If you didn't see the Panorama programme last night, you really should. It's on iplayer. It's called Workers on the Breadline and is a real eye-opener for those who think poor people are all idle and feckless. It looked at working people whose incomes have to be topped up by tax credits. (The presenter used the word hand-outs a lot, and I objected to that, but perhaps he was just reflecting the language of the right-wing press.) There were couples where both partners worked (and had no more than three children) but even with WTC were living on the edge; and there was a single man, Jason, working in a zero hours job, earning around £10k a year and getting only £300 a year in WTC. These were real people, struggling (and in Jason's case drowning) and knowing that it will only get worse. It was pointed out that working overtime or extra hours isn't the answer because you lose most of your benefit, and for people with children the cost of childcare is impossible. I haven't seen the BBC do anything this competent and important for years, so it's sad to learn that they're ditching all investigative reporting from Panorama. There were no politicians waffling; the positions of the two main parties were set out succinctly. And two authorities offered no solutions, admitting that Britain has become a low-skilled economy and wages are far too low. While education and skills would seem to be important, one said, if you come out of university and the only work you can get is stacking shelves, that in itself isn't the answer.
There was a disturbing report from Liverpool on Saturday that half the jobs on Merseyside are now temporary agency jobs. (See this Liverpool Echo piece.) Agencies like Prime Time get hand-outs from the government to take people on under the Work Programme then pay them so little that, after travel costs, they can come away with £3.72 an hour.
This is a lunatic downward spiral. Of the families featured on the Panorama programme, one husband and wife both work at Tesco. But they can't afford to shop there. All the big supermarkets are losing market share to the discounters. And that's just one obvious result of how making people suffer frozen wages and benefit cuts impacts on the economy as a whole. Those at the very top rake in a bigger and bigger share of the nation's money, but they don't spend it down at the supermarket.
What is the answer, then? Raising the minimum wage is an obvious part of it, despite the protests of business that they can't afford it. Genuine skills training has to be in there too. Jason said in the programme that the only way he could see of getting a better job was to have a driving license, but he obviously couldn't afford driving lessons. Why not set up a free driving school for people in his position? And anyone who has spent years working in a particular industry and then loses his job should be re-trained. Another component is to get rid of all the free labour, workfare schemes which allow companies to avoid actually hiring people.
The answer is not the Work Programme. Both Labour and the Lib Dems have come round to the idea that local councils have to be in control of this. They couldn't just end the contracts but they could negotiate changes which would give councils the power to commission programmes suited to the needs of their areas, and to use the money currently being wasted on the WP to fund the the schemes many councils are already operating in conjunction with skills training organisations.
The status quo is not an option for much longer.
Showing posts with label BBC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BBC. Show all posts
Tuesday, 7 October 2014
Sunday, 7 September 2014
News round-up
With so much going on in the world the media, particularly the BBC, can happily ignore the issues which concern the poorest in Britain. They managed - just - to report the fact that the government lost a vote on the bedroom tax. It was a private member's bill, introduced by a Lib Dem (!) to water down the current rules by exempting disabled people who need the extra room or have adapted homes, as well as those who can't be found a smaller home to move to. Labour backed it and the government lost by 306 votes to 231. It will now go to committee stage and is unlikely to get through its third reading and into law. But it's a start. Unfortunately the BBC managed to spread misinformation. The website piece says that the original changes "were designed to ensure social tenants get the same treatment as private tenants, who do not get any rent support". I don't know what he means by "rent support", but this suggests that private tenants don't get housing benefit, which is untrue. The piece also quotes Iain Duncan Smith as claiming that the changes would cost the Treasury £1 billion, a figure which is as accurate as all IDS's numbers.
Then we read about the "attitude to work" assessments which the gormless Esther McVey is now going to impose on the unemployed. It's an idea borrowed from Ingeus, apparently. You can read the Daily Mail version if you really want to, or the less hysterical version in the Independent. Although she's presenting it as voluntary, and as a way of not putting people on courses they don't need, there are obviously fears that it will be another way of catching people out and sanctioning them.
On the outsourcing front, there was an interesting article in the Independent about the race to, in effect, privatise the probation service. It suggests that there are 5 companies involved - Capita, Sodexo, Amey, Interserve and Carillion - and that they would be well advised to have nothing to do with it. They are very unlikely to make a profit.
Finally, please read the Guardian piece by John Lanchester about poverty and inequality.
Then we read about the "attitude to work" assessments which the gormless Esther McVey is now going to impose on the unemployed. It's an idea borrowed from Ingeus, apparently. You can read the Daily Mail version if you really want to, or the less hysterical version in the Independent. Although she's presenting it as voluntary, and as a way of not putting people on courses they don't need, there are obviously fears that it will be another way of catching people out and sanctioning them.
On the outsourcing front, there was an interesting article in the Independent about the race to, in effect, privatise the probation service. It suggests that there are 5 companies involved - Capita, Sodexo, Amey, Interserve and Carillion - and that they would be well advised to have nothing to do with it. They are very unlikely to make a profit.
Finally, please read the Guardian piece by John Lanchester about poverty and inequality.
Saturday, 28 June 2014
What news?
I haven't been able to blog for a while. But now, looking over what's been happening, I have to conclude that nothing is changing, except for the worse. Iain Duncan Smith has lost another court battle, this time to keep secret the damaging documents on the mess that is Universal Credit. But it won't make any difference. The ruling will be ignored. The Financial Times devoted an article to Labour's intentions on outsourcing and the Work Programme. They would get rid of the big, centrally organised contracts and devolve the responsibility down to a more local level. This is similar to the system which operated up to 2006. But Rachel Reeves said nothing about payment by results. She did say that outsourcing companies would have to pay their workers more than minimum wage.
Labour has forced a debate in the Commons next Monday on the shambles in the DWP. Expect no Tories except the minister to attend, and certainly expect no coverage at all in the media.
And that brings me to the growing concern about BBC bias. A friend of mine - intelligent, thoughtful, well-informed - was completely unaware that a peaceful demonstration by around 50,000 people against austerity had happened in central London. Like many other people (reportedly a majority) she relies on the BBC for news; and the BBC didn't report it, until very late and then as a tiny item. If there is political bias in the BBC it matters far more than the built-in ideology of the printed media.
It used to be said - and still is by right-wingers - that the BBC is biased towards the left. That can't be sustained any longer. We know that in 2010 Mark Thompson, then head of the BBC, had a meeting with David Cameron in 10 Downing Street and agreed not to attack the new government's approach. Four years on we see Conservatives and their agenda dominating. Remember that the BBC decides what is news. Producers or editors choose what to put in their bulletins, what items to include in politics programmes, who to interview and what approach to take. If they don't report something, most people won't know about it.
In the run-up to the May elections people began to complain about the amount of coverage that UKIP was getting. This apparent determination to promote UKIP was also evident in the aftermath of those elections. Of course, the BBC spokespeople, as well as individual editors, insisted that they had merely given "parity" to the various parties, based on their electoral support. It was nonsense, because it wasn't the issue. UKIP and its policies were being allowed to set the agenda; immigration and Europe dominated. After the elections one would have thought, from the BBC's coverage, that UKIP had beaten Labour, and the Tories hadn't actually taken part.
One could understand, though not excuse, the reluctance of the BBC to cover issues related to the DWP. But this dodging of issues extends across many areas of government business. When did we last hear an analysis of what's going on in the NHS? In Justice? And when did we last hear an opposition spokesperson interviewed with the same respect and deference accorded to the government?
Tory-supporting presenters and interviewers now no longer have to pretend to neutrality. Andrew Neil will tear into Labour MPs, talking over them, sneering at them; the contempt is very obvious. The Tory MPs with whom he dines get a very different treatment. Andrew Marr and John Humphrys are not much better.
Before you say that this has nothing to do with the subject of this blog, think again. If you rely on the BBC for your knowledge of what's going on in this country then you will have a very limited and partial view. You will know nothing about A4e and only a little about the other outsourcing companies. You will not understand the inherent dangers of outsourcing and privatisation. And we will wake up in May 2015 to a majority Conservative government which will complete the flogging-off of all our public services for private profit.
Labour has forced a debate in the Commons next Monday on the shambles in the DWP. Expect no Tories except the minister to attend, and certainly expect no coverage at all in the media.
And that brings me to the growing concern about BBC bias. A friend of mine - intelligent, thoughtful, well-informed - was completely unaware that a peaceful demonstration by around 50,000 people against austerity had happened in central London. Like many other people (reportedly a majority) she relies on the BBC for news; and the BBC didn't report it, until very late and then as a tiny item. If there is political bias in the BBC it matters far more than the built-in ideology of the printed media.
It used to be said - and still is by right-wingers - that the BBC is biased towards the left. That can't be sustained any longer. We know that in 2010 Mark Thompson, then head of the BBC, had a meeting with David Cameron in 10 Downing Street and agreed not to attack the new government's approach. Four years on we see Conservatives and their agenda dominating. Remember that the BBC decides what is news. Producers or editors choose what to put in their bulletins, what items to include in politics programmes, who to interview and what approach to take. If they don't report something, most people won't know about it.
In the run-up to the May elections people began to complain about the amount of coverage that UKIP was getting. This apparent determination to promote UKIP was also evident in the aftermath of those elections. Of course, the BBC spokespeople, as well as individual editors, insisted that they had merely given "parity" to the various parties, based on their electoral support. It was nonsense, because it wasn't the issue. UKIP and its policies were being allowed to set the agenda; immigration and Europe dominated. After the elections one would have thought, from the BBC's coverage, that UKIP had beaten Labour, and the Tories hadn't actually taken part.
One could understand, though not excuse, the reluctance of the BBC to cover issues related to the DWP. But this dodging of issues extends across many areas of government business. When did we last hear an analysis of what's going on in the NHS? In Justice? And when did we last hear an opposition spokesperson interviewed with the same respect and deference accorded to the government?
Tory-supporting presenters and interviewers now no longer have to pretend to neutrality. Andrew Neil will tear into Labour MPs, talking over them, sneering at them; the contempt is very obvious. The Tory MPs with whom he dines get a very different treatment. Andrew Marr and John Humphrys are not much better.
Before you say that this has nothing to do with the subject of this blog, think again. If you rely on the BBC for your knowledge of what's going on in this country then you will have a very limited and partial view. You will know nothing about A4e and only a little about the other outsourcing companies. You will not understand the inherent dangers of outsourcing and privatisation. And we will wake up in May 2015 to a majority Conservative government which will complete the flogging-off of all our public services for private profit.
Saturday, 21 June 2014
Incredible attack on the BBC
I've only just seen this incredible story in the Mail; I thought the news feed was a parody at first. But no. Iain Duncan Smith is furious and has complained bitterly because the BBC led its news bulletins with the story "with more criticism of the Government’s changes to the bloated benefits system". George Osborne is said to be miffed as well. "Mr Duncan Smith claimed the corporation had run five negative stories this week alone about sickness and disability benefits, and ‘ignored’ a major announcement on an extension of his flagship new universal credit." The attack goes relentlessly on. "‘Who is the biggest opponent of welfare reform? Not a weak Labour Party, but the relentlessly negative BBC,’ he said. We have successfully introduced the benefits cap to make sure a life on benefits must not be more attractive than working and we have achieved record employment, with more women in work than ever before. But the BBC news appears to consistently rely on a narrow band of commentators who are overwhelmingly negative." The DWP has lodged a formal complaint.
This is absolutely chilling. It confirms what we knew; that the BBC has to tread gingerly because of overt threats to its funding. But it's a direct undermining of democracy. The state broadcaster must report only what the government wants it to report. It must never criticise. It must allow a minister to say whatever fiction he wants to.
Iain Duncan Smith is a very dangerous man. He has the mindset of a dictator, delusional and unhinged, and he is being allowed to wreak havoc. The BBC must not give in to this blackmail.
This is absolutely chilling. It confirms what we knew; that the BBC has to tread gingerly because of overt threats to its funding. But it's a direct undermining of democracy. The state broadcaster must report only what the government wants it to report. It must never criticise. It must allow a minister to say whatever fiction he wants to.
Iain Duncan Smith is a very dangerous man. He has the mindset of a dictator, delusional and unhinged, and he is being allowed to wreak havoc. The BBC must not give in to this blackmail.
Wednesday, 11 June 2014
Question Time
Iain Duncan Smith is on BBC's Question Time tonight. Don't expect any hard questions, however. It's clear from the line-up that the intention is to lead on the issue of Islam in schools. If you're thinking that it depends on what questions the audience ask, you'd be wrong. I was in a QT audience 10 years ago, and I don't suppose much has changed. The producers select those questions they want to use. However, since another panel member is Labour's Chris Bryant, who is the shadow welfare minister, there will probably be a discussion on employment. There's a useful summary on FullFact which could help with that.
It's also possible that the Oxfam graphic will be raised. Tories hate it and are attacking Oxfam's charitable status because they've become "political". The Daily Mail has the right-wing response, but there's a very sensible article by Richard Murphy on the Tax Research UK site. There could be a lively argument on this, especially as Ian Hislop is also on the panel. I don't suppose for one moment that IDS will be asked about threats to shut down the Trussell Trust.
The programme will inevitably be a disappointment, but Twitter should be fun.
The programme will inevitably be a disappointment, but Twitter should be fun.
Tuesday, 3 June 2014
Nothing works
Remember the Work Programme? Of course you do. But, like so much of what this government has done, the WP has been forgotten by most of the media; and its successor, "Help to Work", is just being ignored.
But the businesses contracted to deliver the WP have to plough on until 2016. And A4e has resumed its practice of inviting MPs into their local offices to admire what they're doing. Rob Wilson, Tory MP for Reading East, said, “I was very pleased to hear that A4e has seen a reduction in client numbers because of the success of the Work Programme getting people back into work and off benefits. Clients are supported by A4e staff after starting work to help ensure they are able to manage in their job. This extra support is essential to keep people in the new job.” John Bercow, Tory MP for Buckingham (and Speaker of the Commons) was equally impressed by A4e's work in Milton Keynes. Another cheer-leader is Dan Finn, Professor of Social Inclusion at Portsmouth University. He's written a piece on Serco's own website asking, "Is it working?" and concluding that it is, with a few caveats. And yet .... Huge amounts of money have been spent on this, with very low targets which are not being met. It was meant to solve unemployment and certainly hasn't.
So IDS came up with "Help to Work". It was supposed, after a delay, to start yesterday, but there's another delay. Could that be because of the difficulties in finding placements for all those sentenced to workfare? There's a good piece on the Ekklesia website, and another on ThirdSector's site. A growing number of voluntary organisations and local councils have signed up to a boycott of the scheme. If they can't find placements with charities and councils the firms with the contracts will have to offer this free labour to private companies. But, ostrich-like, "A spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions said: 'Referrals to the placements have begun and the placements will begin shortly. There has been no delay. Charities are under no obligation to be in the scheme, but those who are recognise the benefits of it.'"
Despite the fact that everything he has touched has turned to dross, Iain Duncan Smith believes it's all wonderful. If you can stomach it, read his speech on welfare reform in Berlin. And if we needed confirmation that IDS has a headlock on the BBC, it comes in the Express. Talking about the Tories' promise of an EU referendum, "Iain Duncan Smith lashed out at the BBC for failing to give enough prominence to Mr Cameron’s promise of an in-out vote in 2017. The Work and Pensions Secretary said 'most people' do not even know about the pledge. A BBC spokeswoman said: 'We are satisfied that we have covered the EU referendum promise.'"
But the businesses contracted to deliver the WP have to plough on until 2016. And A4e has resumed its practice of inviting MPs into their local offices to admire what they're doing. Rob Wilson, Tory MP for Reading East, said, “I was very pleased to hear that A4e has seen a reduction in client numbers because of the success of the Work Programme getting people back into work and off benefits. Clients are supported by A4e staff after starting work to help ensure they are able to manage in their job. This extra support is essential to keep people in the new job.” John Bercow, Tory MP for Buckingham (and Speaker of the Commons) was equally impressed by A4e's work in Milton Keynes. Another cheer-leader is Dan Finn, Professor of Social Inclusion at Portsmouth University. He's written a piece on Serco's own website asking, "Is it working?" and concluding that it is, with a few caveats. And yet .... Huge amounts of money have been spent on this, with very low targets which are not being met. It was meant to solve unemployment and certainly hasn't.
So IDS came up with "Help to Work". It was supposed, after a delay, to start yesterday, but there's another delay. Could that be because of the difficulties in finding placements for all those sentenced to workfare? There's a good piece on the Ekklesia website, and another on ThirdSector's site. A growing number of voluntary organisations and local councils have signed up to a boycott of the scheme. If they can't find placements with charities and councils the firms with the contracts will have to offer this free labour to private companies. But, ostrich-like, "A spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions said: 'Referrals to the placements have begun and the placements will begin shortly. There has been no delay. Charities are under no obligation to be in the scheme, but those who are recognise the benefits of it.'"
Despite the fact that everything he has touched has turned to dross, Iain Duncan Smith believes it's all wonderful. If you can stomach it, read his speech on welfare reform in Berlin. And if we needed confirmation that IDS has a headlock on the BBC, it comes in the Express. Talking about the Tories' promise of an EU referendum, "Iain Duncan Smith lashed out at the BBC for failing to give enough prominence to Mr Cameron’s promise of an in-out vote in 2017. The Work and Pensions Secretary said 'most people' do not even know about the pledge. A BBC spokeswoman said: 'We are satisfied that we have covered the EU referendum promise.'"
Monday, 19 May 2014
The mess that is Universal Credit
If you depended on the BBC for your news - and apparently many still do - or if you thought that the Sun, the Mail and the Express were newspapers, you would know nothing about Universal Credit beyond the vague assurances that it's coming and will "make work pay". But there are still some real journalists who take an interest in such matters. One of them is Emily Dugan, who wrote a disturbing piece for the Independent on Saturday. She went to Warrington, one of the pilot areas, and spoke to the people who are having to suffer the consequences of UC; the claimants whose benefit wasn't paid or who found themselves in rent arrears because the money which was supposed to go straight to the landlord didn't; the Housing Associations trying to cope with a haphazard system which puts tenants at risk of eviction through no fault of their own; the CAB worker who says that the problems are increasing.
Sheila Gilmore MP is on the Work & Pensions select committee. She has written a piece on the Progress website about what they are being told and why they don't believe it. The meaningless waffle they get from civil servants is familiar to many of us, but it's trying to hide the fact that UC is a grotesque failure.
There are still only about 6,000 people on UC, and they are all the "easy" cases - single, no complications. Yet the IT obviously doesn't work even for them. I reckon that the plan for the Tories is simply to coast towards the 2015 election, delaying the roll-out. After that, whoever gets in can make the decision on whether to cancel the whole grisly project or to plough on since the only people who will suffer don't count.
The same may well apply to Help to Work. It was supposed to have started, but the workfare component was delayed to give at least the semblance of legitimacy to G4S's chunk of the contracts (no one was fooled but the DWP doesn't care). The rest of it - signing on every day, spending all day every day doing "jobsearch" in the Jobcentre - was never feasible and hasn't started either. But as far as Iain Duncan Smith is concerned, who cares? The propaganda has been successful beyond his wildest dreams. And there are very few journalists out there willing to report the truth.
Sheila Gilmore MP is on the Work & Pensions select committee. She has written a piece on the Progress website about what they are being told and why they don't believe it. The meaningless waffle they get from civil servants is familiar to many of us, but it's trying to hide the fact that UC is a grotesque failure.
There are still only about 6,000 people on UC, and they are all the "easy" cases - single, no complications. Yet the IT obviously doesn't work even for them. I reckon that the plan for the Tories is simply to coast towards the 2015 election, delaying the roll-out. After that, whoever gets in can make the decision on whether to cancel the whole grisly project or to plough on since the only people who will suffer don't count.
The same may well apply to Help to Work. It was supposed to have started, but the workfare component was delayed to give at least the semblance of legitimacy to G4S's chunk of the contracts (no one was fooled but the DWP doesn't care). The rest of it - signing on every day, spending all day every day doing "jobsearch" in the Jobcentre - was never feasible and hasn't started either. But as far as Iain Duncan Smith is concerned, who cares? The propaganda has been successful beyond his wildest dreams. And there are very few journalists out there willing to report the truth.
Thursday, 6 March 2014
UJM and slumming
I was composing a reflective piece on the last six years; but two news stories yesterday are more important.
First, of course, there's Universal Job Match. It's not news to us, or to thousands of people, but because Frank Field MP has spoken out the media are taking notice. There are articles in the Guardian, the Independent, the Mirror and the Huffington Post which tell the story. Channel 4 News are running a story on it, and I think the Radio 2 Jeremy Vine programme has already done a feature. So, mercifully, this scandal is now out there, and there has to be action. What the DWP should do (but won't, obviously) is to take the site down immediately. They can't tinker with it because it's owned and run by a private company, so Monster should be sued for breach of contract. If it's possible, revert to the old direct.gov site which compiled vacancies from all the jobcentres. It worked. If not possible, then chuck out the idea of a single site altogether. Jobseekers should be immediately freed from the obligation to use UJM.
The second bit of news is horribly depressing. The BBC have commissioned another entertainment series from the people who brought you Benefits Street, to be called Famous, Rich and Hungry. Yes, we all have fond memories of a previous effort, Famous, Rich and Jobless, which gave A4e's Emma Harrison the chance to swan about looking as if she knew what she was doing. For an opinion on the latest offering I can't do better than Tanya Gold in the Guardian.
Just as the government has reverted to Victorian attitudes towards the poor, so have the rich reverted to a very Victorian practice - slumming. It got going in the 1880s, particularly in the East End of London. It was a form of tourism, with the wealthy going amongst the slums seeking excitement and illicit thrills. Some went out of genuinely altruistic motives, to do good works, but for many it was just a fun night out. So it is with the media today. Such a pity that the BBC thinks that this sort of "entertainment" is appropriate.
Before these two stories broke, Frances Ryan wrote an excellent piece in the New Statesman. The case she makes is strengthened today.
First, of course, there's Universal Job Match. It's not news to us, or to thousands of people, but because Frank Field MP has spoken out the media are taking notice. There are articles in the Guardian, the Independent, the Mirror and the Huffington Post which tell the story. Channel 4 News are running a story on it, and I think the Radio 2 Jeremy Vine programme has already done a feature. So, mercifully, this scandal is now out there, and there has to be action. What the DWP should do (but won't, obviously) is to take the site down immediately. They can't tinker with it because it's owned and run by a private company, so Monster should be sued for breach of contract. If it's possible, revert to the old direct.gov site which compiled vacancies from all the jobcentres. It worked. If not possible, then chuck out the idea of a single site altogether. Jobseekers should be immediately freed from the obligation to use UJM.
The second bit of news is horribly depressing. The BBC have commissioned another entertainment series from the people who brought you Benefits Street, to be called Famous, Rich and Hungry. Yes, we all have fond memories of a previous effort, Famous, Rich and Jobless, which gave A4e's Emma Harrison the chance to swan about looking as if she knew what she was doing. For an opinion on the latest offering I can't do better than Tanya Gold in the Guardian.
Before these two stories broke, Frances Ryan wrote an excellent piece in the New Statesman. The case she makes is strengthened today.
Monday, 17 February 2014
The BBC blew it - again
BBC Newsnight tonight announces an item on "sanctions", so I watch with interest. It goes to a food bank in Accrington (I think) and its manager talks eloquently about the hardships people are suffering. A few people are singled out; a 61-year-old man who had worked all his life until made redundant two years ago; a young man with learning difficulties; both punished for not applying for enough jobs. Back to the studio, and Victoria Derbyshire conducts an interview with two MPs; Debbie Abrahams (Labour), who is on the Work & Pensions select committee, and Nadhim Zahawi (Tory). It's a sorry spectacle. Abrahams tries to bring out the reality of sanctions, Zahawi parrots the familiar lies, and is allowed to talk over her and dominate the "discussion". Just when you think the BBC might be finding its backbone, it caves in.
Friday, 10 January 2014
Weekend round-up
Still waiting for A4e's accounts, but as one of our commenters points out, A4e has frequently been late filing its accounts in recent years. Perhaps of more immediate interest is the down-grading of its credit rating. But while we await developments there are the usual attempts by the DWP to hide its own incompetence. The news came out that there has been a blunder with the hated bedroom tax. Anyone who was on HB before 1996 and has been on it ever since should not be subject to the new legislation; they are covered by an older law which wasn't superseded by the new one. One estimate is that this applies to around 40,000 people, many of whom have already had to go through the misery of losing their home or trying to exist on less money. And I reckon that many of the people who have been on HB that long will be disabled or have long-term conditions. So the government intends to "close the loop-hole". It's not clear whether that will mean more retro-active legislation, or whether they can just sneak it through on a Statutory Instrument, which doesn't go through Parliament. Either way, why did those highly-paid civil service lawyers not spot this before?
The DWP tried to distract from this with news that the benefits cap is very successful. This is perhaps the most popular of all their bites at benefits, because it seems only fair that you shouldn't get more than many people can earn. But it obscures the fact that the bulk of the money goes to landlords, not the claimants, so if you live in an expensively-rented home and suddenly lose your job, you will lose your home as well; this is shown by the fact that the large majority of the boroughs where people have been affected are in London.
The row about Channel 4's Benefits Street rumbles on. The Daily Mail's contribution comes from John Bird, who is the founder of the Big Issue. It's typically confused. Bird thinks that the show tells the truth about benefits, and he's an expert, he says, because he came through dire poverty himself. Perhaps the worst example of right-wing hate-mongering came from Katie Hopkins on the BBC's This Week last night. Who's Katie Hopkins? Quite. Her only claim to fame is that she was on The Apprentice; she now writes for the Sun, and seems to have taken the place of Kelvin McKenzie as the nutter of choice for TV producers wanting to anger their viewers. (The Daily Star called her rent-a-gob.) Last night she called for more welfare cuts; directly insulted Diane Abbott MP, who showed remarkable restraint by not decking her; and said, "Food banks are a con." The rage about her on Facebook, most of it, I guess, not from benefits claimants, shows that we might just have reached a point where the general public is embarrassed by this continual demonisation of the poorest.
One bit of news about the DWP itself came from an unlikely source - the Telegraph. It revealed that more than 1,100 DWP staff have been warned over "prying" on benefits records. That's breaches of privacy, accessing records they had no right to see.
Finally, how's this for irony? "BBC misleads public every day on scale of cuts, fumes Cameron". Yes, it's the Daily Mail describing Cameron getting annoyed on Radio Merseyside when he as accused of treating Liverpool unfairly. No wonder the BBC has become so tepid in its journalism.
The DWP tried to distract from this with news that the benefits cap is very successful. This is perhaps the most popular of all their bites at benefits, because it seems only fair that you shouldn't get more than many people can earn. But it obscures the fact that the bulk of the money goes to landlords, not the claimants, so if you live in an expensively-rented home and suddenly lose your job, you will lose your home as well; this is shown by the fact that the large majority of the boroughs where people have been affected are in London.
The row about Channel 4's Benefits Street rumbles on. The Daily Mail's contribution comes from John Bird, who is the founder of the Big Issue. It's typically confused. Bird thinks that the show tells the truth about benefits, and he's an expert, he says, because he came through dire poverty himself. Perhaps the worst example of right-wing hate-mongering came from Katie Hopkins on the BBC's This Week last night. Who's Katie Hopkins? Quite. Her only claim to fame is that she was on The Apprentice; she now writes for the Sun, and seems to have taken the place of Kelvin McKenzie as the nutter of choice for TV producers wanting to anger their viewers. (The Daily Star called her rent-a-gob.) Last night she called for more welfare cuts; directly insulted Diane Abbott MP, who showed remarkable restraint by not decking her; and said, "Food banks are a con." The rage about her on Facebook, most of it, I guess, not from benefits claimants, shows that we might just have reached a point where the general public is embarrassed by this continual demonisation of the poorest.
One bit of news about the DWP itself came from an unlikely source - the Telegraph. It revealed that more than 1,100 DWP staff have been warned over "prying" on benefits records. That's breaches of privacy, accessing records they had no right to see.
Finally, how's this for irony? "BBC misleads public every day on scale of cuts, fumes Cameron". Yes, it's the Daily Mail describing Cameron getting annoyed on Radio Merseyside when he as accused of treating Liverpool unfairly. No wonder the BBC has become so tepid in its journalism.
Friday, 31 May 2013
Intensive and uncompromising
You're coming to the end of your two years on the Work Programme. What now? After all that "tailored support" (don't laugh) you still can't get a job. Perhaps now they'll get off your back for a while. But no. According to a government press release, "Work Programme leavers will be targeted by a hit squad of specialist advisers as part of a tough approach to get them into a job."
You see, it's your fault. You've had all that help but you remain stubbornly unemployed, so clearly what you need is an "intensive and uncompromising regime ....... with rigorous monitoring to ensure they are doing everything they can to find work". This will be delivered by the Jobcentres. People will be put onto training schemes, Mandatory Work Activity placements or "intensive work preparation" as soon as they come off the WP. An extra £30m is going on this, for extra training and specialist help such as counselling for drug or alcohol dependency. Another requirement: "Every Work Programme returner will also be required to register with Universal Jobmatch to aid work search and job matching and to allow their adviser to check their work search activity online." There has, apparently, been a pilot scheme (where?) which proved, said officials, that "claimants targeted by an intensive approach were much less likely to stay on benefit." (Telegraph) No figures, you notice, but we would have no reason to believe them if there were.
This is a tacit acknowledgement that the WP is a waste of money. Two years in which all this stuff was supposed to be happening and obviously wasn't - so throw a bit more money at it, cutting out the WP providers. But the attitude is ingrained in this government that people are out of work by choice, and if you just keep cranking up the pressure they'll get a job. Or, at least, they will disappear from the lists of benefits claimants.
Labour has said that WP leavers would be forced to accept a paid job, but we wait for them to fill in the details. It surely has to be better than this government's clueless plan.
One bit of good news: the BBC reports that in 2012-2013, 708 employers have been fined for paying less than minimum wage, and affected workers have got an average of £300 in back pay. One of the guilty employers is described as a "national retailer", but is not named. Why not?
Update: Today, Saturday, the odious Express tells the story in its own disgusting way. "Hit squads to force workshy back into jobs" is the headline. It goes on: "At the heart of the Government’s reforms is frustration at a generation of lifelong layabouts, immortalised by fictional Frank Gallagher from TVs Shameless", and there's a photo to illustrate these workshy people. As we've said before, it suits the government to have its actions portrayed in this lying way, and no recourse for the long-term unemployed who are being traduced.
You see, it's your fault. You've had all that help but you remain stubbornly unemployed, so clearly what you need is an "intensive and uncompromising regime ....... with rigorous monitoring to ensure they are doing everything they can to find work". This will be delivered by the Jobcentres. People will be put onto training schemes, Mandatory Work Activity placements or "intensive work preparation" as soon as they come off the WP. An extra £30m is going on this, for extra training and specialist help such as counselling for drug or alcohol dependency. Another requirement: "Every Work Programme returner will also be required to register with Universal Jobmatch to aid work search and job matching and to allow their adviser to check their work search activity online." There has, apparently, been a pilot scheme (where?) which proved, said officials, that "claimants targeted by an intensive approach were much less likely to stay on benefit." (Telegraph) No figures, you notice, but we would have no reason to believe them if there were.
This is a tacit acknowledgement that the WP is a waste of money. Two years in which all this stuff was supposed to be happening and obviously wasn't - so throw a bit more money at it, cutting out the WP providers. But the attitude is ingrained in this government that people are out of work by choice, and if you just keep cranking up the pressure they'll get a job. Or, at least, they will disappear from the lists of benefits claimants.
Labour has said that WP leavers would be forced to accept a paid job, but we wait for them to fill in the details. It surely has to be better than this government's clueless plan.
One bit of good news: the BBC reports that in 2012-2013, 708 employers have been fined for paying less than minimum wage, and affected workers have got an average of £300 in back pay. One of the guilty employers is described as a "national retailer", but is not named. Why not?
Update: Today, Saturday, the odious Express tells the story in its own disgusting way. "Hit squads to force workshy back into jobs" is the headline. It goes on: "At the heart of the Government’s reforms is frustration at a generation of lifelong layabouts, immortalised by fictional Frank Gallagher from TVs Shameless", and there's a photo to illustrate these workshy people. As we've said before, it suits the government to have its actions portrayed in this lying way, and no recourse for the long-term unemployed who are being traduced.
Wednesday, 1 May 2013
Nudge, nudge, wink, wink
The "Nudge Unit" is in the news today. This is more properly known as the "Behavioural Insights Team" and exists to "nudge" people into making "better life choices". I'm putting that in inverted commas because the more cynical among us might describe such a project differently. One of the tasks they took on in recent months was to work with a group of unemployed people. What they came up with was spectacularly obvious, and they released the news of its success three times before anyone took any notice.
On Tuesday we learned that this team have been inflicting a psychometric test on the unemployed - a test you can find here. The Guardian describes it as bogus because users found that they could click repeatedly on the same answer and get the same results as someone who clicked repeatedly on the opposite answer. Jobseekers have been threatened with sanctions by the DWP for not completing it, but then the DWP denied that anyone would be stripped of benefits. The BBC also reported what Labour called "mumbo-jumbo" tests.
Now we hear that the unit is to become part of what the Independent calls "the great civil service sell-off". It's to be "mutualised" - ownership will be around 25% government, 25% employees and 50% private companies, which will bid for the privilege. Eventually up to 75,000 civil servants in a variety of sectors will be transferred into the private sector. This will enable the government to claim that they have presided over the creation of all those new private sector jobs. They are putting a completely different spin on it, of course, whilst admitting privately that it avoids the problems of "naked privatisation".
Universal Credit got off to a nervous start. The Guardian pointed out that the first page of the application contains a spelling mistake - "seperating".
On Tuesday we learned that this team have been inflicting a psychometric test on the unemployed - a test you can find here. The Guardian describes it as bogus because users found that they could click repeatedly on the same answer and get the same results as someone who clicked repeatedly on the opposite answer. Jobseekers have been threatened with sanctions by the DWP for not completing it, but then the DWP denied that anyone would be stripped of benefits. The BBC also reported what Labour called "mumbo-jumbo" tests.
Now we hear that the unit is to become part of what the Independent calls "the great civil service sell-off". It's to be "mutualised" - ownership will be around 25% government, 25% employees and 50% private companies, which will bid for the privilege. Eventually up to 75,000 civil servants in a variety of sectors will be transferred into the private sector. This will enable the government to claim that they have presided over the creation of all those new private sector jobs. They are putting a completely different spin on it, of course, whilst admitting privately that it avoids the problems of "naked privatisation".
Universal Credit got off to a nervous start. The Guardian pointed out that the first page of the application contains a spelling mistake - "seperating".
Friday, 19 April 2013
Stats, the BBC - and reputations
The publication of the latest unemployment figures didn't get much coverage because the media were all too concerned with the Thatcher funeral. However, for analysis have a look at the FullFact site here and here. The first shows how the government is "managing" i.e. manipulating the figures for the media. It is telling it's own story which is just not borne out by the true figures. The second shows "what the politicians missed in the jobless figures".
Another story which might warm your heart (or not) was in the Daily Mail. It's a very long piece about Iain Duncan Smith and his "days on the breadline". The most important part of it is his criticism of the BBC:
Another story which might warm your heart (or not) was in the Daily Mail. It's a very long piece about Iain Duncan Smith and his "days on the breadline". The most important part of it is his criticism of the BBC:
"He
clearly believes passionately in the work he is doing, although he
despairs at how the Conservatives’ austerity programme is reported
— above all, by the BBC. ‘The
BBC is always negative, never explains, never talks about why we are
reforming, or the fact that national debt is rising to terrifying
levels,’ he complains. ‘All
the BBC case studies are hard-luck stories like that of the
£53-a-week market trader. They never focus on a family stuck on a
housing waiting list or in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.’ He is
clearly exasperated, too, at how removing the Spare Room Subsidy —
which will see housing benefit-payment cuts to council house tenants
with surplus spare rooms — has been labelled the ‘bedroom tax’
by Labour. When the BBC employed the same phrase, Duncan Smith
complained. ‘Now they call it the “so-called bedroom tax”. It’s
a disgrace.’"
As I've said before, this carping and intimidation is disgraceful - though we know it's official Tory policy. What he says doesn't strike me as remotely accurate. But IDS bombards the BBC with complaints, was disgustingly rude about Stephanie Flanders, and is really trying to ensure that the BBC presents only the spin that the government wants. That's what is a disgrace.
And there's another worrying trend. Anyone who goes public with their opposition to the government is likely to have their backgrounds trawled over and their reputations trashed by the right-wing press. It happened with the chap who challenged IDS to live on £53 a week, and now it's happened to the woman who led a Facebook campaign to have people turn their backs on the Thatcher funeral procession. Isn't a free press great!
And there's another worrying trend. Anyone who goes public with their opposition to the government is likely to have their backgrounds trawled over and their reputations trashed by the right-wing press. It happened with the chap who challenged IDS to live on £53 a week, and now it's happened to the woman who led a Facebook campaign to have people turn their backs on the Thatcher funeral procession. Isn't a free press great!
Tuesday, 9 April 2013
Sinister pressure on the BBC
I don't read the Sun. I'm proud to say that. I regard the Sun as having done huge damage to our national culture. However, yesterday a piece popped up in the news alerts which is worth careful reading.
We know that Iain Duncan Smith doesn't like criticism, and it's possible to read this as merely him jumping up and down in a temper. But there's more behind it. First, he "branded the BBC as ridiculous" for its coverage of welfare issues. Then he "savaged" the Guardian for talking only about cuts, and called it a "campaign rag". This is the quote:
We know that Iain Duncan Smith doesn't like criticism, and it's possible to read this as merely him jumping up and down in a temper. But there's more behind it. First, he "branded the BBC as ridiculous" for its coverage of welfare issues. Then he "savaged" the Guardian for talking only about cuts, and called it a "campaign rag". This is the quote:
'He
also tore into Beeb coverage of welfare reform. He said: “It’s
easier for them to live with the Guardian than anybody else,
that’s to say more money is good, less money is a cut.
The
word ‘reform’ very rarely passes their lips but the word ‘cuts’
is always in their broadcasts. The phrase ‘bedroom tax’
is a misnomer, it’s a Labour Party name. They never talk about
under-occupancy or a spare room subsidy. Evan Davis (presenter of
Radio 4’s Today) keeps asking everybody all through the programme,
‘Should Iain Duncan Smith resign?’ What for? Because that’s
what the Labour Party was asking for, so he had to repeat it.
It’s a joke.”'
Remember that this is a government minister commenting on the free, independent media they're supposedly keen on, and singling out a presenter who is doing his job. But George Osborne also gets in on the act:
'Chancellor
George Osborne joined in the assault on the BBC, claiming that
ordinary working people’s opinions were being ignored because of
“lazy journalism”. He
accused the Beeb of relying on comments from pressure groups to fill
news bulletins, and said: “I don’t think the voices of working
people who pay their taxes for this system are heard often enough.
They experience in their daily lives the abuse of that system and I
don’t think that is often reported.”'
The Guardian is the only paper (with the occasional exception of the Independent) which prints the stuff which IDS and his bunch would like to hide. And the BBC is vital as our only source of unbiassed reporting on TV and radio. It may not seem unbiassed at times - that's inevitable - but as long as both right and left are complaining, they must be getting it broadly correct.
Now read this from Tim Montgomerie on Conservative Home. He's commenting on what IDS and Osborne have said, and it's really sinister.
"The
last week has shown what is possible when the Conservative Party gets
its act together and acts in concert with the centre right press. The
consistency of message may be a first sign that Lynton Crosby is
delivering the kind of message discipline that he was recruited for."
Even worse is the suggestion in some of the comments under the piece that the government could put pressure on the BBC by starting a review of the licence fee.
On a day when so many of us have had to switch off all radio and TV to escape wall-to-wall Thatcher (no comments about that, please), and in the wake of the trashing of the Leveson recommendations in the name of freedom of the press, we should remember that it's only a free press and a free BBC which give us the information with which to oppose government - any government. Bloggers and campaign groups can't do it alone.
Wednesday, 27 March 2013
The drip, drip of bad publicity
I've congratulated the Guardian on its coverage of the wreckage of welfare "reform"; and now we have to add the BBC to the roll of honour. The TV news may not carry much, but its website has several items of interest. The first was a story yesterday by the excellent Mark Easton, headlined "Foodbanks used by thousands of jobless, figures show". The jobcentres have referred about 6,000 people to the foodbanks in the last year. You would think that would be a matter of some shame for Iain Duncan Smith, but no. "Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith said directing people to food banks was a short-term method of alleviating their financial problems. 'I've said to Job Centres, sort their problem out. If it is a case of food banks, Job Centres are meant to help passport people through to that so they can get them stable, so they can deal with their problems.'" He also said that he's proud of the fact that his government changed the law to allow the jobcentres to refer people to the foodbanks. "What would you prefer?" he asked.
Also yesterday, the Guardian reported that an attempt to get the issue of targets for sanctions included in the forthcoming enquiry into the sanctions regime was defeated in the House of Lords. The article is well worth reading for the peculiar argument of Lord Freud.
An even more worrying report in the Guardian says that "food stamps" will arrive in Britain next month. Vouchers in the form of payment cards will replace emergency loans. For those who don't know the history, there was once something called an emergency grant, for those on benefits who needed one-off items like a bed or a cooker. They were replaced by loans, thus shattering the notion that there was a minimum income which people needed to live on. Now even that is gone, replaced by these "vouchers" which will block their exchange for alcohol, cigarettes or gambling. Perhaps this is why Alec Shelbrooke was persuaded to withdraw his private member's bill to pay all benefits via such cards. "Don't worry, Alec," the minister might have said. "We're bringing it in gradually."
The BBC reports a pronouncement by Frank Field MP. He used to be a welfare minister in the Labour government, and came up with some pretty drastic ideas for welfare reform which were never implemented. Now, he's advising social housing landlords to brick up doors and knock down walls to get rid of spare rooms, and so get round the "bedroom tax". It's an interesting idea.
Today the BBC has published an excellent article on its website detailing all the new benefit changes. Essential reading. It also reports that a judicial review of the housing benefit changes is to go ahead after the government lost an attempt to stop it.
Finally, Iain Duncan Smith attended an event in Edinburgh hosted by Capita to deliver a speech on pensions reform. He was heckled by a determined protester, Willie Black, who called him a "parasite" and a "ratbag". You can read about it in the Guardian or watch it on the BBC's website. Enjoy.
I wonder if the BBC's coverage has sparked more formal complaints from Mr Duncan Smith.
Also yesterday, the Guardian reported that an attempt to get the issue of targets for sanctions included in the forthcoming enquiry into the sanctions regime was defeated in the House of Lords. The article is well worth reading for the peculiar argument of Lord Freud.
An even more worrying report in the Guardian says that "food stamps" will arrive in Britain next month. Vouchers in the form of payment cards will replace emergency loans. For those who don't know the history, there was once something called an emergency grant, for those on benefits who needed one-off items like a bed or a cooker. They were replaced by loans, thus shattering the notion that there was a minimum income which people needed to live on. Now even that is gone, replaced by these "vouchers" which will block their exchange for alcohol, cigarettes or gambling. Perhaps this is why Alec Shelbrooke was persuaded to withdraw his private member's bill to pay all benefits via such cards. "Don't worry, Alec," the minister might have said. "We're bringing it in gradually."
The BBC reports a pronouncement by Frank Field MP. He used to be a welfare minister in the Labour government, and came up with some pretty drastic ideas for welfare reform which were never implemented. Now, he's advising social housing landlords to brick up doors and knock down walls to get rid of spare rooms, and so get round the "bedroom tax". It's an interesting idea.
Today the BBC has published an excellent article on its website detailing all the new benefit changes. Essential reading. It also reports that a judicial review of the housing benefit changes is to go ahead after the government lost an attempt to stop it.
Finally, Iain Duncan Smith attended an event in Edinburgh hosted by Capita to deliver a speech on pensions reform. He was heckled by a determined protester, Willie Black, who called him a "parasite" and a "ratbag". You can read about it in the Guardian or watch it on the BBC's website. Enjoy.
I wonder if the BBC's coverage has sparked more formal complaints from Mr Duncan Smith.
Tuesday, 12 February 2013
"Back-to-work scheme breached laws"
The Court of Appeal has ruled in favour of Cait Reilly's contention that the government's unpaid work schemes are legally flawed. There's the BBC's report here and the Guardian's here. The latter says that the scheme is "in tatters". But let's not get carried away.
They're unlawful only because of "a lack of basic in formation given to the unemployed". They weren't given enough information about the penalties they faced or their rights to appeal. Tens of thousands of people who have been sanctioned are entitled to "a rebate", but the DWP has said that it won't pay out until "all legal avenues" have been exhausted. They're going to the Supreme Court. Which all means that it's not the schemes themselves - MWA and the rest - which are unlawful, just the way the DWP went about it. And they've already changed the paperwork.
Mark Hoban is cross. He said: "The court has backed our right to require people to take part in programmes which will help get them into work. It's ridiculous to say this is forced labour. This ruling ensures we can continue with these important schemes. We are, however, disappointed and surprised at the court's decision on our regulations. There needed to be flexibility so we could give people the right support to meet their needs and get them into a job. We do not agree with the court's judgment and are seeking permission to appeal, but new regulations will be tabled to avoid any uncertainty."
PS: There's an excellent comment piece by Zoe Williams in the Guardian.
They're unlawful only because of "a lack of basic in formation given to the unemployed". They weren't given enough information about the penalties they faced or their rights to appeal. Tens of thousands of people who have been sanctioned are entitled to "a rebate", but the DWP has said that it won't pay out until "all legal avenues" have been exhausted. They're going to the Supreme Court. Which all means that it's not the schemes themselves - MWA and the rest - which are unlawful, just the way the DWP went about it. And they've already changed the paperwork.
Mark Hoban is cross. He said: "The court has backed our right to require people to take part in programmes which will help get them into work. It's ridiculous to say this is forced labour. This ruling ensures we can continue with these important schemes. We are, however, disappointed and surprised at the court's decision on our regulations. There needed to be flexibility so we could give people the right support to meet their needs and get them into a job. We do not agree with the court's judgment and are seeking permission to appeal, but new regulations will be tabled to avoid any uncertainty."
PS: There's an excellent comment piece by Zoe Williams in the Guardian.
Thursday, 13 September 2012
Those employment figures
With no more responses from Jonty Olliff-Cooper, we can turn our attention to the latest employment figures, perhaps with a sense of deja vu. The number of people unemployed fell a bit again. This time there's been no careful analysis on Newsnight or the news; no critical report by Stephanie Flanders. Presumably they didn't want another hysterical rant from Iain Duncan Smith. The item on the BBC news website does report the ONS's verdict that "it's all down to women". The number of men out of work has actually gone up. And it does show the wide variations in unemployment around the country, and that it's actually going up in many areas. Significantly for the Work Programme, it also reports that a record 1.42 million people are working part-time because they can't get full-time jobs.
Channel 4's Factcheck blog takes apart David Cameron's claim that the number of women in employment is up. And Fullfact demolishes his boast that half a million private sector jobs have been created since the election. It's also been shown that a lot of the "jobs" are accounted for by people going self-employed, often unwillingly. And, of course, we don't know who they are, these people who are getting work. They are probably not the long-term unemployed who would provide bumper payments to the WP providers. If they are taking part-time jobs, they won't provide any outcome payments to the providers. And since in many parts of the country, unemployment continues to rise, the outlook for the providers there is even bleaker.
I wonder whether there are negotiations going on to change the contracts. Will all that part-time, casual or zero hours working be redefined as success? I wouldn't be at all surprised.
Channel 4's Factcheck blog takes apart David Cameron's claim that the number of women in employment is up. And Fullfact demolishes his boast that half a million private sector jobs have been created since the election. It's also been shown that a lot of the "jobs" are accounted for by people going self-employed, often unwillingly. And, of course, we don't know who they are, these people who are getting work. They are probably not the long-term unemployed who would provide bumper payments to the WP providers. If they are taking part-time jobs, they won't provide any outcome payments to the providers. And since in many parts of the country, unemployment continues to rise, the outlook for the providers there is even bleaker.
I wonder whether there are negotiations going on to change the contracts. Will all that part-time, casual or zero hours working be redefined as success? I wouldn't be at all surprised.
Sunday, 19 August 2012
Iain Duncan Smith shows his true colours
The BBC has a few interviewers / presenters who are expert in their own fields. One of them is Stephanie Flanders, an economist. She reported the facts and set up an interview with a nurse who is technically self-employed but only gets work for a few hours a week. And that infuriated Iain Duncan Smith, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. He has lodged an official complaint with the BBC. The Telegraph reports that, "In an interview he accused Miss Flanders of 'pouring cold water' over figures showing a rise in the number of people in work and 'peeing all over' the efforts of British businesses." He went on to accuse the BBC of following Labour's reading of the economy. The Independent also has the story and quotes the BBC's response.
The objectionable language used by IDS is bad enough. But the fact that he complains about biassed reporting shows that he is not fit to hold office. He has been given ample opportunity to put the government's point of view. The media have a responsibility to look beyond the spin.
Monday, 30 July 2012
Who benefits?
The focus is on sickness and disability benefits today, as Channel 4 and the BBC both screen programmes on the assessment system (Channel 4 at 8.00 and Panorama on BBC at 8.30). Panorama has questioned the "government appointed adviser on testing welfare claimants", Prof Malcolm Harrington. According to a preview in the Telegraph, the professor admits that there are flaws in the system. The programme highlights a particular case, a man who suffered from heart failure and "died 39 days after being declared fit for work". However, the familiar loathing of anyone on benefits is on show in a particularly nasty way in the Express this morning. "New war on sick benefits" it shrieks. The language in this article would make a fine case study in right-wing propaganda. Note the verbs. Taxpayers "shelled out"; families are "mired" in dependency; claimants are "raking in" money. And the statistics are absurd. But they have a quote from the disgusting Taxpayers' Alliance, so that must validate it.
No doubt they would approve of the plan which is about to be rolled out across the country, according to the Guardian; to make people who have been unemployed for 3 years do "community work" for 6 months. The paper has the views of the Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion, which says that it could result in 1.06 million people being forced onto the scheme because the Work Programme will not work. The article also says that the decision in the Jamie Wilson case is expected before 10 August. He's the chap who took the DWP to court along with Cait Reilly.
The Guardian also has revelations about how donors to the Tory party are making millions from welfare companies. A firm called Sovereign Capital owns ESG which has £73m worth of government contracts, including for the WP in the Midlands. The article details all the donations and connections. There's a rather half-hearted quote from Labour's Liam Byrne. He's in a difficult position, of course. David Blunkett and A4e?
No doubt they would approve of the plan which is about to be rolled out across the country, according to the Guardian; to make people who have been unemployed for 3 years do "community work" for 6 months. The paper has the views of the Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion, which says that it could result in 1.06 million people being forced onto the scheme because the Work Programme will not work. The article also says that the decision in the Jamie Wilson case is expected before 10 August. He's the chap who took the DWP to court along with Cait Reilly.
The Guardian also has revelations about how donors to the Tory party are making millions from welfare companies. A firm called Sovereign Capital owns ESG which has £73m worth of government contracts, including for the WP in the Midlands. The article details all the donations and connections. There's a rather half-hearted quote from Labour's Liam Byrne. He's in a difficult position, of course. David Blunkett and A4e?
Thursday, 19 July 2012
Unemployment and privatisation
The unemployment figures which came out yesterday weren't over-hyped, even by the government. For an excellent analysis of what they mean, read Mark Easton on the BBC news site. Long-term unemployment is rising inexorably, which shows that the Work Programme isn't doing what it was supposed to do. But no one is really asking why.
The G4S fiasco has opened up a debate about the whole privatisation project. We're still not entirely clear what went wrong, but it was a disaster waiting to happen. It must be galling for A4e that the company is routinely linked with G4S as an example of the dangers of outsourcing. But will the lessons be learned? There's a very thoughtful piece in the New Statesman by Rick Muir, and another in the Guardian by Seamus Milne. Here are my observations, for what they're worth.
One of my earliest concerns when I started examining A4e was how quickly one company could drive out the competition. The bigger the contract, the more likely this is to happen. And when everything is privatised, where do you go when things go wrong? When the public sector no longer exists, you can't take a service back in-house. Olympic security now depends on the army and the police. But my pension is now run by Capita. What happens if they screw up? Serco runs an out-of-hours GP service in Cornwall which has become so poor that they've been ordered to improve it. What happens if they can't? Three companies - Serco, G4S and Capita - now run vast numbers of services in this country. You and I have no control over them. It is no longer a case of deciding that private profit is a better motivator than public service. The politicians decided that long ago. It's no coincidence that many of the politicians have connections with these companies. Perhaps it takes a huge mess like that which G4S has put us in to focus minds.
Your thoughts, please.
The G4S fiasco has opened up a debate about the whole privatisation project. We're still not entirely clear what went wrong, but it was a disaster waiting to happen. It must be galling for A4e that the company is routinely linked with G4S as an example of the dangers of outsourcing. But will the lessons be learned? There's a very thoughtful piece in the New Statesman by Rick Muir, and another in the Guardian by Seamus Milne. Here are my observations, for what they're worth.
One of my earliest concerns when I started examining A4e was how quickly one company could drive out the competition. The bigger the contract, the more likely this is to happen. And when everything is privatised, where do you go when things go wrong? When the public sector no longer exists, you can't take a service back in-house. Olympic security now depends on the army and the police. But my pension is now run by Capita. What happens if they screw up? Serco runs an out-of-hours GP service in Cornwall which has become so poor that they've been ordered to improve it. What happens if they can't? Three companies - Serco, G4S and Capita - now run vast numbers of services in this country. You and I have no control over them. It is no longer a case of deciding that private profit is a better motivator than public service. The politicians decided that long ago. It's no coincidence that many of the politicians have connections with these companies. Perhaps it takes a huge mess like that which G4S has put us in to focus minds.
Your thoughts, please.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)