Labour's new policy

Off topic for this blog, of course, but of great interest to many of our readers; Labour's announcement today of its policy on unemployment benefits.
There's a great deal of misinformation out there, some of it deliberate from the right-wing media.  For a straightforward account see Patrick Wintour's article in the Guardian.  I'll simply say what I think, and leave it to readers to agree or disagree.
Labour wants to return to the contributory principle, and I support that.  If you've been working you've accumulated entitlement to help when you're out of work.  That's how National Insurance was conceived, and it's what most people think is fair.  If for whatever reason you run out of contributions, or have never made any, you are still entitled to help, but on a means-tested basis.  That was the system for years.  It doesn't work if you increase the non-contributory benefit (known for years as Income Support level) but don't increase JSA at the same rate.  The differential erodes until there is no distinction.  To avoid that is expensive.
The policy on youth unemployment has caught the headlines.  Those who leave school without adequate skills will have to go onto training to acquire those skills, and will get a training allowance for doing so.  If they don't, they will get benefits but means-tested according to their parents' income.  There are obvious difficulties with that, and Labour has said that those who don't live with their parents will be means-tested differently.  They have not said that the training will be effectively workfare.  If that was the case, or if outsourcing companies were involved in any way, I would be dead against it.  What they seem to be talking about is courses in FE colleges and the like.  I was rather worried by Labour's Stephen Timms today saying that the threshold was "level 3", i.e. A level.  That's too high.  But I don't have a problem with the principle.  Any young person who has had a job will automatically be entitled to JSA.
Those who are outraged by the ideas underlying this policy seem to be claiming that everyone should be entitled to benefits regardless of whether they have made any contribution, including youngsters who come out of school unprepared or unwilling to get a job.  Personally I disagree.  I believe in a society based on the old Marxist maxim: to each according to his need, from each according to his ability.
So wade into the argument if you want to.  But base your comments on facts.

Gordon Brown and the unemployed

"But they shouldn’t be doing that, there is no life on the dole anymore for people, if you’re unemployed you’ve got to go back to work. At six months…" That's a quote from Gordon Brown's run-in with an elderly lady today. And, of course, it's gone unremarked. He didn't finish the sentence, but clearly the intention, if a Labour government is returned, is to copy the Tories' idea of Workfare - compulsory "training" or work-for-your-benefits, or even a cut-off point for benefits. There's nothing to distinguish Labour and the Conservatives, then, and whoever gets in we're going to see an increase in the resentment that so many unemployed people feel at being stigmatised. I see a growing number of posts and blogs on the internet from JSA claimants venting their anger. That is going to get worse.

There's a relevant article on CFE News saying that "Charity claims NEETs view employability courses with contempt".

"Barnardo’s Scotland director Martin Crewe claimed that young people not in education, employment or training (NEETs) view courses designed to improve their job prospects with contempt. Mr Crewe stated that that was not what they wanted, and said: "What they want are real jobs and programmes that will get them employed - not a short-term placement which will leave them more or less back where they started. Sitting around in classrooms for long periods working on their CVs is not going to provide a major boost to the employability prospects of the young people we work with. They know it from day one and regard such schemes with contempt." He went on to say that the Barnardo's Works programme had got 80% of its young participants into sustained employment.

Thought leadership

We reported that A4e were sponsoring discussions at the party conferences. Private Eye picked out their appearance on the Labour Party's agenda (another firm, Avanta, was also involved) and were very scathing about the motives of such events. Now the Training Journal website has given both companies a chance to respond. I particularly like the phrase from A4e, “Thought leadership has long been an important activity for us."

Going to Conference?

If you're going to a party conference (if you're Labour or Conservative, at least) you will this year be able to attend "several events" hosted by A4e, they've announced on their website. A4e are "partnering" with the think tank Demos to talk about - you guessed it - welfare to work. At the Labour conference there's a fringe event, ‘Making Welfare to Work work in a recession’, at which both Yvette Cooper and Mark Lovell will speak. "A4e and Demos will also be hosting a roundtable centred around this theme with Rt Hon Jim Knight MP, Minister of State for Employment and Welfare Reform." If you're thinking that it's a bit much for this company to be in cahoots with ministers - if you think it smacks of touting for business ......

But of course there may be a Conservative government soon, so A4e is hosting similar events at the Tory conference. There's ‘Smart citizens: advice in a world of personalised public services’, an A4e and Reform fringe event. Speaker:

Oliver Letwin MP, Chairman of the Policy Review and of the Conservative Research Department". And "A4e and Reform will also be hosting a roundtable discussing: ‘What role can the integration of welfare and skills provision play in tackling long-term unemployment?’ with Theresa May MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Shadow Minister for Women."

They don't seem to be bothering with the Liberal Democrat conference - no point, really.

A4e will certainly not be the only company using the party conferences as lobbying opportunities. Let's hope that party members are well informed.