Goodbye?

Since the demise of A4e I've waited to formally close this blog until after the election.  It's been a hard day; but not as hard for me as for the people who can now see no end to their misery.  There were only three bright spots in the results; Galloway, Farage and, of course, Esther McVey.
So what do I do now?  There is no point in my blogging about "welfare reform".  There are lots of blogs and websites out there, and active groups too, which fight that more effectively than I can.  If you have any (sensible) suggestions for another challenge I can take on via the internet I'll be glad to consider them.
Meanwhile I want to say thank you.  To the journalists who, usually without their knowledge, helped me, but especially to Solomon Hughes of Private Eye and Job Rabkin of Channel 4 News.  To the many commenters, some of whom posted harrowing stories and left us wondering what happened to them after that.  And to the faithful regular readers and commenters who gave me encouragement, links to stories and perceptive comments.  Some of you have been with me from the very beginning.  Thanks especially to Ian.
Bye for now.

Esther McVey's evidence session

I sat through two hours of this.  She was giving the last evidence, along with a DWP civil servant, Hayes, to the Work and Pensions Select Committee inquiry into sanctions.  After two hours the BBC Parliament channel left the session and I couldn't bring myself to go to it on the computer.  I'd felt myself losing the will to live inside ten minutes.
A bit of the flavour of it is reported by the Guardian here.  But they are trying to be too even-handed.  It was dire.  McVey waffled and fudged, didn't answer the question, cited surveys she then couldn't detail, and turned to Hayes whenever it got complicated.  The Chair, Dame Anne Begg, was tougher than usual, but it was only when the other Labour members of the committee, Debbie Abrahams, Sheila Gilmore, Glenda Jackson and Teresa Pearce, were set loose that McVey showed the gulf between what she (and her boss and the DWP) would like to think is happening and what is actually happening.
One lie has clearly been nailed.  The committee has heard about the way in which Work Programme providers are obliged to refer someone for sanction whenever there is a perceived infringement of the rules.  This is going to be changed, by the way; they are to have discretion, which is what they want.  But it needs primary legislation and a renegotiation of the contracts, so won't happen yet.  But McVey was not reminded of the fact that she has lied about this in Parliament, insisting that sanctions are only used as a last resort.  Another lie was repeated.  McVey was adamant that there are no targets.  This became a bit of a muddle, with Jackson and McVey both referring to the same letter from the PCS union; and in fairness McVey was right.  But, at least while I was watching, we never got to the truth about targets in Jobcentres.

The Guardian and the Independent have been publishing the truth, with articles here, here and here, and the New Statesman has joined in.  All these pieces give the picture which McVey determinedly denied today.  Let's hope that the committee's report doesn't get too watered down by the Tories on it.  They've heard the truth and should report it.  But, as I've said before, it won't make a scrap of difference if the Tories get in in May.

Esther McVey - and related matters

On Wednesday morning, 4 February, if you are not otherwise occupied, I suggest you watch Esther McVey give evidence to the Work & Pensions Select Committee on the whole issue of sanctions.  If it isn't on the BBC parliament channel it will be on the government's own parliament website.  The committee has been taking evidence on the effect and workings of the sanctions regime, and they've been hearing the truth from the right people.  So let's see if McVey will repeat her lie in the House of Commons that "sanctions are only used as a last resort".  Even if the rather restrained Chair, Dame Anne Begg, doesn't go for her I'm sure Glenda Jackson, Sheila Gilmore and Debbie Abrahams will.  Radio 4 did an excellent File on Four programme while the previous evidence sessions were going on, and the mainstream press have begun to see the light.  The sad truth is, though, that nothing will come of this if a Conservative government is elected.

And that brings me to another reason why February is important.  On 5 February it's National Voter Registration Day, a day of action to get people who haven't already done so to register to vote in May.  Please, if you're one of those who haven't bothered, get online and sign up to register.  Go to the www.bitetheballot.co.uk website and it will take you through it.
Oh, I know I'll get comments saying someone wouldn't dream of voting, for all the usual reasons.  But whether you vote or not, you'll wake up on 8 May with an MP in your constituency and a government in Westminster.  If you want change - and don't we all - look at Greece.  Peacefully and democratically the Greek people have voted in an anti-austerity government.  And now Spain looks like going the same way.  It can be done.  Sermon over.

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.

Negativity

I was brought up to believe that the worst thing you could ever call anybody was a liar.  Even when they clearly were.  Even when it was Iain Duncan Smith.  But (I'm sorry, Mum) I have to say it.  Esther McVey lied today in the Mail and the Express.  Since the quote is the same in both I have to assume that it's her lie, not the papers'.  "‘I meet with thousands of young people a year and they all say the negative picture painted by opposition politicians about young people and their bleak future has a very negative effect on them."
You can imagine it.  She's got a captive audience of unemployed kids in a jobcentre or somewhere, and every single one of them says, "Well, it's Labour telling us how bad things are, and there's no future."  
You may say it was just exaggeration.  But what about the substance of this mendacious piece?  Try the Mail's lengthy version.  Count the number of assertions which are simply not true.  The Express resorts to quoting the Mail, but at least it gives Rachel Reeves the chance to describe the comments as "pathetic".
We could dismiss all this as tripe, and rather desperate tripe at that, were it not for a piece on the Huffington Post site which makes it look like part of a concerted effort directed by Lynton Crosby, the Tories' campaign guru.  We heard this week that self-employment is at its highest level since records began, and that of the 1.1 million people who have started a job since January 2008, two thirds are self-employed.  (The figures are on the BBC news site.)  Over the last year it's over half of new "jobs".  But all is wonderful according to scary Tory MP Matthew (call me Matt) Hancock.  "There are more jobs available than ever before in this country, the vast majority of the jobs are full-time contracts of employment, and there has also been a very strong growth in self-employment. " [my italics]  This is simply not true.  The article gives plenty of space to voices refuting Hancock's claims.
But it seems that the tactic is simple.  Get out there and lie.  Blame Labour.  Deny the figures.  Just lie.

The brutality of sanctions

You will probably have read about the tragic case of David Clapson (at least, if you read the Daily Mirror or get your news from the internet).  The story first emerged on the same day that Matthew Oakley published his report into the way that sanctions were working.  Clapson's death was first reported in his local paper, but then was taken up by the Mirror with an uncompromising headline: "Killed by benefits cuts: Starving soldier died 'as result of Iain Duncan Smith's welfare reform'."  What made this case so difficult to brush aside was that Clapson couldn't be labelled as a scrounger, even by the most bigoted of right-wingers.  He was a former soldier who had given up work to care for his sick mother and, since her death, was looking for work.  He was sanctioned for missing an appointment.  He was a diabetic, dependent on insulin (which he couldn't take when his electricity was cut off and he couldn't keep it cool).  He died of the consequences of not having the insulin; but there was also no food in his stomach.
The Mirror returned to the story yesterday when David's sister launched a petition for an enquiry into sanctions.  A campaigner for just such a petition is Debbie Abrahams MP, a member of the Work & Pensions select committee.  She thought that Esther McVey had agreed to it at one of the committee's meetings; but I watched that meeting, and felt that McVey had dodged it.  And why would McVey, let alone IDS, agree to such an enquiry?  McVey has lied to the House of Commons (supposedly a serious offence) by stating that sanctions are "only used as a last resort".  Even Matthew Oakley pointed out that that is not true.  And why would they want to investigate the fact that, as the Mirror says, almost a million people apparently deserved punishment by destitution last year?
They know that not enough voters care to make a difference.  Even with the Clapson case there were plenty of people saying that he must have been mentally ill - as if that would make it understandable.  But the ministers also take the view that these are not really people at all.  They inhabit a totally different conceptual universe, one in which the poor are not really human.  And once you've dehumanised someone it is easy to treat him with brutality.
The sanctions regime is brutal.  Every time someone is sanctioned without good reason a crime is being committed.  No, they won't have an enquiry.

The sanctions report

Matthew Oakley's report is out.  You can read it here.  His brief was to look at how the sanctions system was working amongst certain groups; in particular at the communications with, and understanding by, claimants.  It was said from the beginning that the remit was far too narrow, a cosmetic exercise to justify the DWP but ignoring the real issues.  And it was said that Oakley was the wrong person to do it.  If you read the Foreword to the report you do get the impression that Oakley dutifully applauds the system.  But in fact he has gone beyond his brief, and there are some very important points in the document.
The Financial Times wrote a fair piece, highlighting the poor way in which the DWP communicates with claimants who have been sanctioned.  They also got a quote out of Esther McVey: "I have already started to make improvements ..."  Far be it from me to call anyone a liar, but I doubt that this is true.  The Guardian went with the fact that "Benefit sanctions hit most vulnerable people the hardest", sending out unintelligible letters, and not telling people about the availability of hardship payments unless they asked.  There's also a very significant observation from the report: "It also revealed serious flaws in how sanctions were imposed, with Work Programme providers required to send participants for sanctions when they knew they had done nothing wrong, leaving 'claimants … sent from pillar to post'".  This is the first time I've seen this fact in print.  The Guardian produced an update on this article this evening to take account of the fact that the government is to "overhaul the way it treats benefit recipients threatened by sanctions".  This must be based on the DWP's press release, which doesn't use the word overhaul and promises very little.  It does provide a quote from McVey which is probably made up by the DWP Press Office.  (You can play meaningless platitude bingo with it.)  The BBC website has a very careful piece which isn't worth reading.  And from Iain Duncan Smith, not a peep.  
This report is, of course, far from sufficient.  As the TUC has said, there must be a much wider review into the sanctions regime.  Perhaps it should look at this case reported today in a Hertfordshire local paper.  It's as bad as it gets.

He stays

Yes, Iain Duncan Smith keeps his job.  The BBC seems not to have noticed this.

So why is he still there?  Political Scrapbook has two theories: one is that they didn't want to justify the supposed leak of his demotion by a Spad on a train; and the other is that anyone else taking on the job would have to admit to the grave problems with UC, so best leave it alone.  I have another theory - that he stays put because he's doing what Cameron wants him to do.  Michael Gove went to great rejoicing in every school staffroom in the country; teachers vote, and some might vote Tory.  IDS would have gone to exultation among the poorest - who never vote Tory.
Esther McVey keeps her job too (and a seat in the cabinet, which is meaningless) but Mike Penning has gone.  He had shown far too much compassion for the disabled and contrition for the Atos mess.  So there now isn't a minister for disabilities, but Mark Harper comes in as Minister of State at the DWP - not sure what that means.  Harper is a youngish right-winger.  That seem to be the main theme of this reshuffle.  All the moderates have gone (I don't count Gove in that) and a firm right-wing stance is set for the rest of this government.

There are things to say about the bedroom tax report and about Capita, but we'll leave that till tomorrow.

Ignorance is bliss

Have you ever wondered why so few people know what's going on in "welfare" these days?  Ever shouted at the radio or TV when someone pontificated on, say, the Work Programme without appearing to have any knowledge of the subject?  Ever despaired at the sheer ignorance of most people about unemployment?  Then you might have been cheering this morning when the Today programme on Radio 4 decided to look at whether all that self-employment in the latest job figures is genuine.  Two experts were asked; one was a woman whose name I forget, the other Professor Roy Sainsbury.  I'd never heard of him, which is a pity because he's head of the Social Policy Research Unit at York University - and he knows what he's talking about.  Speaking lucidly and quickly (important if you want to get your point across without being interrupted) he pointed out that Work Programme providers were pushing people into spurious self-employment because it enabled them, the companies, to claim for a job outcome under PbR.  Cue astonishment from John Humphrys, who was doing the interview.  "You mean they get paid for it?" he gasped.  And well he might.  When did you last hear a clear and honest examination of anything this government is doing in the name of "welfare reform" on the BBC?  Oh, I know they've looked at food banks, the bedroom tax etc., but always with a timid eye on "balance" for fear of IDS launching another complaint.  At least Humphrys learned something new this morning.

However, the government's apparent ignorance about sanctions cannot be excused.  They have repeatedly been confronted with real cases of people being punished for trivial or non-existent offences, by Labour MPs and others, but have insisted that it's not true.  That has become more difficult since the Mirror published revelations on Tuesday.  Iain Duncan Smith, along with Esther McVey and Neil Couling, head of Jobcentre Plus, attended a meeting last week with a whistle-blower who has worked for the DWP for more than 20 years.  The man told them, "“The pressure to sanction customers was constant.  It led to people being stitched-up on a daily basis.”  He went on "“We were constantly told ‘agitate the customer’ and that ‘any engagement with the customer is an opportunity to ­sanction’.”  The targets, he said, are sometimes referred to as "expectations".  And this led to managers stitching up claimants by altering their appointments without telling them so that they missed the appointment and were sanctioned.  They were told to "inconvenience" the clients and to regard them as scroungers.  It's a horrific account.  And now the Labour MP Debbie Abrahams is agitating for an independent enquiry into sanctions.  It won't happen, of course.  

There's one area of outsourcing on which most of us prefer to remain ignorant.  Read Polly Toynbee's Guardian piece headed "Now troubled children are an investment opportunity".

 

Back to work?

It's back to work tomorrow - assuming you have any work to return to.  So what has been going on over this rather disjointed few weeks?

On the outsourcing front, I would have said until an hour ago not very much.  A4e set up a new website, reminding us of one of the less well known aspects of their business - "Independent Living Services".  This all began 9 years ago when local councils had to offer direct payments for social care, so that users could shape their own care packages and employ people directly.  A4e were quick to see an opportunity here and scooped up contracts.  It didn't always work out well; Middlesborough council was not happy with how the contract was delivered and brought it back in-house.  But the company is now running the show in 15 areas.  Let's hope the website doesn't herald the regrowth of all those websites A4e used to have before the makeover.
There's now a new privatisation in the pipeline (although A4e won't be involved in this one).  The Guardian has the story that the land registry is to be flogged off.  That may not mean much to many people, but it's the body which keeps all the records of who owns what land and property in this country.  The paper says: "Former executives from the body ....... say that a sell-off 'beggars belief' because it will allow the private sector to adjudicate on what can be conflicting interests between sellers, buyers, lenders and neighbours."
George Monbiot, writing in the Comment is Free section of the Guardian, may have been reading this blog.  If not, he's one of the few who has picked up on the fact that G4S must have been bidding for contracts while it was supposedly banned.  He says: "Was it ever banned at all?  Six days after the moratorium was lifted G4S won a contract to run HMRC services.  A fortnight later it was chosen as one of the companies that will run the government's Help to Work scheme.  How did it win these contracts if in the preceding months it wasn't allowed to bid?"  Quite right.  But why have so few journalists picked up on this?

A story doing the rounds in the press tonight seems shocking to some, but unsurprising to many.  Labour MP Sheila Gilmore asked the wretched Esther McVey a question about sanctions and got a worrying answer.  At the moment JSA claimants are not required to apply for zero hours jobs.  Under Universal Credit they will be.  Jobcentre "coaches" will be able to force people to take such work, on pain of having their benefit stopped.  (See the Guardian.)  The DWP confirmed this.  Gilmore pointed out that this would stop people taking training courses to improve their prospects.  Others have said that people will be caught in a trap; told to increase their hours or be sanctioned while unable to increase their hours.  But this was always part of the point of UC, in the wonderful world of Iain Duncan Smith.

Help to Work - at least for G4S

At last, we know four of the companies which have won the contracts to deliver the inappropriately named "Help to Work" programme.  The Financial Times reveals that they are G4S, Seetec, Interserve and Pertemps.  Why it hasn't named the other two, I have no idea, but A4e hasn't said anything, and Serco has launched a rescue rights issue, so perhaps they both lost out.  The FT says that G4S is the biggest winner.  It also says: "It comes less than three weeks after the British government lifted a ban on G4S bidding for public sector work and suggests that Whitehall is taking a favourable view towards one of its largest contractors, despite insisting that the company remains under close scrutiny."
But hang on a minute.  The bidding must have taken place during the time in which that ban was supposed to be in place.  And the company was "cleared" just in time for the announcement of its success.  Who is the government trying to kid?

The whole "Help to Work" story today has been utterly depressing.  This morning, on Radio 4's Today programme, Evan Davies had the dubious pleasure of trying to interview the appalling Esther McVey.  I bet he didn't want to.  When he tried to pose questions to her boss, Iain Duncan Smith, recently he ended up being complained about by ignorant listeners.  McVey did the same trick this morning - spouting utter twaddle and not answering questions.  The reaction to the new scheme in the media has been predictable.  The Guardian and the Independent get it right, while the Express salivates at the prospect of bludgeoning the poor even harder.  The BBC interviewed Kirsty McHugh of the ERSA, who said what you would expect since she's paid by the outsourcing companies, and Richard Johnson who used to work for Serco and talked sense.
So let's spell it out.  This scheme is largely about IDS's temper at the failure of the Work Programme, which he interprets as the failure of the unemployed.  So they must be punished.  And it will have the advantage of taking loads of people out of the unemployment figures.  They will be sanctioned en masse, or driven into the black economy, or forced onto workfare and so counted as employed.  
Newsnight is doing something on the scheme.  I don't think I'll watch.

Turning the screw

I didn't see all of the interview with Iain Duncan Smith on the Andrew Marr programme yesterday.  Just enough to realise that it would be no different to all the rest.  But after I'd had to switch off he was apparently asked about the Maria Miller case, and said that there was the danger of a witch hunt against her.  That's what has made all the headlines, of course.  No one cares what he said about "welfare".
But if it was a bland interview (with the usual lies) it was because he was too embarrassed to make the announcement he had been planning.  We had it anyway.  As the Telegraph headlined it on Saturday, Benefit cheats face higher fines and losing their homes.  Not good timing.  What it amounts to is that there will be a crackdown on fraudsters, who could be forced to sell their homes.  How many benefits cheats actually own their own homes, he didn't say.  And pensioners who claim top-up benefits they're not entitled to will also be rooted out.  Fine.  But even IDS could see that the announcement didn't sit well with the latest scandal about an MP and her second home.
The other announcement about turning the screw on the unemployed was given to Esther McVey.  It was left to the Guardian to give a full account of this; but whose idea it was to headline it including the stupid phrase "to end 'signing-on culture'" I don't know.  Apparently McVey hadn't at that point actually made the announcement, but the paper had an advance copy.  She chirrups: 
"With the economy growing, unemployment falling and record numbers of people in work, now is the time to start expecting more of people if they want to claim benefits. It's only right that we should ask people to take the first basic steps to getting a job before they start claiming jobseeker's allowance – it will show they are taking their search for work seriously.  This is about treating people like adults and setting out clearly what is expected of them so they can hit the ground running. In return, we will give people as much help and support as possible to move off benefits and into work because we know from employers that it's the people who are prepared and enthusiastic who are most likely to get the job.  This change will mean people start their claim ready to look for work and will show they are serious about finding a job as quickly as possible."
That is so absurd and deeply patronising that you wonder if she knows anything at all about the system as it is, or about the history of social security.  What these new measures amount to is that in the week between losing your job and being allowed to sign on you must i) register with Universal Job Match and ii) produce a CV.  
Yes, that's the UJM which has been shown to be hopelessly riddled with fraudulent and duplicate vacancies, and which most reputable employers now avoid.  But you must register with it.  And as you do, you can contemplate the fact that your internet connection will have to go because you can't now afford it.  A CV as well?  Perhaps you've never had to have one and you need a bit of guidance.  Tough.  If you go to sign on without one - or perhaps without one which passes muster with the JC "adviser" - you'll be turned away.  All those people who don't have access to a computer, and wouldn't know how to use one if they did, will be left floundering.  And all those who haven't heard about the new rules, and naively thought that they were entitled to state benefits if they were out of work, will be turned away because they are not "taking their search for work seriously".
Many experienced claimants have by now sussed what is going on here.  It's just a new way of delaying benefit payments, perhaps for ever.

Morality?

I've just heard Esther McVey lying about sanctions on Radio 4.  No surprise there.  The unemployment figures are out, and it's tempting for ignorant commentators to link the slight fall to the sanctions regime, in a simple-minded way.  Iain Duncan Smith announces even more restrictions on the ability of immigrants to claim benefits, standing on what he fondly imagines is the moral high ground; but he hasn't publicly replied to Archbishop Nichols, who is sticking to his guns.  No, he's left that to his mate Dave, who has claimed, in an extraordinary piece in the Telegraph, that the government is on a "moral mission".  He accuses the Cardinal of saying things which are not true.  "Mr Cameron insisted that no one would be left destitute by the welfare reforms and said the claim the basic safety net no longer exists is untrue."
Cameron misunderstands the concept of morality.  I'm tempted to refer to the Christian gospels, but I know that cuts no ice with a lot of people (it ought to with IDS, but apparently doesn't).  Morality starts with the way you treat individuals.  You do not sacrifice them to some self-appointed mission.  All the most monstrous dictators of the 20th century believed that individual suffering had no significance in pursuit of the grand plan.  I really don't know whether Cameron knows that he is not telling the truth when he makes his claims; but a moral person would take steps to check.  Instead, like all of his government, he has simply turned his back.  He might like to read an article in the Independent which reports a survey of GPs in their trade magazine, Pulse.  16% of the doctors have been asked to refer a patient to a food bank in the last year.  One Everton GP describes his experience of this in detail.  Hospital diagnoses of malnutrition have nearly doubled in the last 5 years, and academics have called it an emerging "public health emergency".  Now that, Mr Cameron, really is a moral matter.

Today, many people are staging demonstrations at the various offices of ATOS.  On Monday we read in the Guardian that a leaked document shows that the government is preparing to shove ATOS out of its WCA contracts.  They want, first, to bring in more contractors; and then to push ATOS out altogether.  But a competition lawyer is quoted as saying that it wouldn't be lawful, because they would have decided in advance that they were going to exclude one bidder from the tendering process.  While many would rejoice at the ousting of this company, the competition could only come from those on the government's "framework" of favoured companies.  And that means Serco, G4S, Capita and - yes - A4e.

Ho, ho, ho says Iain Duncan Smith

There was a debate in parliament yesterday on food banks.  You might have missed this, because only the Mirror and the Independent reported it.  The BBC ignored it completely - I wonder why.  The debate was forced by a petition started by blogger Jack Monroe which received 143,000 signatures; but the Tories treated it with contempt.  The Mirror's report is fascinating (start at the bottom).  IDS didn't speak, leaving it to Esther McVey (who is rapidly proving herself to be the most stupid person ever to become a minister).  Both of them left the debate after an hour, a departure noted as "unusual" by Speaker Bercow.  Tories apparently smirked throughout, bursting into laughter at stories from Labour MPs of the hardship forcing people to food banks.  Labour's Sir Gerald Kaufman described McVey's speech as the nastiest he had heard in his 43 years as an MP, according to the Independent.  All that effort put in by Monroe and others achieved nothing, because the Tories are impervious to criticism, and because the public didn't get to hear about it.
The Guardian's website yesterday carried an excellent, though depressing, article on the impact of all the government's austerity measures.
The latest Work Programme figures are out.  The headlines are a bit confusing.  They say that after 2 years around 22% had achieved a job outcome.  But then they say say that 1 in 6 "who had spent sufficient time on the programme to do so" had achieved a job outcome, and that's only 16.7%.  Use the tabulation tool to get tables.  A4e seems to have performed at about average.  We'll have to wait till January to see what effect this has had on A4e's finances.

The jobcentre experience; and pauper management

You might already have concluded that Esther McVey is not the sharpest knife in the drawer.  Read this piece in the Liverpool Daily Post, and not only will your suspicions be confirmed, but you might wonder whether the stupidity is deliberate.  You see, sanctions (i.e. being made destitute) are in the best interests of the unemployed, much like a detention handed out by a teacher who just wants her pupils to learn their lesson.  And anyway, there's an independent review of the sanctions process going on.  Dame Anne Begg, chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, points out that the review won't look at "the appropriateness of sanctions".  The rest of the article, and the people quoted, put McVey's nonsense into perspective.
As do the figures elicited by Stephen Timms, the ineffectual Labour minister, for assaults against jobcentre staff.  They've gone up from 228 in 2009/10 to 476 in 2012/13.  Frankly, I'm surprised it's not more.  As far as I'm aware, this has only been reported in the Yorkshire Post.

There's an excellent article on the Guardian's Comment is Free site today by Jeremy Seabrook.  I have often compared the mindset of the elites today about "welfare" to that of the people who introduced the Poor Laws of 1834.  Seabrook draws the parallels with what was called "pauper management" in a serious historical examination with the activities of A4e and the like today.  None of what is going on in 2013 can be properly understood unless you grasp that it's a reversion to past attitudes.

The conversion of the Express?

An extraordinary story popped up in the news feeds this morning - extraordinary because it's in the Express.  Headlined "Food Bank Britain: Thousands need charity handouts because of welfare system failings", it talks about "scores of cases" which their investigation has "uncovered" of "administration errors and punitive sanctions".  It goes on to list cases of ludicrous sanctions and a few admin errors, and it ends with the verdict of the director of Oxfam's UK poverty programme.  They haven't bothered to ask the DWP for a response, just quoting Esther McVey's platitude that sanctions are only used against people who were "wilfully rejecting support for no good reason" and going on to prove her wrong.  The comments facility isn't available under the article.  Why?
What has brought about this startling conversion by the Express?  Perhaps it's just opportunism.  They've realised that there's a story here.  But I bet we see an article about the workshy before long.

"I don't believe it"

There are two big stories to look at today.  First let's look at:

SANCTIONS FIGURES
The latest sanctions figures have, at last, been published.  Between October 2012 and June 2013 they show a rise of 6% on the same period a year before, to 580,000.  Think about that - more than half a million.  The BBC website explains the new rules, and says that 53% of the decisions were at the lowest level, up to 13 weeks, for such failures as not attending an appointment.  Then it says that about 1 in 5 were for failing to keep an appointment with an adviser.  Esther McVey is trotted out to speak for the DWP, saying that sanctions were only used against those who were "wilfully rejecting support for no good reason".
In another piece the BBC's Sean Clare looks at "Life when the Jobcentre says you broke the rules".  It brings out some of the absurdities and injustices of the system, with several horror stories.  The CAB is quoted as saying that they've seen a 64% rise in people coming to them because of sanctions.  The PCS union, whose members have to administer the regime, says, "There's no question that there is an overarching pressure to enforce the sanctions regime as strictly as possible."  The DWP, of course "flatly denies" this.  But the article has stories which cannot be brushed aside in this way.

"UP TO THE JOB?"
BBC Radio 4 did a "File on 4" programme yesterday on the Work Programme, which gives me my title for this post.  It seems that Esther McVey has rapidly absorbed her boss's approach to uncomfortable facts; three times her response was to say that she didn't believe it.
The programme started in Eastbourne, where unemployment is a lot lower than the national average, but the local MP Stephen Lloyd (a Lib Dem) is angry at the number of people who have done their 2-year stint on the WP and been failed by it.  One 47-year-old man said that there was no respect and he was treated like a child.  A woman said she'd seen her advisor only once a month.
The WP providers there are Avanta and G4S.  One older woman who had a good experience (and found a job) through a sub-contractor of G4S was interviewed.  But the programme then turned to Richard Johnson, formerly of Ingeus (didn't he work for Serco too?).  He said that the quality of the contract was deteriorating because case-loads were now up to 240 per adviser.  McVey said she didn't believe it.  The official figure is 80 - 140.  And, she said, people can make a complaint.
The point which emerged was that of the just under 2.5 million who are unemployed, 900,000 have been out of work for a year or more and these, along with those with medical problems, are not being helped.  A consultant, a chap called Grimes, said that the sanctions against the worst-performing providers (the 5% "market shift") are inadequate.  The DWP should remove their contracts altogether, but the providers know that this is not going to happen.
The attachment fees are due to end in April 2014.  Johnson spoke about the discounts of 30% or more offered by some of the providers when they bid.  These are back-loaded to years 4 and 5 (i.e. at this point the providers will get 30% less for outcomes) on the assumption by the providers that the government would never let this happen.  The contracts, he said, are not viable at this price.  Deloitte's, who partnered with Ingeus, are now trying to sell their shares, and Johnson thinks it's because they understand the implications of the discounts.  "I don't believe that", said McVey.  She thinks Deloitte's want out because they are doing very well.
Turning to those on ESA, the programme highlighted a man who had been sent to Triage Central.  In 7 visits he saw an advisor only once and got no help at all.  He said that the emphasis was on what he was doing wrong.  Disability Rights UK said that the Work Programme isn't working for disabled people, and a 90% failure rate is not acceptable.  Once again, McVey said, "I don't believe it."
More or less the last word came from Grimes, who said that the long-term unemployed were at the back of the queue and moving backwards.

Lots to comment on, I think.

The Supreme Court ruling

It sparked a lot of argument yesterday.  What had the Supreme Court actually ruled?  A lot of people thought that the DWP would have to repay any money they took away in sanctions while the regime was illegal.  But no, the retrospective legislation took care of that.  There was even confusion about who had appealed the High Court ruling, and on what grounds.
The best article in the press was, naturally, in the Guardian.  Joshua Rozenberg used to be the BBC's legal expert, and knows what he's talking about.  He points out that was Iain Duncan Smith who appealed.  He had no need to, because the retrospective legislation was already in operation.  The original decision was that the whole basis of the workfare schemes was unlawful because i) it hadn't been put to Parliament and ii) the information given to claimants was inadequate.  That's what Smith appealed.  And he lost.  The Supreme Court upheld that decision.  But, as Rozenberg points out, Smith's immediate response was: "We are very pleased that the supreme court today unanimously upheld our right to require those claiming Jobseeker's Allowance to take part in programmes which will help get them into work."  Rozenberg picks up the "very pleased" and comments, "Pleased that it had lost an unnecessary appeal at no small cost to the taxpayer?"  He quotes the ruling:"...it is rather unattractive for the executive to be taking up court time and public money to establish that a regulation is valid, when it has already taken up parliamentary time to enact legislation which retroactively validates the regulation."
To be fair (it pains me to say this) the lawyers for Cait Reilly and Jamie Wilson did make a cross-appeal about the legality of workfare, and lost that, so IDS could claim that that's what he was talking about.  But that's almost irrelevant.  Esther McVey (who has, in a very short time, become very irritating) was trotted out to repeat IDS's spurious claim and confuse the issue.
On the subject of workfare generally; the government has to maintain the fiction that it is not work, it's training, work experience or whatever, but not work.  Because that would have to be paid.  No court in this country is going to go against that.  It might be that the only recourse is the European Court of Human Rights.
A final thought.  Could we start a petition to impeach Iain Duncan Smith?

A new way with figures

I heard an item on the lunchtime news programme which had me laughing in disbelief.  One of the housing associations came up with figures to show that the bedroom tax was not raising the sort of money the DWP insisted it would, because people are moving to the private rented where rents (and therefore housing benefit) are higher, rather than paying the tax and staying where they are.  They got a university department to go through the figures and produce a report.  The university confirmed it.  So today Esther McVey, the new minister, was interviewed about this.  Her response?  To rubbish the report as not true because it was based on figures provided by an organisation which had a financial interest.  The interviewer, clearly gob-smacked, pressed her.  What was not true?  All she could say was that the DWP had modelled all this before it was put in place.  But what was not true?  She repeated the canard that the housing association had a financial interest in providing false figures.  She's obviously settling in fast and absorbing the culture of the DWP.  When the figures come from government, distort them, lie about them or just refuse to publish them; if they come from outside government, say they're lies.  Brilliant!

The Indymedia website carries an article which confirms that A4e is putting in a bid for the Transforming Rehabilitation contracts, effectively privatising the probation service.  It's not a surprise.  They need contracts to survive.  But the model is the same as that of the Work Programme; payment by results with a three-tier structure of primes and sub-contractors.  We'll see whether A4e makes it through the PQQ stage, but there's no reason to think they won't.

PS:  Here's the Independent's take on the housing report and a comment from McVey.  This one is a little different but no more sensible.

Changing faces

So Mark Hoban has gone.  He made absolutely no impact at the DWP, but apparently thinks he did.  He told his local paper in Hampshire, "I have turned the Work Programme around and I have delivered on what I was asked to achieve."  He is replaced by Esther McVey, who has an interesting background.  Aged 46, she's from Liverpool; solidly middle class (a family business in demolition), a law degree, and a career in television before founding her own business.  She only came into Parliament in 2010.  No doubt Cameron thinks she will have the presentational skills which Iain Duncan Smith so conspicuously lacks.  Also joining thee DWP as Minister of State is Mike Penning, a 56-year-old with a similar background to McVey (except he chose the army rather than television).
More interesting, perhaps, is the reshuffle of the Shadow Cabinet, with the ineffectual Liam Byrne being replaced by Rachel Reeves as shadow work and pensions minister.  Reeves is not a great TV performer, but she knows her stuff and is a formidable intellect.  Don't expect IDS ever to debate with her publicly.
None of this makes any immediate difference to government policy, unfortunately.