many of the participants would either have got jobs without any assistance, or benefited from help with CVs, interview practice, finding out about job opportunities and other sorts of support which providers offered. The number who got paid work as a result of workfare must, therefore, have been absolutely minimal.
4. The fact that none of the providers did well shows that the Work Programme is fundamentally flawed. The Work Programme was designed to give providers the flexibility to do whatever they thought would be effective in supporting people into work, rather than government prescribing one single approach. The fact that none of the providers, private or voluntary, were able to meet the minimum performance targets shows that there is something fundamentally wrong with the programme which goes beyond any individual organisation.
5. But some providers did do better than others. It should come as no surprise to anyone that a4e performed particularly badly in helping people into work. Of the four areas where they were prime contractors, they were top performers in precisely none.
In contrast, Ingeus are prime contractors in six regions, and in every single region, they helped more people into work than the other providers working in the same region.
What’s interesting about this is that Ingeus pay their Employment Advisers substantially more than most other providers, with the aim of recruiting highly skilled people who are able to offer personalised support to help people into work.
This isn’t a magic solution which can overcome all the flaws of the Work Programme, but it is an interesting piece of evidence which is worth remembering the next time you see a public service reformer publish yet another pamphlet calling for public service pay to be held down and asserting that changing structures will lead to better outcomes.
Why we need major action at the Climate Change meet in Doha
by Philip Pearson
As the UN assembles in Qatar for its 18th annual climate change conference, a new UN report warns of a 14 billion tonne “emissions gap” in 2020 between “business as usual” and the emissions level needed to hold the increase of global temperatures below the 2°C target.
14 billions tonnes is more than China’s carbon emissions in 2010 (11 billion tonnes). This week, too, the UK government publishes its long-awaited Energy Bill, but without a “decarbonisation target” for 2030, despite the Energy Secretary’s best efforts.
And so this message from a member of the trade union delegation in Qatar perhaps hits the spot: “Qatar is really a climate nightmare – worse than imagined. Malls with ice skating, gondolas (Venice-style), and the slogan from the Qatari hosts: “Shop til you drop – spend your all-day leisure time shopping and socialising with multi-national shoppers in the malls.”
Last week, too, the World Meterological Organisation reported a new high of 390 parts of CO2 per million in 2011 – the green line, below:
Meanwhile, a new World Bank-commissioned report warns the world is on track to a “4°C world” marked by extreme heat-waves and life-threatening sea level rise. Adverse effects of global warming are “tilted against many of the world’s poorest regions” and likely to undermine development efforts and goals.
The largest increase in poverty because of climate change is likely to occur in Africa, with Bangladesh and Mexico also projected to see substantial.
In Qatar, the trade union delegation is calling for:
» A second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in December 2012.
» Real commitments from Governments to close the “2020 gigatonne gap, which must mean the US and Canada get on board.
» A new legally binding agreement applicable to all and to be finalised and in force by 2015.
» A commitment to Just Transition measures on green jobs, a place at the table for trade unions, and trade union rights of the kind largely denied by the Qatari Government.
Poll shows pro-Europeans could win an EU referendum
A ComRes poll for the Independent today finds that Britons are roughly divided on whether Britain should remain a full member of the EU.
Some 46% agree, while 45% disagree.
The poll also found that a majority of people (54%) were OK with Britain leaving the EU provided it could keep its close trade relationship with the bloc.
Clearly, economic concern then has the potential to overshadow other concerns about the EU.
If businesses could persuade people that leaving would harm trade and jobs – as I’ve been saying – the referendum could be won. Especially since the sceptics are only level pegging with those who want to stay within the EU.
Another problem for Eurosceptics: those aged 18-34 are most likely (71%) to want to stay within the EU, compared to only 34% of those aged 65 and over. Time is not on their side.
In related news, the Daily Telegraph reveals that senior UKIP members have had talks with eight Tory MPs about defecting. Chances of them defecting: I suspect highly low.
David Cameron threw away the best programme to get youths into jobs
New research published by the government has found that the Future Jobs Fund, which David Cameron described as ‘one of the most ineffective jobs schemes ever seen’ was in fact, erm, one of the most effective jobs schemes ever seen.
The report found that:
‘Under the baseline assumptions the FJF programme is estimated to result in:
- 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.
The report also found that ‘the full estimated impact of FJF would be to reduce time on welfare support by 59 days and increase unsubsidised employment by 90 days over the four years after starting a job’.
The Department of Work and Pensions deserves credit for commissioning and publishing this research, but shame on the Tories and Lib Dems who voted, as one of their first acts in government, to cut this programme without waiting for the evidence about whether it worked or not.
Next time you hear a government minister talking about ‘welfare dependency’ or the need to get people into work and off benefits, remember that for the last two years, they could have kept this programme, worked to improve it and made a real difference to reducing youth unemployment.
Instead, they cut it and introduced the new and untested Work Programme, which has helped fewer than 1 in 20 people into jobs lasting at least six months.
This is what happens when welfare policy is run by a group of very privileged people who are more concerned about what sounds good than what works.
According to their own research and advisors, policies like the benefits cap which they claim will save money risk in fact end up costing more in increased homelessness than it saves.
And the policies which they scrap to save money, like the Future Jobs Fund, end up being the ones which benefit participants, employers and society, at a net cost to the taxpayer of around half as much as predicted.
Dorries: ‘I’ve not taken an overseas jolly’. Untrue
Nadine Dorries wrote a self-serving pile of rubbish at Comment is Free.
Same old selective memory.
In my seven and a half years as an MP I think it is important to state that I have never taken a single day away from parliament on one of the many jollies most MPs enjoy to various parts of the world.
Oh rilly???
6. Overseas visits
11-15 June 2006, to Israel hosted by Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI). CFI contributed the costs of flights, accommodation and some meals. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Official Guests Department) contributed to the costs of travel inside Israel, some accommodation and meals. (Registered 29 June 2006)
Source – Register of Members’ Interests, Nadine Dorries
No, there are absolutely no foreign jollies on Nadine’s record whatsoever.
For the record, Parliament was in session between the 12th and 15th June, 2006.
Matters debated that week, while Dorries was away on the jolly she’s conveniently forgotten included the lack of progress in implementing the recommendations of the Bichard Inquiry (at PMQs) , the Electoral Administration Bill, Lords amendments to the Work and Families Bill, the Fraud Bill and a lengthy ‘European Affairs’ debate on the fallout from the failure of the EU to push through its constitutional treaty, which took lace in advance of discussions at the European Council on what would eventually become the Lisbon Treaty.
Nothing important, then.
Tory MP: unemployment benefits should be a loan
Chris Skidmore, MP for Kingswood, and a member of the Free Enterprise Group, has an idea to ‘reform’ the welfare state.
For individuals aged under 25 who have not yet paid National Insurance contributions for a certain period, perhaps five years, unemployment benefit should be in the form of a repayable loan.
An unemployed teenager would still receive the same amount of cash as now, for example, but they would be expected to repay the value once in work.
Ahh. Otherwise known as keeping people in poverty even after they’ve started earning.
His own calculations show it would save barely £1.3bn a year. For that he’s willing to keep some people in poverty.
Other bright ideas:
People over 25 without a contribution record should be obliged to join the Work Programme or an alternative welfare-to-work scheme within three months of beginning to claim – but a record of contribution should delay this requirement incrementally.
Again – this has very little to do with masses of young people deliberately staying on benefits because they’re generous. Young people are on benefits because there aren’t enough jobs to go around.
If the Tories actually did something to grow the economy and create jobs this wouldn’t be an issue. Instead of that task they want to focus on cutting benefits.
(hat-tip Eoin Clarke)
Did businesses lobby Boris to change his stance on the EU referendum?
It looks like someone has whispered into Boris Johnson’s ear that it’s time to start acting serious instead of just playing to the base.
He told Radio 5 Live’s Pienaar’s Politics show yesterday:
Whether you have In/Out referendum now, you know, in the run-up to 2015, I can’t, I have to say I can’t quite see why it would be necessary. What is happening, though, John, is that… the thing that worries me, and I’m going to be making a speech about this pretty soon, the thing that worries me is basically the European Union is changing from what it was initially constituted to be: it is becoming the eurozone de facto, and the eurozone is not something we participate in, and I think it’s becoming a little unfair on us that we are endlessly belaboured and criticised for being the back marker, when actually this project is not one that we think is well-founded or well-thought through.
It is proving to be extremely painful and difficult, and so I think, if the and when the eurozone goes forward into a fiscal, banking union, into a full-scale political union, then I think it is inevitable, given the changes that will entail to the EU constitution, that you will have to consult with the British people about what kind of arrangements they want, and in those circumstances, yes, you should jolly well have a referendum.
This is pretty much the same position as the Labour party. All those people who condemned Ed Miliband then for avoiding a referendum will now have to eat their words (yes, you, Harry Phibbs).
So why has Boris u-turned so abruptly? The Spectator and ConservativeHome are understandably disappointed.
Tim Montgomerie then tweeted
Top source says City lobbying turned Boris against In/Out vote conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2… (prob same City types who wanted UK to join € 15yrs ago)
— Tim Montgomerie (@TimMontgomerie) November 25, 2012
This doesn’t surprise me whatsoever.
I wrote only last week that if Labour want Britain to stay within the EU – their only hope is to get the business community strongly on side and get them to spend a ton of money lobbying everyone that leaving the EU would hurt the economy and cost jobs.
Labour cannot afford to lose an EU referendum or the debate on the issue: it would hurt the party and country for decades. Therefore they need more businesses to lobby Tories now and get them to pull back from the brink.
The Boris u-turn is a good start but only the start of this long battle. I favour a referendum, but want businesses to be fully engaged in battle to point out its impact.
Does Labour have anything to fear from UKIP in Rotherham?
by Giselle Green
Nigel Farage must think Christmas has come a month early. The extraordinary decision by Rotherham Social Services to apparently rip apart a thriving foster family because the parents were members of UKIP has delivered the PR goal of the season to Mr Farage.
Public sympathy for Farage must be at an all time high. He can also thank the car crash interviews of Rotherham’s Director of Children’s Services Joyce Thacker who explained that the “strong views” of UKIP members were incompatible with looking after kids who are “not indigenous white”.
Social workers had apparently gone further and told the foster mum that UKIP has racist policies, implying that she and her husband were also racists. Putting aside the rights and wrongs of UKIP’s stated policy of ending mass immigration, surely the very fact that these people, who had been “exemplary” foster parents for nearly 7 years, took on these children undermines the council’s own argument.
One possibility behind the curious decision is that social workers may have been guilty of confusing UKIP with the BNP. Maybe they had seen the ComRes poll last week which showed around 12% of UKIP supporters would seriously consider voting BNP at the next election. (5% of Labour supporters would do the same.) Or maybe they were too closely studying David Cameron’s now infamous description of UKIP in 2006 as “fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists”. This statement was denied yesterday, then hastily un-denied.
The overlooked political aspect of this affair though is why are former Labour voters turning to UKIP? The foster parents apparently used to be Labour supporters but switched to UKIP a couple of years ago. Ed Miliband has called for an urgent investigation into Rotherham council’s actions.
Maybe what he needs to call for is an urgent investigation into whether this anecdotal evidence is part of a wider picture. There are endless polls on how many Tory voters might put their cross in the UKIP box. Last week’s ComRes poll showed 26% of Tory voters would “seriously consider” voting for UKIP. But I can’t recall any that look at the UKIP threat to Labour. Is this because there is no perceived threat?
Certainly the Labour candidate in the Rotherham by-election may now be feeling the heat from the UKIP scandal, given the decision to remove the foster children was made by a Labour-led council and she could find votes slipping away because of it.
Interestingly, Nigel Farage admitted on LBC yesterday that he would be prepared to deal with Labour in the event of a hung parliament. He also said he was even prepared to deal with the devil. Form the time being though, Mr Farage must be counting his blessings.
—
Giselle Green ran Siobhan Benita’s media campaign in the London Mayoral election
Lord Freud displays his class bias towards welfare claimants
Lord Freud says:
People who are poorer should be prepared to take the biggest risks; they’ve got least to lose.
This seems ignorant of basic economics and psychology. Yes, the poor have less to lose. But the little they have is more important to them. A loss which means you don't eat is more painful than one which means you can't replace the Merc this month. That's the diminishing marginal utility of wealth.
For this reason, we should expect the poor to be less prepared to take risks than the rich. And the econometric evidence seems (pdf) to roughly support this.
Granted, the poorest 10% spend proportionately more on gambling than the rich – but it accounts for only around 1% of their overall spending compared to less than 0.2% for the better-off (table A6 here). And some of this difference, I suspect, reflects the fact that the rich gamble on better odds (eg spread bets versus the lottery) and so reduce their net spending, and also do some of their gambling by buying shares.
The facts that the City is "rife" with gambling addicts, that horse-racing has traditionally been "the sport of kings" and that Monaco is renowned for its casinos tell us that many of the rich have long been tolerant of risk. Which is consistent with diminishing marginal utility of wealth.
Why, then, is Freud making a claim which has such a suspect empirical basis?
Class, that's why. Take these statements:
The rich should take more risks. They should use their wealth and their so-called skills to set up new businesses and create jobs, rather than stay in cushy rent-seeking jobs in management and finance.
The problem with the rich is their selfish reluctance to pay tax. They should be more responsible citizens with better tax morale.
Such views are not often expressed by the likes of Freud.This is because of a class bias. Rulers often see the attitudes and behaviour of the poor as a problem to be solved by exhortation and policy, whereas the attitudes of the rich are givens, to which governments must adapt. Hence Freud's hectoring of the poor but not the rich.
This asymmetry is an old one; I suspect you could find it in ancient Rome. Here's C.B. Macpherson on the 17th century:
The Puritan doctrine of the poor, treating poverty as a mark of moral shortcoming, added moral obloquy to the political disregard in which the poor had always been held…Objects of solicitude ot pity or scorn and sometimes of fear, the poor were not full members of a moral community…But while the poor were, in this view, less than full members, they were certainly subject to the jurisdictions of the political community. (The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism, p226-27)
There's not been much intellectual progress in these last few centuries.
Reclaim the Future event calls for debate on austerity
Since the financial crisis broke in 2008 we have seen a rising tide of protest, revolutions and resistance across the globe.
One of the driving forces of these movements has been a desire to change the future: to reject the idea that we have no options outside of the logic of never ending austerity, declining living standards and the loss of public services.
‘Up the Anti’ is a one day conference for reflection, discussion and debate on how we lay claim to the future that we want and deserve. It will host an eclectic mix of sessions, ranging from in-depth seminars and debates to participatory, facilitated discussions and workshops.
The aim is to make the day as participatory as possible, encouraging members of the audience to expose their concerns and suggest their solutions to the problems we hear about on the media every day.
The event is a genuine product of the social movements we have seen in the UK, being put together by a plurality of groups, websites, publishing houses, and networks. It is sponsored by New Left Project, Ceasefire magazine, OT newspaper, Anticapitalist Initiative, Red Pepper magazine, Pluto Press and Globalise Resistance.
Speakers will include, among others, David Graeber, Hillel Ticktin, Dan Hind and Mark Fisher, as well as the editors of What We Are Fighting For: A Radical Collective Manifesto (Pluto Press, 2012).
The conference after-party: ‘Stand Up… Against the Government’, will take place at Drapers Bar from 8pm onwards, featuring stand-up comedians Kate Smurthwaite and Chris Coltrane, and up-and-coming blues musician Sean Taylor.
Tickets range from £3 to £10: uptheanti.org.uk
1 December 2012, 10.30am
Queen Mary University, Mile End, London
35 Comments
48 Comments
21 Comments
49 Comments
4 Comments14 Comments
27 Comments
16 Comments34 Comments
65 Comments
36 Comments
17 Comments1 Comment
19 Comments
46 Comments
53 Comments
64 Comments
28 Comments
12 Comments5 CommentsNEWS ARTICLES ARCHIVE