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.

"Contractorisation"

"Contractorisation" - a hideous word coined by David Cameron when he was questioned recently by a parliamentary committee.  He was asked about Chris Grayling's statement that companies which are guilty of malpractice or gross failure could be ruled out of future contracts.  (Think Serco and G4S.)  Would this happen?  Cameron was vague, but said he was in favour of more "contractorisation".  Of course he was vague.  Because it won't happen.  For one thing it would be a legal minefield, and for another, who else is there?  He was also asked about the timetable for bringing in Universal Credit, and was equally vague, leading people to conclude that he and the government know it's not remotely on schedule, and only Iain Duncan Smith thinks it is.
With the start of the party conference season, we can see very clearly that there is consensus among the main parties about welfare and outsourcing.  Clegg waffled this morning about "making work pay" and dodged a question about the deepening poverty of those on benefits.  This is the Tory attitude as well; they believe that they have won the argument.  Tales of hardship can be brushed aside, because a majority of the electorate have accepted the propaganda.  Michael Gove caused a bit of a fuss by saying that he thought people who used food banks were just bad at managing their money.  Various Labour MPs are willing to put a different point of view, but their party would not alter anything the Tories have done.  Nor would they call a halt to the outsourcing.
Cameron, Gove, Clegg et al are not necessarily bad people.  They have good intentions towards people whose lives they cannot begin to understand.  When they are confronted with the truth they can't accept it.  And now that the economic figures aren't quite as bad as they were, they can proclaim that they were right.  It's grim.

Small charities and big business

It is, according to A4e's Emma Harrison, "Small Charities Week", "a major celebration of the small charity sector and its huge impact on communities across the UK". You can listen to her talk about it on the MyA4e site or read about it on the ThirdSector website. The writer of that article, Anne-Marie Corvin, sees some irony in this, pointing out that "A4e, the private company Harrison founded in 1991, frequently competes with charities for government contracts. Two years ago Hull Citizen's Advice Bureau was left facing an uncertain future after A4e beat it to a contract to provide legal advice, and the Migrants Resource Centre accused A4e of 'gross exploitation of the voluntary sector' when the firm asked it to work as a partner without payment in 2008."

Meanwhile, there's the business of new contracts. More scrutiny of the Work Programme proposals has raised another disconcerting fact. According to Chris Ball, Chief Executive of TAEN: "The emphasis will be on sustainability of jobs; proportions of fees will be paid after one, two and three years in the job – an idea meant to encourage providers to work much more closely with the employers in which clients have been placed. There will be downsides for providers compelled to wait for their money however." It might also be seen as a "downside" for the client who faces up to three years of ties to the provider.

On Friday Michael Gove will fire the starting gun for the "free schools" race. We know that several private companies, including Serco, have arranged with parents' groups to run these new schools, ensuring that this is, in effect, the beginning of the privatisation of our education system. It is unlikely that we will get a list of which companies are running which schools.

A new government - the implications

As a coalition government forms and the cabinet appointments are announced, contractors like A4e may well feel both apprehensive and hopeful. Michael Gove is education secretary, so there's going to be scope for the private sector in schools. Theresa May is not, as we expected, Work & Pensions secretary; that job has apparently gone to Ian Duncan Smith. What that will mean for the Work Programme is anyone's guess at the moment. But IDS does understand the benefits system and, more importantly, its effects on real people, and he will probably stand up to the private sector.

Benefits claimants should be worried but not, I think, frightened. The worst Tory attitudes should be tempered by their coalition partners.