Another week of PMQs is over and, as usual, Cameron reduced the debate to personal snipes against the Labour leader. It is a regular tactic and he as applied it on many occasions as a mechanism to deflect attention away from himself and back onto the opposition.
It adds little or nothing to the debate, but it has been a useful tool to silence Miliband. It is therefore not surprising the Guardian reports that polls suggest only 25% of the population thought Ed Miliband would make a better prime minister. Not that Cameron should feel too smug, because only 38% voted for him.
The polls also indicate support within the Labour party isn’t overwhelming for EM. Indeed, if they are to be believed, 38% of Labour members – and 42% of people who backed the party are uncertain about Miliband as a possible prime minister.
By any stretch of the imagination these aren’t welcome statistics. Of course, we know psephologists and number crunchers love to play games and polls are seldom a true reflection of the national picture. What they indicate is that young Ed isn’t doing as well as he would have perhaps hoped.
Naturally, some opponents are already saying things would have been different if his brother had been elected. Perhaps, but would the soul of the Labour party have been safe in his hands? On reflection, I doubt it – what we would have seen is a continuation of New Labour, but with different labelling.
At PMQs today, Ed faired well and managed to score a few decent broadsides into Cameron’s hull. However, the good ship Conservativism is far from sunk and EM will need to dramatically up his game if he hopes to play with the big boys.
One rain doesn’t make a monsoon, but I hope that at least it heralds the start of the rainy season. At the moment I am left with the niggling doubt EM was given a good result on a platter. He will not be so fortunate in the weeks to come and will need to show a far hardier, earthy quality in his responses.
He might like to take a few lessons from Ed “rottweiler” Balls in this respect – a little thuggery in EM’s delivery would go a long way to push the party forward and reinforce his position as the leader of the loyal opposition. Add to that more spontaneity and you may find the electorate will warm to him, and find him less wooden.
One thing is for sure – Ed Miliband cannot continue the way he is going and that opposition to Tory cuts alone will be enough to win the next General Election. May 2010 demonstrated we have become far more media-centred when it comes to party leaders. Labour tried to paint Gordon Brown as a man with knowledge, wisdom and the courage to take Britain through this crisis. He may have had all those qualities, but the electorate were unconvinced and found Brown stiff, aloof and unapproachable, whilst Clegg was seen to be likable and trustworthy.
Time has shown the latter to be incorrect, but it still doesn’t give the Labour party the excuse to repeat the same mistakes with EM – he needs to be groomed (and quickly) to become far tougher, far more forceful and far more clearer in his delivery.
He has a long way to go.
Wednesday 26 January 2011
GDP and the White Christmas .. or just a whitewash?
The drop in GDP growth was largely due to snow according to Osborne. Huh?
So when we next get results from ONS is he going to tell us the decline was due to the moon not being in alignment with Taurus? Or perhaps we are moving closer to double dip recession because last week David Cameron walked under a ladder just as a black cat crossed his path?
When he took office, Osborne made it quite clear he had a Plan A (although he admitted there was no plan B). Is he now saying the plan didn’t cover certain eventualities? In my language that isn’t a plan – it’s a hodge-podge of ideas cobbled together on the back of a fag packet and made to look like a plan.
The consequence of this ‘plan’ is that, according to the Governor of the Bank of England, workers will now have to tighten their belts and hold back on pay claims. Silly question – does that include bankers?
So we can look forward to inflation at 5%, unemployment hitting 3m, substantially reduced services, higher costs for those wanting to go to university, steeper food and fuel prices, more people facing homelessness and more people being forced to go bankrupt.
Oh yes, life is much better under the Conservatives!
So when we next get results from ONS is he going to tell us the decline was due to the moon not being in alignment with Taurus? Or perhaps we are moving closer to double dip recession because last week David Cameron walked under a ladder just as a black cat crossed his path?
When he took office, Osborne made it quite clear he had a Plan A (although he admitted there was no plan B). Is he now saying the plan didn’t cover certain eventualities? In my language that isn’t a plan – it’s a hodge-podge of ideas cobbled together on the back of a fag packet and made to look like a plan.
The consequence of this ‘plan’ is that, according to the Governor of the Bank of England, workers will now have to tighten their belts and hold back on pay claims. Silly question – does that include bankers?
So we can look forward to inflation at 5%, unemployment hitting 3m, substantially reduced services, higher costs for those wanting to go to university, steeper food and fuel prices, more people facing homelessness and more people being forced to go bankrupt.
Oh yes, life is much better under the Conservatives!
Tuesday 25 January 2011
Big Society or Big Gamble?
Despite the resignation of Andy Coulson last week, the Communications Office at Number 10 has managed to produce some wonderful ‘spin’.
At first glance, publication by the Centre for Social Justice of their “Outcome-based government” report should have been a huge torpedo in the hull of the administration. Until now, IDS, the founder of the CSJ has been Cameron’s ‘right-hand’ man and his suggestion that cuts are being implemented in the ‘wrong way’ will have come as a shock to senior Tories. However, deft handling by spin gurus ensured IDS’ call for a radical review of austerity measures moved from being a criticism of governmentstrategy to becoming a critique of the Big Society.
During the May 2010 election a number of Tory candidates voiced their criticism of the policy, but with the government intent on dramatically reducing the deficit, this discontent has turned from smouldering on the edges to a significant fire within the backbenches.
Senior Tories are blaming Steve Hilton, Downing Street Director of Strategy and Cameron’s “blue skies thinker” for pushing ahead with the Big Society, even though most members of the public find it “incomprehensible”. Some backbenchers’ fear the agenda is in crisis because Downing Street has been forced to deny the flagship policy may be close to collapse because of cutbacks.
Band-aiding by spin-doctors wasn’t helped by t pronouncements by Sir Stephen Bubb, of Acevo, which represents voluntary organisations, who said the nation’s charities were facing a “perfect storm” of rising costs, higher tax bills because of the VAT rise and swingeing cuts in funding. As if that wasn’t enough to reduce the gurus to tears, he added: “This is impairing our ability to support those most in need.”
On Thursday, third sector leaders will meet with Nicholas Hurd, the charities minister, who will attempt to reassure them. A large part of this restabilisation will pick up the point made earlier this week by the Prime Minister’s spokesperson that three-quarters of charities do not receive any Government money. At the meeting, Hurd will emphasise that Government proposals on the Work Programme and rehabilitation for prisoners for example, will bring significant opportunities for voluntary groups in the coming years.
Of course, this assumes the third sector will have the opportunity to play a significant role in the delivery of the Work Programme. With news today of over 200 redundancies at Framework, the housing charity, 1,400 at Remploy and news that 26% of organisations had solid plans in place to cut paid staff numbers during the next three months, the prognosis for the third sector doesn’t look good.
There are signs the government are looking at the Work Programme as a ‘cure all’, offering a mechanism to reduce unemployment, help disabled workers and fund a financially strapped third sector. It is a high-risk, ‘winner-take-all’ gamble that may well chance the face of third sector involvement in the W2W sector.
More importantly, it is a strategy that could well leave hundreds of thousands of unemployed people without any possibility of support whilst they look for work. At a time when jobs are hard to come by, that further reinforces the evidence to label the ideology of this government as ‘Uncaring Conservativism”.
At first glance, publication by the Centre for Social Justice of their “Outcome-based government” report should have been a huge torpedo in the hull of the administration. Until now, IDS, the founder of the CSJ has been Cameron’s ‘right-hand’ man and his suggestion that cuts are being implemented in the ‘wrong way’ will have come as a shock to senior Tories. However, deft handling by spin gurus ensured IDS’ call for a radical review of austerity measures moved from being a criticism of governmentstrategy to becoming a critique of the Big Society.
During the May 2010 election a number of Tory candidates voiced their criticism of the policy, but with the government intent on dramatically reducing the deficit, this discontent has turned from smouldering on the edges to a significant fire within the backbenches.
Senior Tories are blaming Steve Hilton, Downing Street Director of Strategy and Cameron’s “blue skies thinker” for pushing ahead with the Big Society, even though most members of the public find it “incomprehensible”. Some backbenchers’ fear the agenda is in crisis because Downing Street has been forced to deny the flagship policy may be close to collapse because of cutbacks.
Band-aiding by spin-doctors wasn’t helped by t pronouncements by Sir Stephen Bubb, of Acevo, which represents voluntary organisations, who said the nation’s charities were facing a “perfect storm” of rising costs, higher tax bills because of the VAT rise and swingeing cuts in funding. As if that wasn’t enough to reduce the gurus to tears, he added: “This is impairing our ability to support those most in need.”
On Thursday, third sector leaders will meet with Nicholas Hurd, the charities minister, who will attempt to reassure them. A large part of this restabilisation will pick up the point made earlier this week by the Prime Minister’s spokesperson that three-quarters of charities do not receive any Government money. At the meeting, Hurd will emphasise that Government proposals on the Work Programme and rehabilitation for prisoners for example, will bring significant opportunities for voluntary groups in the coming years.
Of course, this assumes the third sector will have the opportunity to play a significant role in the delivery of the Work Programme. With news today of over 200 redundancies at Framework, the housing charity, 1,400 at Remploy and news that 26% of organisations had solid plans in place to cut paid staff numbers during the next three months, the prognosis for the third sector doesn’t look good.
There are signs the government are looking at the Work Programme as a ‘cure all’, offering a mechanism to reduce unemployment, help disabled workers and fund a financially strapped third sector. It is a high-risk, ‘winner-take-all’ gamble that may well chance the face of third sector involvement in the W2W sector.
More importantly, it is a strategy that could well leave hundreds of thousands of unemployed people without any possibility of support whilst they look for work. At a time when jobs are hard to come by, that further reinforces the evidence to label the ideology of this government as ‘Uncaring Conservativism”.
at
07:39
0
comments
Labels:
Big Society,
Cameron,
charity,
Conservativism,
CSJ,
IDS,
third sector,
Work Programme
0
comments
Labels:
Big Society,
Cameron,
charity,
Conservativism,
CSJ,
IDS,
third sector,
Work Programme
Monday 24 January 2011
Work placements - slavery by any other name
So now the government intends to encourage young people into work by offering them eight-week work placements.
According to Indus Delta (the newswire for the welfare to work industry), they state the new scheme:
“... will now allow young people to undertake work experience for up to eight weeks rather than current paltry two weeks. Under the existing regime, if you tried to do more, you ran the risk of having your benefits docked. The new initiative will be applicable for individuals between 18 and 21 who will be matched by Jobcentre Plus with employers looking for people to do work experience.”
I am pleased the new initiative excites staff at Inclusion, or CESI by its more popular name (for those not in the know, Inclusion run the Indus Delta website), but I fear I cannot build the same level of enthusiasm. To me, this is yet another scheme to take workless young people out of the unemployment statistics and sanitise levels of worklessness.
None of these schemes offer young people any kind of vocational training or any certainty they will be offered a permanent job on completion of their placement.
Now, let’s look at this more realistically. What do you call work where you are punished if you don’t attend, you don’t get paid, there is no security of tenure, the work traditionally tends to be menial, or burdensome, you are unable to join any company pension or health scheme and you have no in-company holiday entitlement?
Isn’t this another type of slave labour – with just a floral hue to make it sound better?
According to the Oxford Dictionary Online, ‘slavery’ means “condition of having to work very hard without proper remuneration or appreciation.” Now, if work placements don’t fit this definition of slavery, then what does?
The government need to tackle the whole issue of youth unemployment far more realistically, with initiatives to encourage jobless youths to access far more apprenticeships or training courses. Those wishing to remain in education should be encouraged to do so through the Educational Maintenance Allowance. Additionally, companies could be encouraged to take on younger recruits through payment of a dividend, in the same way long-term unemployed on New Deal programmes were attractive to employers through payments from Jobcentre Plus.
Whitewashing the statistics through miserable halfhearted gestures is not the answer.
According to Indus Delta (the newswire for the welfare to work industry), they state the new scheme:
“... will now allow young people to undertake work experience for up to eight weeks rather than current paltry two weeks. Under the existing regime, if you tried to do more, you ran the risk of having your benefits docked. The new initiative will be applicable for individuals between 18 and 21 who will be matched by Jobcentre Plus with employers looking for people to do work experience.”
I am pleased the new initiative excites staff at Inclusion, or CESI by its more popular name (for those not in the know, Inclusion run the Indus Delta website), but I fear I cannot build the same level of enthusiasm. To me, this is yet another scheme to take workless young people out of the unemployment statistics and sanitise levels of worklessness.
None of these schemes offer young people any kind of vocational training or any certainty they will be offered a permanent job on completion of their placement.
Now, let’s look at this more realistically. What do you call work where you are punished if you don’t attend, you don’t get paid, there is no security of tenure, the work traditionally tends to be menial, or burdensome, you are unable to join any company pension or health scheme and you have no in-company holiday entitlement?
Isn’t this another type of slave labour – with just a floral hue to make it sound better?
According to the Oxford Dictionary Online, ‘slavery’ means “condition of having to work very hard without proper remuneration or appreciation.” Now, if work placements don’t fit this definition of slavery, then what does?
The government need to tackle the whole issue of youth unemployment far more realistically, with initiatives to encourage jobless youths to access far more apprenticeships or training courses. Those wishing to remain in education should be encouraged to do so through the Educational Maintenance Allowance. Additionally, companies could be encouraged to take on younger recruits through payment of a dividend, in the same way long-term unemployed on New Deal programmes were attractive to employers through payments from Jobcentre Plus.
Whitewashing the statistics through miserable halfhearted gestures is not the answer.
Saturday 22 January 2011
What justification for fuel prices?
I had a small stroke in 2007 and although I recovered fully, I found my eyesight was perhaps not all it should be. For that reason I chose to sell my car and give up driving. At that time I would have paid about £1 a litre for unleaded petrol, although my car ran on diesel and, for that reason, it cost me about £1.05 a litre to run the old gas guzzler.
Today I find the cost of running a car depends on where you live. Unleaded seems to range from £1.28.4 to £1.42.9, whilst diesel can fluctuate between 133.01p and 146.9p. By any stretch of the imagination these differences do not simply reflect the extra costs of transporting it into rural and ‘hard to reach’ areas.
An average price increase in fuel of 35% in just over two years is preposterous by any stretch of the imagination and cannot be justified. Equally, prices today seem to differ by close to 10% depending on where you live. The only conclusion it seems reasonable to make is that someone, somewhere is making a great deal of money out of the average motorist.
Of course, it goes without saying we should be looking for greater use of public transport and, in this respect, there is a desperate need to improve our services, particularly to rural locations. But, I don’t know about readers of this blog, but it sticks in my throat that corporations are making money hand over fist out of our need for fuel.
I suppose you could argue it gives greater credence to the idea of developing hybrid and electric cars – good point, but we aren’t there yet. So, we have to live in the world today. And that world is full of extortion and subterfuge so that huge companies, like BP can make vast profits each year.
I would remind the directors of BP that the Deepwater crisis was not the fault of the average British driver, and we should not be expected to foot the bill. Similarly, to all the other oil companies I would argue it is your choice to streamline oilfield operation and create new fields in Brazil, Kazakhstan, Iran, Canada and India. Now these companies are intent on destroying the natural beauty of Greenland’s Arctic area.
The sooner we break away from our reliance on oil, the sooner these companies will learn they cannot abuse British driver. Unfortunately, my cynicism forces me to conclude that as the likes of BP slide away, so will new conglomerates selling ‘cheap’ solar or wind power.
With this in mind you can see the justification for mass nationalisation of the energy industry.
Today I find the cost of running a car depends on where you live. Unleaded seems to range from £1.28.4 to £1.42.9, whilst diesel can fluctuate between 133.01p and 146.9p. By any stretch of the imagination these differences do not simply reflect the extra costs of transporting it into rural and ‘hard to reach’ areas.
An average price increase in fuel of 35% in just over two years is preposterous by any stretch of the imagination and cannot be justified. Equally, prices today seem to differ by close to 10% depending on where you live. The only conclusion it seems reasonable to make is that someone, somewhere is making a great deal of money out of the average motorist.
Of course, it goes without saying we should be looking for greater use of public transport and, in this respect, there is a desperate need to improve our services, particularly to rural locations. But, I don’t know about readers of this blog, but it sticks in my throat that corporations are making money hand over fist out of our need for fuel.
I suppose you could argue it gives greater credence to the idea of developing hybrid and electric cars – good point, but we aren’t there yet. So, we have to live in the world today. And that world is full of extortion and subterfuge so that huge companies, like BP can make vast profits each year.
I would remind the directors of BP that the Deepwater crisis was not the fault of the average British driver, and we should not be expected to foot the bill. Similarly, to all the other oil companies I would argue it is your choice to streamline oilfield operation and create new fields in Brazil, Kazakhstan, Iran, Canada and India. Now these companies are intent on destroying the natural beauty of Greenland’s Arctic area.
The sooner we break away from our reliance on oil, the sooner these companies will learn they cannot abuse British driver. Unfortunately, my cynicism forces me to conclude that as the likes of BP slide away, so will new conglomerates selling ‘cheap’ solar or wind power.
With this in mind you can see the justification for mass nationalisation of the energy industry.
Cuts! Where is the opposition?
The addition of Andy Coulson to our unemployment statistics will hardly come as a shock to most readers of this blog. At the moment there is no evidence to suggest he had any involvement in the phone hacking scandal now being unravelled at the News of the World. Having said that, when a number of your senior team are accused of being involved in illegal acts, there is a very real danger the public will assume a ‘guilt by association’ factor.
Coulson will join a prestigious elite – the existing 2.5m people unable to find work in this country. He needn’t worry if he will have enough new colleagues either. With announcements yesterday that West Midlands NHS intends to enforce their mandatory 4% cut by reducing their workforce by 1,600, he will have plenty of company.
He will be joined later this year by hundreds of thousands of local and central government workers who will be axed because of cuts imposed by Cameron and Clegg and their sycophants.
It is rumoured they will be opposed by the trade union movement. Already Unison has instigated their “Million Voices” campaign which, of course, rocked the corridors of power (do you detect any cynicism?).
On top of this, the TUC are planning a mass demonstration – their “A Future that Works” rally, as a gesture of solidarity for young people. It’s a shame they couldn’t have shown a little more of this solidarity when students were marching against university fees and the withdrawal of EMA!
I dare say they are saving themselves for the big event – the TUC “March for the Alternative” on March 26th. No doubt they will be hoping for mass support, but there remains a huge niggle – why has it taken them almost 11 months to develop any real campaign against this Conservative-led government?
Let’s face it, the left have been caught wrong footed and as a result we have allowed the Tories to get away with murder. What we have let them do to us:
An extra 100,000 unemployed with thousands more to follow,
a 2.5% increase in VAT,
huge cuts in our schools and health service, despite Cameron insisting before the election that frontline services would be protected.
the decimation of our local libraries
up to 8.9% cuts in local council funding (mainly to Labour authorities).
I could go on.
And what did we do to oppose it? Nothing!
Oh, I agree we established the Coalition for Resistance and there’s also the Right to Work Campaign – both worthy bodies, but how much impact have they really made? Do you see Eric Pickles shaking in his boots? Has Iain Duncan Smith looked embarrassed by the news of rising unemployment? Has George Osborne shown any signs of worry that inflation is gradually steering towards 5% with a raft of price increases running alongside reducing many to penury?
No!!
If the left is to oppose this government we will need to mobilise far more forcibly. This isn’t a nice walk in the park and we have to stop treating it like some fun-filled jamboree. Our unions need to organise mass demonstrations – taking a lesson from the experience of the recent student marches. Similarly, the Labour party needs to be seen to be far more at the heart of this opposition, with active involvement in campaigns, local cuts groups, sit-ins and strikes.
Don’t forget. as always, the Tories have one single mission – to destroy the working class movement. They have already begun and not without some success. If we don’t make our stand soon they will ride through us and totally destroy any chance to fight against them for a generation.
Coulson will join a prestigious elite – the existing 2.5m people unable to find work in this country. He needn’t worry if he will have enough new colleagues either. With announcements yesterday that West Midlands NHS intends to enforce their mandatory 4% cut by reducing their workforce by 1,600, he will have plenty of company.
He will be joined later this year by hundreds of thousands of local and central government workers who will be axed because of cuts imposed by Cameron and Clegg and their sycophants.
It is rumoured they will be opposed by the trade union movement. Already Unison has instigated their “Million Voices” campaign which, of course, rocked the corridors of power (do you detect any cynicism?).
On top of this, the TUC are planning a mass demonstration – their “A Future that Works” rally, as a gesture of solidarity for young people. It’s a shame they couldn’t have shown a little more of this solidarity when students were marching against university fees and the withdrawal of EMA!
I dare say they are saving themselves for the big event – the TUC “March for the Alternative” on March 26th. No doubt they will be hoping for mass support, but there remains a huge niggle – why has it taken them almost 11 months to develop any real campaign against this Conservative-led government?
Let’s face it, the left have been caught wrong footed and as a result we have allowed the Tories to get away with murder. What we have let them do to us:
An extra 100,000 unemployed with thousands more to follow,
a 2.5% increase in VAT,
huge cuts in our schools and health service, despite Cameron insisting before the election that frontline services would be protected.
the decimation of our local libraries
up to 8.9% cuts in local council funding (mainly to Labour authorities).
I could go on.
And what did we do to oppose it? Nothing!
Oh, I agree we established the Coalition for Resistance and there’s also the Right to Work Campaign – both worthy bodies, but how much impact have they really made? Do you see Eric Pickles shaking in his boots? Has Iain Duncan Smith looked embarrassed by the news of rising unemployment? Has George Osborne shown any signs of worry that inflation is gradually steering towards 5% with a raft of price increases running alongside reducing many to penury?
No!!
If the left is to oppose this government we will need to mobilise far more forcibly. This isn’t a nice walk in the park and we have to stop treating it like some fun-filled jamboree. Our unions need to organise mass demonstrations – taking a lesson from the experience of the recent student marches. Similarly, the Labour party needs to be seen to be far more at the heart of this opposition, with active involvement in campaigns, local cuts groups, sit-ins and strikes.
Don’t forget. as always, the Tories have one single mission – to destroy the working class movement. They have already begun and not without some success. If we don’t make our stand soon they will ride through us and totally destroy any chance to fight against them for a generation.
at
00:17
3
comments
Labels:
Coalition for Resistance,
Conservative,
cuts,
Right to Work,
TUC,
unemplyment
3
comments
Labels:
Coalition for Resistance,
Conservative,
cuts,
Right to Work,
TUC,
unemplyment
Friday 21 January 2011
Order! Order!
The latest row amongst Tory Ministers wanting to oust John Bercow from his position as Speaker is reminiscent of kids playing in a schoolyard. It comes as no surprise.
Bercow has consistently shown that whilst he originally entered parliament as a Conservative, he was not going to be tied to a party label once he became Speaker.
Never a person to shy away from controversy, he upset many traditionalists when he shunned the usual garb and favoured a normal lounge suit. Bercow managed to upset Tory benches further by refusing to ‘reign-in’ his wife, Sally when she decided to stand as a Labour candidate in local elections last year. Add to this his more recent pronouncements against fox-hunting and you have a number of Tories baying for his blood.
Some in the Labour benches are equally unhappy about Bercow because of his sustained support for IPSA. Ironically, a few others on the opposition side have also murmured some discontent because they see him favouring the government, at their expense.
Both are failing to recognise a fundamental issue. The role of Speaker ensures the smooth running of parliament and that all sides are allowed equal access to the floor of the House . Above all it is (and always has been) the role of Speaker to ensure the Commons handles itself within the law and in a manner that does not bring parliament into a position where the public lose comfort in their elected representatives. After the shenanigans of the recent expenses fiasco, this has been no easy task.
Far from demonstrating a partisan attitude, Bercow has shown himself to be an exemplary Speaker. His modern attitudes have shocked many within and outside parliament (including this writer), but it is clear he has always acted in a manner that has demonstrated he holds the role in the highest of regard and for this he should be commended.
It is time for his opponents to put away their grievances and accept the authority of the Speaker. This is neither the time nor place for parliamentarians to act like little schoolchildren going off in a huff because one of the kids won’t play the game according to their rules.
The message from this blog to those elected representatives fussing around the corridors of power trying to oust Bercow is simple – grow up and get on with it. Part of the price of being an adult is that sometimes rules don’t go your way, either live with it or get out of the job. The electorate deserve better than your childish tantrums.
As for Mr Bercow? He has brought much need wit and wisdom to the job. If the kids grumbling at the back of the playground manage to have their way, he would be a tragic loss. For the sake of democracy, reason and the sanctity of the role of Speaker, let us hope they fail dismally.
Bercow has consistently shown that whilst he originally entered parliament as a Conservative, he was not going to be tied to a party label once he became Speaker.
Never a person to shy away from controversy, he upset many traditionalists when he shunned the usual garb and favoured a normal lounge suit. Bercow managed to upset Tory benches further by refusing to ‘reign-in’ his wife, Sally when she decided to stand as a Labour candidate in local elections last year. Add to this his more recent pronouncements against fox-hunting and you have a number of Tories baying for his blood.
Some in the Labour benches are equally unhappy about Bercow because of his sustained support for IPSA. Ironically, a few others on the opposition side have also murmured some discontent because they see him favouring the government, at their expense.
Both are failing to recognise a fundamental issue. The role of Speaker ensures the smooth running of parliament and that all sides are allowed equal access to the floor of the House . Above all it is (and always has been) the role of Speaker to ensure the Commons handles itself within the law and in a manner that does not bring parliament into a position where the public lose comfort in their elected representatives. After the shenanigans of the recent expenses fiasco, this has been no easy task.
Far from demonstrating a partisan attitude, Bercow has shown himself to be an exemplary Speaker. His modern attitudes have shocked many within and outside parliament (including this writer), but it is clear he has always acted in a manner that has demonstrated he holds the role in the highest of regard and for this he should be commended.
It is time for his opponents to put away their grievances and accept the authority of the Speaker. This is neither the time nor place for parliamentarians to act like little schoolchildren going off in a huff because one of the kids won’t play the game according to their rules.
The message from this blog to those elected representatives fussing around the corridors of power trying to oust Bercow is simple – grow up and get on with it. Part of the price of being an adult is that sometimes rules don’t go your way, either live with it or get out of the job. The electorate deserve better than your childish tantrums.
As for Mr Bercow? He has brought much need wit and wisdom to the job. If the kids grumbling at the back of the playground manage to have their way, he would be a tragic loss. For the sake of democracy, reason and the sanctity of the role of Speaker, let us hope they fail dismally.
Thursday 20 January 2011
.. And its goodbye from him
The news tonight that the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alan Johnson has resigned from his post must come with deep sadness to anyone with an ounce of moral conscience and caring for their fellow human beings.
Johnson was never destined to be a great chancellor and at a political level, the Labour party will not regret his passing. However, at a personal level it would be hoped that every member, at whatever level, will tonight be wishing him and his family every good wish and prayer. No doubt the media will go out of their way to invade his privacy over the coming days and this writer wishes all his family well as they preapre to face this unfortunate onslaught.
But his departure is good news for the Labour party and his replacement, Ed Balls will undoubtedly give Osborne cause to be quaking in his boots tonight. Until now Cameron and Osborne have been able to rely on clichéd soundbites, deceit and a generally condescending attitude to barge their policies through.
They will not be so fortunate with Balls – he is a political bruiser. Now, Osborne is sufficiently talented to not be too concerned about that – but what will worry him is the fact that Balls has more knowledge and experience in his little finger than Osborne can muster throughout his entire political life.
Couple these two attributes together and you have grounds for the Tories to be worrying. The news this week that inflation could soar well above OBR forecasts, coupled with evidence that VAT is biting harder than the Tories had hoped will be pounced on by Balls.
His appointment as Shadow Chancellor is welcome news to those who have been opposed to Tory austerity measures. Osborne will need to be well-briefed if he is going to be able to have even half a chance of looking credible as a chancellor. Like the hunter he is, Balls already has Gove’s scalp under his belt. Now his eyes will be focused on Osborne.
Let the hunt begin.
Johnson was never destined to be a great chancellor and at a political level, the Labour party will not regret his passing. However, at a personal level it would be hoped that every member, at whatever level, will tonight be wishing him and his family every good wish and prayer. No doubt the media will go out of their way to invade his privacy over the coming days and this writer wishes all his family well as they preapre to face this unfortunate onslaught.
But his departure is good news for the Labour party and his replacement, Ed Balls will undoubtedly give Osborne cause to be quaking in his boots tonight. Until now Cameron and Osborne have been able to rely on clichéd soundbites, deceit and a generally condescending attitude to barge their policies through.
They will not be so fortunate with Balls – he is a political bruiser. Now, Osborne is sufficiently talented to not be too concerned about that – but what will worry him is the fact that Balls has more knowledge and experience in his little finger than Osborne can muster throughout his entire political life.
Couple these two attributes together and you have grounds for the Tories to be worrying. The news this week that inflation could soar well above OBR forecasts, coupled with evidence that VAT is biting harder than the Tories had hoped will be pounced on by Balls.
His appointment as Shadow Chancellor is welcome news to those who have been opposed to Tory austerity measures. Osborne will need to be well-briefed if he is going to be able to have even half a chance of looking credible as a chancellor. Like the hunter he is, Balls already has Gove’s scalp under his belt. Now his eyes will be focused on Osborne.
Let the hunt begin.
Wednesday 19 January 2011
2.5m unemployed.So this is "Caring Conservativism"?
News today that unemployment has increased by 49,000 will come as no surprise to observers of labour market statistics. Grayling and Duncan Smith will, of course, focus on the slight reduction in the number of people claiming benefit. They will ignore the fact that close to 1m young people are out of work and many of these have never had a job.
Here in the West Midlands, we have seen how the present government ignore local needs. With statistics showing the total number of people unemployed in the region, between September and November 2010, was 264,000, an increase of 48,000, we can only hope predictions of inflation levels of 5% and beyond are without foundation.
Once upon a time, in what now seems a distant land, many of these unfortunate people could have relied on local support to find employment through the Working Neighbourhood Fund. Unfortunately, David “I believe in modern, caring Conservativism” Cameron and his cohorts chose to axe this support some months ago.
No doubt the Tories will make great play on the fact there were 480,000 vacancies in the three months to December - an increase of 18,000 from the three months to September and fourteen thousand higher than a year earlier. Unfortunately, this increase is purely due to the recruitment for the pending official census, who began employing temporary collectors and enumerators in preparation for data collection in October. As the ONS has already stated:
“Excluding the Census vacancies, there were 456,000 job vacancies in the three months to December 2010, down 6,000 from the three months to September 2010.”
This only leaves Cameron with his mantra of ‘the private sector will grow and help the unemployed back to work’. The argument is getting weaker by the day and even the Jobs Editor at the Daily Telegraph is starting to question its ‘truth’. Today, when writing about the latest statistics, she said:
“It is the latest sign that the private sector is struggling to create enough jobs to offset the number of people being made redundant in the public sector.”
She is not alone, Howard Archer, at IHS Global Insight was quoted as saying:
“Major job losses will occur in the public sector as the government slashes spending, and we doubt that the private sector will be able to fully compensate for this. Indeed, we suspect that firms will become increasingly cautious in their employment plans, reflecting slower growth and concerns that the intensified fiscal squeeze will hold back economic activity for an extended period. There are also likely to be significant job losses in private companies supplying services or goods to the public sector. In particular, many firms are likely to try to meet any increase in business through making greater use of the workers they have already or through using part-time staff, and they are likely to be reluctant to take on any more permanent staff unless they are really convinced that sustained improvement in their business is probable.”
Whilst Ian Brinkley, associate director of the Work Foundation argued:
The labour market recovery has come to an abrupt halt as accelerating job losses in the public sector and lack of overall growth in jobs in the private sector start to bite. Women's employment has been especially badly hit. The consequent rise in unemployment would have been worse but for the fact that many women have become "economically inactive" and stopped looking for work.
Now, given all these people are experts in their field, with many years of experience, how come Cameron can deny all the available evidence? Doe he know something we don’t? Does he have some kind of hotline to God allowing him to predict the future more accurately than some of the top economic minds in the country? Or, is his incalcitrant behaviour reminiscent of the uncaring Toryism of the Thatcher years, where unemployment reached 3 million and mortgage rates hit a staggering 15%!
We should not be surprised – the evidence of Cameron’s modern Conservativism was made evident when Osborne stood up for his ‘Emergency’ budget back in June 2010. Since then, things have only got worse and now, as the snows of December thaw away into the recesses of our mind, we are set to face a new ‘Winter of Discontent’, where the ‘haves’ protect what they have, whilst the ‘have-nots’ look in from outside.
Today the Conservatives should be ashamed of themselves, but I doubt they will give it more than a passing thought. In their eyes, these figures are little more than a hiccup in their overall plan to change Britain. One can only fear what the next five years will bring and what this country will turn into if they have their way.
Here in the West Midlands, we have seen how the present government ignore local needs. With statistics showing the total number of people unemployed in the region, between September and November 2010, was 264,000, an increase of 48,000, we can only hope predictions of inflation levels of 5% and beyond are without foundation.
Once upon a time, in what now seems a distant land, many of these unfortunate people could have relied on local support to find employment through the Working Neighbourhood Fund. Unfortunately, David “I believe in modern, caring Conservativism” Cameron and his cohorts chose to axe this support some months ago.
No doubt the Tories will make great play on the fact there were 480,000 vacancies in the three months to December - an increase of 18,000 from the three months to September and fourteen thousand higher than a year earlier. Unfortunately, this increase is purely due to the recruitment for the pending official census, who began employing temporary collectors and enumerators in preparation for data collection in October. As the ONS has already stated:
“Excluding the Census vacancies, there were 456,000 job vacancies in the three months to December 2010, down 6,000 from the three months to September 2010.”
This only leaves Cameron with his mantra of ‘the private sector will grow and help the unemployed back to work’. The argument is getting weaker by the day and even the Jobs Editor at the Daily Telegraph is starting to question its ‘truth’. Today, when writing about the latest statistics, she said:
“It is the latest sign that the private sector is struggling to create enough jobs to offset the number of people being made redundant in the public sector.”
She is not alone, Howard Archer, at IHS Global Insight was quoted as saying:
“Major job losses will occur in the public sector as the government slashes spending, and we doubt that the private sector will be able to fully compensate for this. Indeed, we suspect that firms will become increasingly cautious in their employment plans, reflecting slower growth and concerns that the intensified fiscal squeeze will hold back economic activity for an extended period. There are also likely to be significant job losses in private companies supplying services or goods to the public sector. In particular, many firms are likely to try to meet any increase in business through making greater use of the workers they have already or through using part-time staff, and they are likely to be reluctant to take on any more permanent staff unless they are really convinced that sustained improvement in their business is probable.”
Whilst Ian Brinkley, associate director of the Work Foundation argued:
The labour market recovery has come to an abrupt halt as accelerating job losses in the public sector and lack of overall growth in jobs in the private sector start to bite. Women's employment has been especially badly hit. The consequent rise in unemployment would have been worse but for the fact that many women have become "economically inactive" and stopped looking for work.
Now, given all these people are experts in their field, with many years of experience, how come Cameron can deny all the available evidence? Doe he know something we don’t? Does he have some kind of hotline to God allowing him to predict the future more accurately than some of the top economic minds in the country? Or, is his incalcitrant behaviour reminiscent of the uncaring Toryism of the Thatcher years, where unemployment reached 3 million and mortgage rates hit a staggering 15%!
We should not be surprised – the evidence of Cameron’s modern Conservativism was made evident when Osborne stood up for his ‘Emergency’ budget back in June 2010. Since then, things have only got worse and now, as the snows of December thaw away into the recesses of our mind, we are set to face a new ‘Winter of Discontent’, where the ‘haves’ protect what they have, whilst the ‘have-nots’ look in from outside.
Today the Conservatives should be ashamed of themselves, but I doubt they will give it more than a passing thought. In their eyes, these figures are little more than a hiccup in their overall plan to change Britain. One can only fear what the next five years will bring and what this country will turn into if they have their way.
Tuesday 18 January 2011
Heading for the scrapheap: A generation ignored
Nearly one in five 18-year-old boys and one in six girls are not in employment, education or training (“NEET”) and earlier this month a count from the Department for Work and Pensions found 600,000 people under the age of 25 have never done a day’s work in their lives.
In 2003 in the UK, 12.1 per cent of those aged 20-24 came into the category classed as ‘early school leavers’. By 2008 this had risen to 17%. The increase in the NEET count amounted to 40%. The effect of Britain’s growing proportion of NEETs means that in 2008 there were more badly educated young people than in 22 other EU countries. In 2003, only ten countries had young people who were doing better.
In the past five years alone, 12 countries have overtaken Britain with improved work and training for young people. This leaves just four of Western Europe's 27 nations with larger proportions of NEETs than the UK.
Only a year ago the Association of Learning providers criticised the lack of provision for 16 and 17 year olds NEETs. Their main concern was that under-18s school-leavers who are currently unemployed are largely disregarded by the welfare to work system. In recent years dedicated pre-employment provision for this age group has been largely limited to the Entry to Employment (e2e) programme which targeted disaffected and disengaged youngsters. However this leaves a relatively large cohort of unemployed 16/17 year olds for whom no employment support mechanisms are in place.
Many ESF funded NEET programmes closed in December and the last of the E2e provisions will end in two years time. Very few new initiatives are being put forward to replace them, though later this year a new NEET initiative in London will be announced, although, of course, future learners will (in all probability) not have the advantage of the EMA allowance - thus making it far less attractive for potential learners..
LSIS has offered some funding through the Flexibility and Innovation Fund, but this is a more general funding source rather than a specific NEET targeted allocation. For its part, the government has argued the Work Programme will support NEET learners and help them find sustainable employment. However, there is now a huge body of evidence supporting the view that these learners require targeted, accessible and tailored programmes that recognise the chaotic lives these individuals face.
What is abundantly clear is that NEET learners require very different interventions from that of, for instance, an unemployed plasterer or local government worker. A one-size fits all provision such as the Work Programme is not the answer. Without investment in services reflecting the broad range of needs facing NEET young people, we will continue to see an escalating number failing to realise their full potential.
The previous Labour government failed to fully address the needs of NEETs and now the Tories, with their ‘Cuts! Cuts! Cuts!” mantra, seem even less likely to offer our youth a fair chance. This inactivity by our political masters will ultimately yield a generation where many will have little or no work experience, few qualifications and a plethora of psychological and emotional problems. It is an outrage we are ignoring their needs of todays youth and the government should be held to account now – before the damage becomes irrepairable.
In 2003 in the UK, 12.1 per cent of those aged 20-24 came into the category classed as ‘early school leavers’. By 2008 this had risen to 17%. The increase in the NEET count amounted to 40%. The effect of Britain’s growing proportion of NEETs means that in 2008 there were more badly educated young people than in 22 other EU countries. In 2003, only ten countries had young people who were doing better.
In the past five years alone, 12 countries have overtaken Britain with improved work and training for young people. This leaves just four of Western Europe's 27 nations with larger proportions of NEETs than the UK.
Only a year ago the Association of Learning providers criticised the lack of provision for 16 and 17 year olds NEETs. Their main concern was that under-18s school-leavers who are currently unemployed are largely disregarded by the welfare to work system. In recent years dedicated pre-employment provision for this age group has been largely limited to the Entry to Employment (e2e) programme which targeted disaffected and disengaged youngsters. However this leaves a relatively large cohort of unemployed 16/17 year olds for whom no employment support mechanisms are in place.
Many ESF funded NEET programmes closed in December and the last of the E2e provisions will end in two years time. Very few new initiatives are being put forward to replace them, though later this year a new NEET initiative in London will be announced, although, of course, future learners will (in all probability) not have the advantage of the EMA allowance - thus making it far less attractive for potential learners..
LSIS has offered some funding through the Flexibility and Innovation Fund, but this is a more general funding source rather than a specific NEET targeted allocation. For its part, the government has argued the Work Programme will support NEET learners and help them find sustainable employment. However, there is now a huge body of evidence supporting the view that these learners require targeted, accessible and tailored programmes that recognise the chaotic lives these individuals face.
What is abundantly clear is that NEET learners require very different interventions from that of, for instance, an unemployed plasterer or local government worker. A one-size fits all provision such as the Work Programme is not the answer. Without investment in services reflecting the broad range of needs facing NEET young people, we will continue to see an escalating number failing to realise their full potential.
The previous Labour government failed to fully address the needs of NEETs and now the Tories, with their ‘Cuts! Cuts! Cuts!” mantra, seem even less likely to offer our youth a fair chance. This inactivity by our political masters will ultimately yield a generation where many will have little or no work experience, few qualifications and a plethora of psychological and emotional problems. It is an outrage we are ignoring their needs of todays youth and the government should be held to account now – before the damage becomes irrepairable.
Monday 17 January 2011
Mark Kennedy - old news?
There is something intrinsically untrustworthy about our police force. Not your typical British bobby of course – s/he remains the bastion of everything we hold sacred – personal safety, community engagement, respect for authority and the rule of law. Or, am I just being a tad naïve?
Recent press revelations about the Mark Kennedy case raises a plethora of issues government, the media and the public as a whole should discuss. Not least of these questions must be – are we content the police use undercover agents to infiltrate legitimate democratic protest movements?
Of course, nothing has been proven yet. But, if we assume for a moment that Kennedy has been telling the truth then it suggests Kennedy’s (and others) insertion into campaign groups came with the full knowledge and authority of his handlers. But why?
The most logical answer is that police and UK security managers are concerned about the protection of property – ranging from ‘sit-in’s’ at universities and colleges, the blocking of fuel to power stations, or breaching perimeter fences at airports and military bases.
None of these campaigns are new. Just ask the Greenham women I the 1980s whether they faced police infiltration during their campaign, or the Anti-Apartheid movement during the 60s and 70s. Even more politically ‘acceptable’ movements like Amnesty International and Stonewall have not been without problems from police involvement.
So why is Kennedy so relevant today? The answer is simple – he isn’t. What he did is symptomatic of a deeper problem. Let me demonstrate. All families live by rules – do the chores, don’t lie, come home on time, don’t have sex outside the relationship etc … but the greatest of these rules is: don’t talk about the rules.
Now, if we assume Britain is one very big ‘family’ it is apparent that Kennedy breached the ‘golden rule’ – he talked about the rules. You see, we have known for years the police have been watching us. Any demonstrator will have seen the cameras trained on our faces. Indeed, the questionable funding of Socialist Worker Party and possible links with the CIA has long been discussed in boozy pubs amongst those on the left. Whether they are in fact funded by the CIA remains unclear, but it has certainly proved to be a cause of debate for many years.
Equally, police infiltration of CND and the peace movement has long been known. There is no surprise therefore they have now extended this to include climate change campaigners. The question is how do we react to the news?
The answer is simple – we cannot afford to simply demand the withdrawal of police from one sector of political discontent. Agent provocateurs should have no role in modern society and those on the left (including people like Ed Miliband) should be doing everything to ensure their immediate withdrawal. The left need to vocalize loudly that the police have been doing this for a long time and it needs to come to an end.
Unfortunately, socialists in this country are much more likely to do what they have always done – grumble loudly as they discuss latest reports in the Guardian and by the end of the month accept the inevitable and assume infiltration to continue.
So much for the angry left! But please feel free to prove me wrong.
Recent press revelations about the Mark Kennedy case raises a plethora of issues government, the media and the public as a whole should discuss. Not least of these questions must be – are we content the police use undercover agents to infiltrate legitimate democratic protest movements?
Of course, nothing has been proven yet. But, if we assume for a moment that Kennedy has been telling the truth then it suggests Kennedy’s (and others) insertion into campaign groups came with the full knowledge and authority of his handlers. But why?
The most logical answer is that police and UK security managers are concerned about the protection of property – ranging from ‘sit-in’s’ at universities and colleges, the blocking of fuel to power stations, or breaching perimeter fences at airports and military bases.
None of these campaigns are new. Just ask the Greenham women I the 1980s whether they faced police infiltration during their campaign, or the Anti-Apartheid movement during the 60s and 70s. Even more politically ‘acceptable’ movements like Amnesty International and Stonewall have not been without problems from police involvement.
So why is Kennedy so relevant today? The answer is simple – he isn’t. What he did is symptomatic of a deeper problem. Let me demonstrate. All families live by rules – do the chores, don’t lie, come home on time, don’t have sex outside the relationship etc … but the greatest of these rules is: don’t talk about the rules.
Now, if we assume Britain is one very big ‘family’ it is apparent that Kennedy breached the ‘golden rule’ – he talked about the rules. You see, we have known for years the police have been watching us. Any demonstrator will have seen the cameras trained on our faces. Indeed, the questionable funding of Socialist Worker Party and possible links with the CIA has long been discussed in boozy pubs amongst those on the left. Whether they are in fact funded by the CIA remains unclear, but it has certainly proved to be a cause of debate for many years.
Equally, police infiltration of CND and the peace movement has long been known. There is no surprise therefore they have now extended this to include climate change campaigners. The question is how do we react to the news?
The answer is simple – we cannot afford to simply demand the withdrawal of police from one sector of political discontent. Agent provocateurs should have no role in modern society and those on the left (including people like Ed Miliband) should be doing everything to ensure their immediate withdrawal. The left need to vocalize loudly that the police have been doing this for a long time and it needs to come to an end.
Unfortunately, socialists in this country are much more likely to do what they have always done – grumble loudly as they discuss latest reports in the Guardian and by the end of the month accept the inevitable and assume infiltration to continue.
So much for the angry left! But please feel free to prove me wrong.
Friday 14 January 2011
Jobs? What jobs?
On Monday, David Cameron met with a number or retail organisations and the summit was quickly followed by the announcement that many of these firms would create 32,000 new jobs in the UK. Sainsbury’s alone would account for 20,00o of these jobs as the company fights to restore its position in the High Street.
All of this falls at a time when the British Retail Consortium announce that High Street sales fell by 0.3% on a like for like basis in December, whilst total sales rose by 1.5% - the slowest pace since April 2010.
At the same time, economic growth slowed sharply in the fourth quarter of 2010 according to the British Chamber of Commerce. The BCC forecast that figures would show the economy would grow by just 0.4% or 0.5% between October and December, down from 0.7% in the third quarter of 2010.
As if this wasn’t enough bad news for the government, the current CPI is 3.3% (a full percentage point above the Coalition 2% target), whilst the RPI stands at 4.7%. Leading business groups have warned that the recent hike in VAT from 17.5% to 20% will drive inflation up to around the 4% (CPI) mark over the coming months.
David Cameron has admitted the figures are disturbing. Last Sunday he was quoted as saying: "If you look at the recent [inflation] figures, they are concerning because they are well outside what the Bank of England is meant to deliver. Inflation is extremely harmful; it destroys people's savings we don't want to go back to having an inflation problem as we had in the past."
The retail industry is in decline. In December, ONS advised food store sales decreased by 1.3 per cent – this is the fifth consecutive fall, while predominantly non-food stores increased by 3.6 per cent. Meanwhile internet sales continue to increase as consumers move away from High Street shopping to online purchasing. Internet retail sales now account for approximately 10.5 per cent of all retail sales. This is the highest proportion since the series began. In comparison, in November 2009 this proportion was 7.9 per cent. On average, weekly internet retail sales in November 2010 totalled £660 million compared with the average weekly value for all retailing at £6,300 million (excluding automotive fuel).
Given this, one has to wonder at the wisdom of relying so heavily on a future blossoming retail industry, particularly as only 53% of staff employed in distributive trades is male. Meanwhile, almost 70% of the claimant count is male.
The Engineering Employers' Federation forecast that manufacturing in the UK will outperform other sectors and predicts manufacturing to grow by 3.5% this year. With this in mind, it is likely that manufacturing and not retail will offer future employment for many unemployed. Over the coming months, Proskills UK, the manufacturing sector skills councils are likely to turn to training providers for support. The question will be whether the training sector will prepared and able.
Existing evidence would lean towards an assumption that major providers such as A4e, Serco and working Links are nowhere near being able to support a re-emerging manufacturing industry. In large part these, and other independent welfare-to-work providers concentrate on offering low grade training courses in areas such as manual handling, first aid or fork lift truck driving. Gone are the days when providers could offer unemployed people the chance to reskill and train as welders, centre lathe turners, electrical work or foundry skills.
As Work Programme moves closer to becoming a reality, government and providers need to rethink what they are trying to achieve. New Deal and its infant, Flexible New Deal were far less successful than they were heralded and on top of that cost taxpayers heavily for little reward.
Now in the substance misuse world they have a phrase – ‘Insanity is repeating the same behaviour over and over expecting a different result”. Early indicators are that Work Programme will be little more than a repeat of New Deal, with the added tags of allowing providers less scrutiny and a different payment mechanism.
So what can we look forward to? Logically there is no evidence that Work Programme will be any more successful than any of its predecessors. But what is more concern is that the millions now facing unemployment or shortly due to lose their jobs will be denied real job opportunities by allowing them to reskill to join a potentially growing manufacturing industry.
New Labour denied millions of long-term unemployed the chance to retrain so they might secure sustainable employment. Now this Conservative-led government is repeating old mistakes. It’s time Ed Miliband made a clean break and questioned our entire welfare to work approach. Rather than being a mechanism to support those who are jobless, it is a tool for international corporations to make millions out of people’s misery. It needs to be changed.
All of this falls at a time when the British Retail Consortium announce that High Street sales fell by 0.3% on a like for like basis in December, whilst total sales rose by 1.5% - the slowest pace since April 2010.
At the same time, economic growth slowed sharply in the fourth quarter of 2010 according to the British Chamber of Commerce. The BCC forecast that figures would show the economy would grow by just 0.4% or 0.5% between October and December, down from 0.7% in the third quarter of 2010.
As if this wasn’t enough bad news for the government, the current CPI is 3.3% (a full percentage point above the Coalition 2% target), whilst the RPI stands at 4.7%. Leading business groups have warned that the recent hike in VAT from 17.5% to 20% will drive inflation up to around the 4% (CPI) mark over the coming months.
David Cameron has admitted the figures are disturbing. Last Sunday he was quoted as saying: "If you look at the recent [inflation] figures, they are concerning because they are well outside what the Bank of England is meant to deliver. Inflation is extremely harmful; it destroys people's savings we don't want to go back to having an inflation problem as we had in the past."
The retail industry is in decline. In December, ONS advised food store sales decreased by 1.3 per cent – this is the fifth consecutive fall, while predominantly non-food stores increased by 3.6 per cent. Meanwhile internet sales continue to increase as consumers move away from High Street shopping to online purchasing. Internet retail sales now account for approximately 10.5 per cent of all retail sales. This is the highest proportion since the series began. In comparison, in November 2009 this proportion was 7.9 per cent. On average, weekly internet retail sales in November 2010 totalled £660 million compared with the average weekly value for all retailing at £6,300 million (excluding automotive fuel).
Given this, one has to wonder at the wisdom of relying so heavily on a future blossoming retail industry, particularly as only 53% of staff employed in distributive trades is male. Meanwhile, almost 70% of the claimant count is male.
The Engineering Employers' Federation forecast that manufacturing in the UK will outperform other sectors and predicts manufacturing to grow by 3.5% this year. With this in mind, it is likely that manufacturing and not retail will offer future employment for many unemployed. Over the coming months, Proskills UK, the manufacturing sector skills councils are likely to turn to training providers for support. The question will be whether the training sector will prepared and able.
Existing evidence would lean towards an assumption that major providers such as A4e, Serco and working Links are nowhere near being able to support a re-emerging manufacturing industry. In large part these, and other independent welfare-to-work providers concentrate on offering low grade training courses in areas such as manual handling, first aid or fork lift truck driving. Gone are the days when providers could offer unemployed people the chance to reskill and train as welders, centre lathe turners, electrical work or foundry skills.
As Work Programme moves closer to becoming a reality, government and providers need to rethink what they are trying to achieve. New Deal and its infant, Flexible New Deal were far less successful than they were heralded and on top of that cost taxpayers heavily for little reward.
Now in the substance misuse world they have a phrase – ‘Insanity is repeating the same behaviour over and over expecting a different result”. Early indicators are that Work Programme will be little more than a repeat of New Deal, with the added tags of allowing providers less scrutiny and a different payment mechanism.
So what can we look forward to? Logically there is no evidence that Work Programme will be any more successful than any of its predecessors. But what is more concern is that the millions now facing unemployment or shortly due to lose their jobs will be denied real job opportunities by allowing them to reskill to join a potentially growing manufacturing industry.
New Labour denied millions of long-term unemployed the chance to retrain so they might secure sustainable employment. Now this Conservative-led government is repeating old mistakes. It’s time Ed Miliband made a clean break and questioned our entire welfare to work approach. Rather than being a mechanism to support those who are jobless, it is a tool for international corporations to make millions out of people’s misery. It needs to be changed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
