The latest exercise in propaganda by combined right-wing forces in this country is a classic of its kind.
It starts with a report by the Centre for Social Justice, the "think-tank" set up by Iain Duncan Smith and run by his adviser Philippa Stroud. This is reported in detail by the Telegraph. The phrase "welfare ghettos" is prominent. That's important. The word "ghetto" is innocent enough in its original meaning ("a part of a city, esp. a slum area, occupied by a minority group or groups") but of course it's a very loaded word now. The report is full of figures purporting to show that almost 7 million people live in these "welfare ghettos" where more than half the working age population is dependent on benefits.
I haven't looked at the report itself, but I suppose that the Telegraph has reported it faithfully. If so, there are a great many question marks over it. It talks about "areas" of various cities. How is an area defined? At one point they talk about "neighbourhoods"; again, how do you define that? This isn't nit-picking. You can draw lines on a map to produce whatever figures you want. 48 charities were consulted. 96% of them (why can't they just say "46 charities"?) said that "they had come across families where unemployment was intergenerational". All that means is that both the kids and the parents were out of work. It tells us nothing else - certainly not how many families were involved.
They do make an important point about aspiration. Lots of youngsters do not expect to ever have a job, and don't aspire to anything better than they have now, except to become a celebrity. But the CSJ manage to link that with the benefits cap.
The Express's account is less nuanced, as you would expect. The headline is "Welcome to the benefit ghettos where the majority live on state handouts". There's a photo of a young woman pushing a toddler in a buggy; we are, of course, meant to take the point about teenage single mothers. There is a familiar response from the DWP about welfare reforms improving the lives of these people.
The Mail is, as usual, hysterical. It uses the same phraseology about "benefit ghettos" but there are graphics for those who need pictures with their reading. My earlier point about the definition of an area is important in the context of the Mail's version. They list 6 places where there are a large number of "neighbourhoods" with more than 30% unemployed. But to say that there are "nearly 70 neighbourhoods" in Liverpool" in this state is a nonsense. Are we talking about a large housing estate or a small street? The article ends by saying that the CSJ is working on a follow-up report with its recommendations.
So a minister's pet think-tank comes up with a report with the message which the minister wants to convey, and the right-wing press runs with it in its own inimitable way. Goebbels would be proud.
Monday, 20 May 2013
Sunday, 19 May 2013
Workfare - the government must come clean
The DWP refused Freedom of Information requests to reveal the organisations which were using free labour under the various schemes dubbed "workfare". The Information Commissioner said they had to. The DWP refused again, on the grounds that it would cause "damage to commercial interests", and charities would suffer from the "adverse publicity". Now a tribunal led by three judges has ruled that the DWP must comply and publish the list. (See the Guardian)
While the Boycott Workfare group is justifiably triumphant, I don't think they should rejoice too soon. This government doesn't regard such legal rulings as binding. As the Guardian says, they could appeal to the high court or use a ministerial veto to ban publication. My bet would be that the list never will be published.
The DWP seems to assume that if they have to reveal the organisations taking part in these schemes it will effectively bring them to an end. And that means, they say, that the firms paid to organise them would have to sack staff and lose money. Ingeus said it would lose £1m in revenue, and Seetec said they would have to sack 53 people. (A4e don't seem to have been asked.) So the taxpayer is paying millions to force people into working for their benefits. Crazy, isn't it? There's another interesting fact in the Guardian piece. The current Chief Executive of Ingeus is Dean James, who is a former senior DWP civil servant. How very cosy.
While the Boycott Workfare group is justifiably triumphant, I don't think they should rejoice too soon. This government doesn't regard such legal rulings as binding. As the Guardian says, they could appeal to the high court or use a ministerial veto to ban publication. My bet would be that the list never will be published.
The DWP seems to assume that if they have to reveal the organisations taking part in these schemes it will effectively bring them to an end. And that means, they say, that the firms paid to organise them would have to sack staff and lose money. Ingeus said it would lose £1m in revenue, and Seetec said they would have to sack 53 people. (A4e don't seem to have been asked.) So the taxpayer is paying millions to force people into working for their benefits. Crazy, isn't it? There's another interesting fact in the Guardian piece. The current Chief Executive of Ingeus is Dean James, who is a former senior DWP civil servant. How very cosy.
Wednesday, 15 May 2013
Sanctions statistics - they're not going to publish them
Today was supposed to be the day the updated stats for JSA sanctions were published. But the DWP has decided not to publish them. In an announcement the DWP said that there were "significant doubts around the quality of the statistics relating to the new regime". So they're going to work on them and publish them at some point in the future.
The new series of stats is to run from October 2012 to January 2013, and "include a breakdown by Jobcentre Plus office". So why there's doubt about their "quality" is anybody's guess. An article in the Scottish Daily Record quoted figures for April 2012 (yes, last year). 4,680 claimants in Scotland had their benefits stopped in that month, compared to 500 in the same month in 2009. The article quotes the concerns of Citizens Advice Scotland about both the numbers being punished and the "unreasonable or unfair" nature of many of the cases.
So one wonders why the DWP is so concerned not to publish updated figures.
The new series of stats is to run from October 2012 to January 2013, and "include a breakdown by Jobcentre Plus office". So why there's doubt about their "quality" is anybody's guess. An article in the Scottish Daily Record quoted figures for April 2012 (yes, last year). 4,680 claimants in Scotland had their benefits stopped in that month, compared to 500 in the same month in 2009. The article quotes the concerns of Citizens Advice Scotland about both the numbers being punished and the "unreasonable or unfair" nature of many of the cases.
So one wonders why the DWP is so concerned not to publish updated figures.
Sunday, 12 May 2013
The only game in town
A4e "welcomes" the new contracts to be issued by Chris Grayling for "offender rehabilitation", or so they say on their website. These contracts will privatise a chunk of the work of the Probation Service, and they're set to be on a Payment by Results basis. PbR is not a model the outsourcing companies like; but it seems to be the only game in town at the moment. The Work Programme hasn't been a good advertisement for it, and Mark Hoban (more about him later) has reiterated that the worst-performing providers will be penalised by losing "up to 5%" of their new referrals. It's hard to see that as a punishment. The providers have complained that they have too many referrals and not enough money to do anything useful with them. Hoban is talking tough, saying that he's willing to see providers go out of business if they can't deliver on the contracts they signed. But if any of the big companies, including A4e, went bust it would cause big problems, as the remaining providers would be expected to pick up the business.
The Telegraph reports that Mark Hoban has been one of the biggest beneficiaries of the MPs' second homes scam. He sold his London flat, funded partly through the MPs' expenses system, in November with a profit of £144,000. He's only been asked to repay £11,332, because that's all that's due since the new system kicked in. The article, somewhat tongue in cheek, ends by describing Hoban as the minister "at the forefront of trying to get more people off benefits and into work". It really does point up the hypocrisy of politicians who milk the system while vilifying the poorest.
Two more articles I'll simply recommend without comment. The first is in the Guardian: "Recession is a good time to exploit cheap labour, says Cameron aide". The second, also in the Guardian, is by Nick Cohen: "Lies, damned lies and Iain Duncan Smith".
Finally, a demonstration of how the right-wing press works hand in glove with the government, this time to denigrate the BBC. The Express has splashed an account of a book which purports to show left-wing bias in the Beeb.
The Telegraph reports that Mark Hoban has been one of the biggest beneficiaries of the MPs' second homes scam. He sold his London flat, funded partly through the MPs' expenses system, in November with a profit of £144,000. He's only been asked to repay £11,332, because that's all that's due since the new system kicked in. The article, somewhat tongue in cheek, ends by describing Hoban as the minister "at the forefront of trying to get more people off benefits and into work". It really does point up the hypocrisy of politicians who milk the system while vilifying the poorest.
Two more articles I'll simply recommend without comment. The first is in the Guardian: "Recession is a good time to exploit cheap labour, says Cameron aide". The second, also in the Guardian, is by Nick Cohen: "Lies, damned lies and Iain Duncan Smith".
Finally, a demonstration of how the right-wing press works hand in glove with the government, this time to denigrate the BBC. The Express has splashed an account of a book which purports to show left-wing bias in the Beeb.
Friday, 10 May 2013
More truth, more lies
Iain Duncan Smith has been taken to task by the official statistics watchdog over his claims that the £26,000 a year benefits cap spurred 8,000 unemployed people to find jobs. Andrew Dilnot, the chair of the UK Statistics Authority, has written to the TUC (following a complaint from them) to say that he did not comply with the code of practice on the way ministers handled figures, and wanting assurance that he won't do it again. It sounds mild enough, but the language is strong for that kind of official letter. The Huffington Post has the full letter, and the Independent dissects it. Channel 4 News' FactCheck has also described the situation. They all point out that this isn't the first time that IDS has been officially rebuked for making false claims. At last, this morning, the BBC has reported the story, talking briefly to MP Dame Anne Begg who was copied into the letter. She talked about using figures to make a political point and referred to the false claims about 1 million people who were supposedly fit for work.
But "lies, damned lies and statistics" are the stuff of much modern journalism. Ministers are fond of talking about "fraudanderror" (as if it was one word) costing vast amounts of money. Left Foot Forward publishes the official figures from the DWP, which show that just 0.7% of total benefit expenditure (£1.2bn) is down to claimant fraud. 0.9% is due to claimant error, 0.4% to official error. A poll carried out for the TUC shows that the public believes that the fraud figure is 27%. Now, how could they get that false impression? Could it be the result of disgusting "journalism" like that in the Express today? Somebody called Martyn Brown writes an article headlined "Call for new blitz on benefits to cut £3.6bn fraud bill". Hang on, where did that figure come from? Oh yes, it's 3 years' worth. And there's a great big photo of "benefit scrounger Mick Philpott" (who is referred to again at the end of the article as if he's typical). The only reference to percentages in the piece is the fact that the figure for official error has fallen to 0.4%. Brown dissects the fraud figures to show what huge amounts of money are involved, and drags in the odious Taxpayers' Alliance in support. There's nothing in the piece which is actually false (I think) but it's pure propaganda, selective use of the figures to create a false impression.
But "lies, damned lies and statistics" are the stuff of much modern journalism. Ministers are fond of talking about "fraudanderror" (as if it was one word) costing vast amounts of money. Left Foot Forward publishes the official figures from the DWP, which show that just 0.7% of total benefit expenditure (£1.2bn) is down to claimant fraud. 0.9% is due to claimant error, 0.4% to official error. A poll carried out for the TUC shows that the public believes that the fraud figure is 27%. Now, how could they get that false impression? Could it be the result of disgusting "journalism" like that in the Express today? Somebody called Martyn Brown writes an article headlined "Call for new blitz on benefits to cut £3.6bn fraud bill". Hang on, where did that figure come from? Oh yes, it's 3 years' worth. And there's a great big photo of "benefit scrounger Mick Philpott" (who is referred to again at the end of the article as if he's typical). The only reference to percentages in the piece is the fact that the figure for official error has fallen to 0.4%. Brown dissects the fraud figures to show what huge amounts of money are involved, and drags in the odious Taxpayers' Alliance in support. There's nothing in the piece which is actually false (I think) but it's pure propaganda, selective use of the figures to create a false impression.
Saturday, 4 May 2013
The freedom of the press - to lie
The owner of the Daily Express is Richard Desmond. The editor is Hugh Whittow. The writer of a particularly shameless article today is Giles Sheldrick. I mention these names because newspaper articles don't come about by accident. They are the result of deliberate decisions by men who consider themselves free to debase the whole concept of truth. This is propaganda of the most egregious kind, peddling an interpretation of figures which have been shown to be false. These men don't have to explain why they do this. They are not answerable to the people they insult and denigrate. They just make money.
If you have read the article, you might also read this piece in the New Statesman; or, if that's a bit left-wing for your taste, this one in the Economist. You might also read FullFact's analysis of the figures, written back on 24 April. But the circulation of the Express is nearly 600,000, and presumably those people read it because it confirms their prejudices, not for truth.
Related to all this is an interesting piece on the Left Foot Forward website, which graphs the number of times the word "scrounger" has been used in British newspapers since 1994. It takes off steeply from 2010. Some of the comments under the article rubbish the accuracy of the exercise, but it remains fascinating.
PS: I later discovered this, even worse, article in the Daily Mail. They've added a bogus "workshy map of Britain" to fuel the lie of those "found fit to work". It's breathtaking in its sheer dishonesty. The writer is someone called Amanda Williams. I wonder how much she was paid for this scurrilous trash. These two papers between them continue to make Britain a nastier place than even the politicians know how to do.
If you have read the article, you might also read this piece in the New Statesman; or, if that's a bit left-wing for your taste, this one in the Economist. You might also read FullFact's analysis of the figures, written back on 24 April. But the circulation of the Express is nearly 600,000, and presumably those people read it because it confirms their prejudices, not for truth.
Related to all this is an interesting piece on the Left Foot Forward website, which graphs the number of times the word "scrounger" has been used in British newspapers since 1994. It takes off steeply from 2010. Some of the comments under the article rubbish the accuracy of the exercise, but it remains fascinating.
PS: I later discovered this, even worse, article in the Daily Mail. They've added a bogus "workshy map of Britain" to fuel the lie of those "found fit to work". It's breathtaking in its sheer dishonesty. The writer is someone called Amanda Williams. I wonder how much she was paid for this scurrilous trash. These two papers between them continue to make Britain a nastier place than even the politicians know how to do.
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".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)