WCA is simply not fit for purpose

A major component of the ‘New Labour’ government and the current coalition government’s radical welfare reforms has been the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) for disabled people. But the assessment has been made much more stringent, with people with often multiple impairments being found ‘fit to work’ through the test. This has led to much debate about the efficacy of the WCA and today the Work and Pensions Select Committee will hear evidence from Atos Origin on the very subject. Members of the Select Committee might like to take a moment and read this short article before the cross examine their witness.

From now until Spring 2014 all those who are receiving Incapacity Benefit, Severe Disablement Allowance and Income Support paid on the grounds of illness or disability will be assessed for Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), undergoing a stringent Work Capability Assessment (WCA) carried out by the French Company Atos who are contracted by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP).

First introduced in 2008, the much criticised WCA has become even more punitive since changes in the 2011 edition of the training manual for assessors. Pilots in Aberdeen and Burnley have raised more criticisms of the process adding to the raft of criticisms from the British Medical Association, GPs, Citizens Advice Bureaus (CABs), Members of Parliament and disability organisations.

Those going through the test can be put into one of three groups: ESA Support Group not required to undertake work-related activity – but will be reassessed continuously; ESA Work Related Activity Group, for those deemed fit for work with support and preparation. It will be limited to just 12 months before ESA is stopped, and also may be subject to reassessment in the 12 month period; or Fit for Work, not entitled to ESA but transferred to a lower amount on Jobseeker’s Allowance.

Case studies have repeatedly shown the inhumanity of a system based on government targets and the pain and misery of the increasing stringency of these tests. One example from the 2010 Citizens Advice Bureau’s report on ESA and WCA testing procedures highlights the experiences that someone considered ‘fit for work’ through WCA might endure:

She was in a great deal of pain in her muscles and joints and had extreme fatigue. At times her balance was affected and she could not walk without someone to support her. Sometimes she lost sensation in her legs, and on her worst days she could not walk at all. Any exertion such as walking 40 or 50 metres led to days in bed. She had had a bad reaction to some of the treatment and an ECG showed her heart muscle had been damaged. Her husband had to come home from work each lunchtime to help her. Her immune system was weakened, so she had to be careful when mixing with others.

She claimed ESA but was given six points in the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) and found capable of work. Her doctor supported her claim and she is currently appealing, but under Incapacity Benefit she would probably have been exempt and would have avoided this process.

There are many other stories like this. There are also increasing stories of suicides committed by people left without any means of income fighting and winning appeals, only to find they are called for WCA reassessments shortly after. As part of the recognition of the increasing trend of those going through assessments to take their own lives Job Centre Plus staff have been issued with guidelines on how to deal with people who they think might be suicidal because of the WCA testing.

One estimate claims that up to 500,000 people have been wrongly denied Incapacity status. In the Guardian, Amelia Gentlemen reminds us that since its rollout people with terminal illness have been found ‘fit for work’, those with mental health issues have said the system cannot appreciate complexities of mental health, and others that the tick box system is unable to cope with any nuances of long term impairments or illness.

Citizens Advice Scotland reported that under incapacity benefits, 37 per cent were found ‘fit for work’. Under Work Capacity Assessment, the figure had soared to 66 per cent. In 2008 The DWP and Atos were severely criticised by Robert Martin, the President of the Appeals Tribunal Panel, a position now abolished:

Criticism was made of ATOS Healthcare medical practitioners who did not appear to pay sufficient attention to the appellant at the medical examination and who produced findings in medical reports based on observations that were inconsistent, or recorded in the medical report findings that were contradictory

In a later 2010 independent review of the WCA tests Professor Harrington concluded:
There is strong evidence that the system can be impersonal and mechanistic, that the process lacks transparency and that a lack of communication between the various parties involved contributes to poor decision making and a high rate of appeals.” and that “evidence has consistently and regularly highlighted problems with each stage of the WCA process, which limit both the assessment’s fairness and effectiveness.

Moreover Atos’s own staff have said the assessments are too harsh. Prospect, the trade union who represent 135 Atos doctors, has also stated that the target of seeing ten or more people a day is unrealistic and will lead to wrong assessments, especially in complex cases.

Despite the overwhelming evidence that WCA was not working, Atos were awarded a further 3 year contract by the DWP at the end of 2010, with a contract for £300 million based the perceived expertise of a software system LiMA, which comprises the central part of the WCA testing.

There has been a 56 per cent increase in ESA appeals with figures up from 25,700 in the second quarter of 2009/2010 to 52,000 in the same quarter of 2010/2011. Almost half of cases are overturned at appeal. Paul Hoggarth of Burnley Citizens Advice said that as many as 80 per cent of those supported in their claims to overturn a ‘fit for work’ decision win. Figures from the DWP show that of those declared ‘fit for work’ by the WCA system, just 13 per cent are in employment. The ‘fit for work’ myth does not convert into any form of reality.

A representative survey carried out by Ipsos MORI and reported in ‘Employment and Support Allowance: findings from a face to face Survey’ commissioned by the DWP, found that nearly a third of those going through the WCA process were described as having ‘literacy problems’. A further six per cent ‘problems speaking English’ and 11 per cent had ‘numeracy problems’. Twenty two percent were described as in one or more disadvantaged groups including those with mental health issues, ex-offenders, and those with perceived learning difficulties.

An overwhelming 69 per cent of those going through the WCA process had ‘multiple health conditions’, with 81 per cent of people receiving medical treatment for their condition and 38 per cent waiting for treatment or additional treatment in all ESA groups. These statistics do not present us with a set of fraudsters pretending to be sick or disabled, nor a set of individuals who have been languishing on incapacity benefits for years; in fact 71 per cent of applicants to ESA were new claimants making their first ever claim.

The WCA is not really about assessing fitness for work, nor supporting people into work. The ‘capability’ tests were always part of a mutual interdependence between successive Governments’ need to reduce social claims on the state and business identifying financial benefit in such a process. The misery it causes is deemed irrelevant by all parties.

The 2011 manual issued by the DWP to Atos provided new regulations including:
…infrequent loss of consciousness would not substantially impact on a person’s ability to work and therefore only those experiencing weekly or monthly episodes of loss of consciousness will be awarded scoring descriptors.

Thus if you spontaneously lose consciousness once every five weeks, you will be assessed as ‘fit for work’. This is one example of the non reality of new WCA ‘fit for work’ standards. It undermines the logic, and the economic and social realities of any reasonable employment criteria. The WCA is presented under the guise of state and market efficiency. It serves neither criterion.

Not in my name

Did anyone else hear about the Rally against Debt last Saturday? It seems about 350 people demonstrated in support of Government cuts and that it would be immoral to leave the debt to future generations.

It believed in substantial spending cuts sooner rather than later to avoid seeing more taxes going on debt interest, not paying for services.

Protesters held placards bearing messages including "Drowning in debt", "No more EU bailouts" and "Stop spending money you don't have".

Some of the crazies on this ‘demo’ included known Conservative activist, Matthew Sinclair, who attended under the banner of the Taxpayer's Alliance and said the cuts are essential:

"The country's facing a choice. It's facing a choice between racking up more and more debt and spending decades with taxpayers' burden and with the economy dragged down by that incredible debt. Or we start to take action to cut spending, to deliver better value and to start to rebuild our economic fortunes."

Other notable right-wingers attending included UKIP MEP Nigel Farage, who said: "We want to make it clear that not a penny more of British taxpayers' money should be spent on Euro bail-outs...and we regard giving £40m a day to Brussels for our membership of this union is giving us bad value for money. So from that little lot you get a fairly big shopping list of real, good, sensible cuts that could be made and we could perhaps keep a few more local libraries open."

With so few people attending you would have thought they would have been too embarrassed to call it a rally, wouldn’t you? But no, these are die-hard Tories we are talking about and they wanted to show those who attended the TUC demonstration earlier this year (yes, the one with half a million protesters) that there was an alternative voice.

Now let me get this right – this band of nutters think a fiasco in London can stand alongside one of the greatest demonstrations against government policy since the time of the Poll Tax resistance. Could I just remind them they were outnumbered on a ration of 1:1428!!!!

If this is the best the Tories can do then we have nothing to worry about. Unfortunately, they are usually far better organised and far more capable of causing bedlam to our society.

As we speak, hundreds of welfare to work staff are facing redundancy as they wait to hear if they will have a job for the next five years. Many won’t and will be forced to become clients of the new Work Programme themselves. Throughout, the government have been notable only by their silence and Chris Grayling, the architect of this demise has failed to answer accusations that he has watched whilst Rome burns.
The new Work programme will operate with fewer staff, yet will be expected to achieve better results than its predecessor, Flexible New Deal. As one writer recently said:

“… the delivery model is basically the same for A4e except we are being told to push the customers harder and not allow being on programme to become the easy option.”

But this isn’t just an A4e problem, it is across the entire sector and the government have failed to invest correctly, resulting in a programme that will be unable to achieve any better result than those before it, and at a cost of substantial redundancies for those who have been working in the sector for many years.

This lack of investment and strategic ineptitude was further exposed last week when the Department for Work and Pensions abandoned plans to introduce a system to automate the processing of all benefit claims. The DWP said that the system would still require "human intervention". In other words, they hadn’t thought it through, spent a fortune trying to get it to work and then found it wasn’t suitable.

The same disaster is set to hit the NHS as Citizen Dave continues his plans to “reform” the service. Unfortunately, some of those nasty discontents in the Lib Dems seem likely to put a spanner in the works and slow down or stop any of his plans. This won’t be enough to stop Citizen Dave – he is a man on a mission, even though the British Medical Association and some Labour MPs have expressed concern that the plans will allow private health firms to get a stronger foothold in the NHS.

The critics argue that the bill will allow competition law to be applied to the health service and lead to a much greater involvement, which in turn could undermine local NHS hospitals. The BMA has even likened it to the privatisation of utility industries.

But Citizen Dave, like the 350 who attended the “rally” in London last week refuse to listen to reason – they are Tories after all. Their venom is constantly being spat out and regurgitated by the media. Take the fact that the national media bothered to report the rally in the first place. It is another significant coup for the right because it tries to show how they represent the views of the majority.

Well, I refuse to have my name associated with the tragedy happening to the welfare to work sector. I do not wish to see changes to the NHS so that the private sector can cream off millions of pounds in profit.

When the Tories destroy our society, let the message be clear – they are not doing it in my name.

More inequality in Labour constituencies

If you are born in some Labour held seats, there is a 1000% higher chance of unemployment than if you were born into some Tory heartlands

The study below shows how ridiculous the notion of 'equality of opportunity' is. You inherit inequality. You start from the back of the grid with a half tank of fuel if you are lucky. There is a Ferrari on row one and it is roaring to go. That's the way life works. The national unemployment rate as of September 2010 was 7.2%. Above is the top 15 Parliamentary constituencies with the highest unemployment rate as of then. The main finding is that the regional disparity in the UK unemployment rate is vast. For example, in the case of Birmingham Ladywood the rate is nearly 350% higher than the national average. Labour represent 14 out of the top 15 seats with the highest unemployment.

The chart also shows those seats with the lowest unemployment rates. 6 seats unemployment rates were that low they could not be included on the graph but as we can see in the case of Wiltshire, Henley and Cambridge their unemployment rate is more than 300% smaller than the national average. As a young person growing up, the greatest postcode lottery of our age is whether or not you will get a job. Forget ability and work ethic, if you are born into certain parts of Birmingham and Nottingham your chances of being unemployed are nearly a 1000% higher than if you were born in Henley. The governments harshness on benefit claimants should be more reflective of the fact that work is hard to find in some areas.

This massive disparity distorts people's views on unemployment and general notions of benefit scrounging. There are areas of England where work is just scarce. It is too simplistic to say that people are lazy or unwilling to work. The Tory party is traditionally firm some might say unduly harsh on tackling benefit fraud. But I wonder if the key is convincing them to be just as dedicated to job creation.

National Insurance Holiday – a feeble start

Ed Balls was very effective yesterday, ridiculing George Osborne’s National Insurance “holiday.” This is one of the government’s new employment programmes, letting new businesses off paying National Insurance Contributions for the first 10 employees hired in their first year. Back in 2009, the Conservative Party claimed that it would create 60,000 jobs in two years, but by the time of last year’s Budget this had risen to 400,000 businesses (and presumably more jobs) benefiting. The government was so worried that this offer was going to be over-subscribed that they excluded businesses in London, East Anglia and the South East, and even so, budgeted to spend £50 million in 2010-11, rising to £370 million in 2012-13.

Well, how’s it going? As Mr Balls pointed out, figures the Treasury tried to slip out on the quiet showed that the actual figures so far are 3,000 businesses and an estimated 6,000 workers. Total cost so far? £5 million.

Ahem …

The TUC has argued for some time that the government has talked up the National Insurance holiday to a ludicrous extent. It isn’t actually harmful – some jobs will be created, but it doesn’t come anywhere near matching the scale of the problem. And it certainly doesn’t compensate for the vandalism of closing down the Future Jobs Fund. Of course, it’s possible that this is just a slow start, eventually it’ll be a great success and I’ll have egg on my face.

But somehow I don’t think so.

Which way for Labour?

Anyone who has read my comments on here will know I am no fan of Citizen Dave or the Tories but, in fairness it has to be conceded they fought the borough elections well and the resul reflects some disturbing realities for Labour. The biggest of these is that Miliband and the party hierarchy are not getting the message across that Labour offer a real and effective alternative to the 'cut and burn' approach of the Tories.

Secondly, although electors should vote on local issues, we know they use it to endorse, or protest aganst a sitting government. Since last May, Citizen Dave has presented a slick and statesmanlike behaviour as prime minister. Compare this with the meagre attempts by Ed Miliband and there is further cause for concern. No wonder Labour didn't sweep away many vulernable Tory councils.

Nor was last night's substantial vote against AV good for Labour. The party has historically opposed PR and its recent conversion to AV came as a shock to many die-hard lefties. Miliband hung his colours on the "Yes" campaign and with a vote of 2 to 1 against, it brings a further dent to his leadership.

Labour now need to reflect on these results and question why they are not in control in Scotland or Wales. They also need to look at the role of Andy Burnham as campaign manager - a job he handled with anonymity and without passion. Similarly, the autopsy should question the leadership style of Ed Miliband. His "I want to appear as unfazed and likable" approach isn't working and it obviously isn't convincing the electorate.

The Lib Dems are in disarray and it will take them months, perhaps years to recoup after their recent defeats. This isn't the case with the Tories and labour will need to work swiftly if they want to be seen as a credible opposition force.

The clouds in last night’s silver lining

With results from parish, borough and AV voting now declared, the guest writer today continues the autopsy on Labour's performance in local elections. The guest writer today is Atul Hatwal, associate editor of Labour Uncut.

As Ed Miliband surveys the results after his first major test as leader he will have mixed emotions. Great in England, good in Wales, bad in Scotland and rapidly forgotten on AV.

A curate’s egg, whatever one of those might be.

While the dynamics of devolved government mean the results in Scotland and Wales are driven by regional factors, and AV is done for a generation at least, it’s the English local elections where the tea leaves for the next general election can be best read.

England is where Labour needs to win the key seats, and its England where Labour has proportionately lost most voters since 1997. Ostensibly, the results give a sound basis for hope.

Not quite street party territory, but at least a couple of glasses of sherry.

On this happy path, the numbers of new Labour councillors elected take Labour back to respectable mid-2000s levels of representation in local government. Gains in a single election on this scale have not been seen since the mid-1990s.

This is not to be lightly dismissed. Revival in local government is an essential pre-requisite for national success.

Then there’s the overall vote share. While not spectacular, it was much improved over the election last year and progress at this rate would lead to a solid Labour majority at the next general election.

But still, there’s doubt.

Can a national result be extrapolated from local elections? Is this really a foundation for victory built by winning back Labour sceptics? Or a house of cards made from passing protest votes?

A few months ago in this column, I highlighted Labour’s poll challenge by looking at three specific questions asked intermittently by YouGov in their daily and weekly polls, and tracked their responses over the previous three months. These questions examined voters’ attitudes to the defining issues for the next general election.

The updated results to Labour’s poll challenge hold the key to interpreting last nights mixed election results.

The three YouGov questions look below topline voting intentions to reveal how voters feel the government is hitting them in the wallet, their view of how the government is cutting the deficit and who they prefer as a leader – David Cameron or Ed Miliband.

The public’s answers over this year have involved responses from tens of thousands of people and give a clear view of the scale of the problem.To misquote William Cobbett, I defy you to agitate a man on a full wallet. The higher the wallet line, the better things are for the government. Because it focuses on peoples’ perceptions of their own financial future it gives quite a different response to doom and gloom about the general economic state of the country.

The wallet line has remained largely constant this year. In January, 74% of people didn’t view the coming year as posing a major financial drama. In April this had risen a little to 75%.

In key Labour battlegrounds such as London and the Midlands, there are the early rumblings of actual optimism. The latest figures show that well over 40% think the worst is over and that the situation will either get better next year or at least stay the same.

That’s three-quarters of Britain thinking that things aren’t actually so bad and almost half of the public in key English regions, rich with key seats, thinking things can only get better.

This doesn’t suggest an electoral situation ripe for people to reverse their vote from the general election last year.

But, while worry about personal finances is often a driver of change, it is not sufficient alone. Winning the economic argument is what is needed, and can make the difference on its own.

This is what the middle band on the graph tests. The deficit is the defining economic issue of the day and the public’s attitude to how the government goes about cutting it will be a key determinant in how people vote at the general election.

The results here for Labour are worst of all.

On this central economic argument, Labour has not only failed to make ground, it has fallen further behind. At the start of the year, the majority who felt the way the government was cutting the deficit was necessary compared to unnecessary was 17%. In April, this had grown to 28%.

Well over 50% of the public consistently believe that the government approach to cutting the deficit is necessary.

And voters remain in no doubt as to who to blame for these cuts.

In January, 41% of voters blamed the last Labour government for the cuts, compared to 25% blaming the current government and 24% blaming both. In April, it was virtually the same. 41% blamed the last Labour government, 25% the current government and 23% both.

The public’s basic position is that Labour is responsible for the deficit and the government’s cuts are necessary. If anything, people are becoming more, not less, convinced of it over time.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of economic policy, purely in political terms this is a huge problem. From the mid-1980s through to 1992, Labour made an economically cogent but politically suicidal case for higher taxation.

The deficit is this decade’s tax.

Ed Balls is a big beast who knows how to take the fight to the Tories. He’s added vigour and aggression to Labour’s attack on the economy. But when he became shadow chancellor, he set himself the measure of putting Labour “on the front foot” on the economy.

Three months into his tenure, beyond the rough and tumble of day to day debate on the economy where Labour’s performance has improved significantly, the party is now more distant than ever from being trusted on this defining economic question.

Perceptions of Labour as a realistic government in waiting are further undercut by the leader gap.

At the start of January, Cameron’s lead over Miliband as peoples’ preference for PM was 12%. By the end of April, this had been pegged back slightly to 10%.

While this measure is going in the right direction, the level of reduction in Cameron’s lead begs the question – why so little?

Miliband’s press operation has been much sharper since the appointment of Tom Baldwin and Bob Roberts at the start of the year, he has been getting the better of Cameron at prime minister’s questions on an increasingly regular basis and the government has gifted Labour a conveyor belt of gaffes and U-turns.

Forests, defence, the NHS, schools, universities – virtually no corner of public policy has been left without a government crisis entirely of its own making.

If, after all that, Cameron still has a double digit lead among voters as the preferred PM, its hard to think what will shift the numbers decisively.

Looking at the three elements of the graph in the round, the overall picture is not a pleasant one for Labour.

It describes an electorate for whom the personal financial salience of the cuts is limited. Where Labour is seen as the cause of the problem and opponents of the solution. And where leadership is something only Cameron can provide.

In this context, the happy path that starts with these English election results ultimately leads back to the general election of 1992, or maybe even 1987.

The reality is that yesterday’s result in England was a blind trail of protest votes. People aren’t enamoured of this government, and showed it. But the local elections weren’t a choice between Labour and Conservative; they were a chance to vent at the government.

Based on the underlying factors picked-up by the wallet line, the argument gap and the leader gap, any pressure on Labour in a real election and the poll lead will collapse. Unless Labour can shift these key drivers, future mid-term victories or upturns in the headline polls will just be more false hope.

The sad truth is, one year on from the start of the Tory-led coalition, Labour’s journey has taken it back to square one.

Not a great night for Labour

If early results prove to be representative of the national trend then tonight may not be as good for Labour as their spokespeople will suggest later today.

Of course it is good that votes have moved from the Lib Dems to Labour. This will come as no surprise whatsoever and should be welcomed. However, Labour’s failure to take control of Holyrood is devastating news and undoubtedly will demand the resignation of the leader of the Scottish labour Party.

In Wales, early signs are that Labour has done well and seems set for overall control of the Principality. Good news for Labour, but even here there has not been a huge swing and it remains touch and go as to whether an overall majority takes place.

In England the Tory vote seems to have largely held, although their Lib Dem partners are taking a severe bruising at the polls. Predictions indicate that if the English results were extrapolated into a General Election result it would mean Labour would have 340 seats (and an overall majority), Conservatives with 264 and the Lib Dems on 21.

All this indicates how Labour are failing to get their argument across effectively. Undoubtedly Lib Dem voters have switched, but most of these tend to be progressives and their discontent was already widely known. Tory voters on the other hand have remained faithful to their party and, in large part their vote has held.

In other words, Labour will need to do far more to convince Tory voters to switch to them when the General Election is called.

I have long argued that the Labour front bench need to up their game and Miliband must be more proactive in attacking Cameron at PMQs. Their rather wimpish style has proven to be ineffective and the vote today will be taken by the Tories as an affirmation that the majority remain content with the way the Tories are handling the economy.

As much as I hate admitting it, they are right. Labour has done too little to bring about a change of hearts and minds. Over the coming months they will need to do far more to bring Tory voters into the fold and guarantee a Labour victory. In particular, they will need to show Tory voters that Labour has an effective economic strategy that can address the deficit and that the party is capable of stabilising the economy and attract new industries and new business to this country.

In other words, before Labour start popping the champagne corks they need to look long and hard at the figures – if they are honest they will admit yesterday’s election has shown there is still a great deal more to do.

A good reason to vote "Yes"

According to research undertaken by ippr the alternative vote system would not hand undue influence to the BNP. Their study looked at results in all constituencies if the last election had been run under AV. Researchers at the think-tank ran a series of tests on two different facets of the claim by those who oppose the move to AV that the BNP would be able to "pick a winner". IPPR looked at whether there could be a mass transfer of BNP supporters' votes pushing one candidate over the 50% threshold, and that BNP voters' second preferences could overturn a favourite and help someone placed second or even third to come first. The research comes as both the “No” and “Yes” campaigns mark the four-week countdown to the AV referendum. The “No” campaign have previously aired concerns that a change in the voting system would boost minority parties, with their campaign director, Matthew Elliott, saying recently AV would "[give] BNP supporters more power at the ballot box". In an AV system, voters rank candidates instead of voting only for their chosen one. If no single candidate has secured 50% of the vote immediately, the candidate who has received fewest first preference votes is eliminated and the second preferences of their voters are redistributed to other candidates. The “No” campaign fears the second preferences of those eliminated – likely to be those who back minority parties – could go on to have profound effects further down the reallocation process. They have published a list of 35 seats in which the BNP's share of the vote was greater than the winner's margin of victory. Now researchers have looked at this assertion in two ways. They show there to be 56 seats where the share of the BNP vote exceeds the gap between the first-placed candidate and the 50% threshold they need to cross and where, if all BNP supporters transferred their second preferences as a bloc, it could help the lead candidate win. They then showed that the 2010 British election survey – which asked 13,356 people to take part in a mock election run under their AV system – found the number of seats where the second preference of those voting BNP push a winning candidate over the 50% threshold fell to 25. However, the IPPR researchers demonstrated that in all 25 seats the second preferences of the BNP are not "decisive" and the second preferences of others just as critical. They explain that in the 25, the first-placed candidate is within "spitting distance" of the finishing line and the average gap between the first and second placed candidate is 24.52%, which they say is "larger than the share of the vote of any third-placed candidate whose votes would be needed to change the result". "In other words there is no chance that BNP second preference votes could alter the outcome in any of these seats. In all of them the winner on first preferences will be the winner once votes have been reallocated in subsequent rounds irrespective of the role played by BNP votes." The IPPR researchers also dissected the idea that BNP voters could change the balance of power in constituencies by pushing a second or third place candidate into first place and over the 50% threshold on the back of its transferred votes. Results from the 2010 election show that there is not one constituency where the BNP vote share is larger than the margin between 50% and that received by the runner-up. Their researchers say: "Given the marginality and distance from 50% for both the first and second placed candidates it is true that BNP supporters' second or third preferences will be counted in the 35 seats listed by the 'No to AV' campaign. "However, the BNP vote is still very small in each of these seats, averaging a vote share of just 4.5% – yet the average distance from 50% for the winning candidate is 11.3% and 14.2% for the runner-up. Even if we assume all BNP preferences go to a single candidate (which they wouldn't) they would still require more than twice the number of BNP supporters to win under AV. BNP voters cannot therefore single-handedly change a result." The IPPR details some high profile cases: Barking The IPPR said: “The constituency [in] which the BNP has its highest proportion in vote share, it is a clear safe seat for Labour achieving over 50% of all votes and very unlikely requiring the need for 2nd preferences. All additional party votes summed – including the Liberal Democrats – would not be enough to elect the Conservative runner-up”. Morley and Outwood IPPR argued: "The BNP additional vote preferences would be counted but as the race is highly marginal – both winner and runner-up maintaining votes shares in the mid-30s – the race will be decided by the 16.76% Liberal Democrat supporters whose second preferences are more likely to go to Labour than the Conservatives." Burnley On this constituency ippr argued: "The race is between Labour and the Liberal Democrats. The BNP additional vote preferences will likely be counted but the 16.61% of Conservative voters will be the decisive group who strongly favour the Liberal Democrats over Labour thus, likely retaining the seat in Liberal Democrat hands". The “No” campaign maintain that BNP voters will still have undue influence in any AV election compared with those who vote for one of the three main parties. Recent research by them showed that if the 2010 general election had been run under AV, in 70% of seats those who backed the three main parties would have been unlikely to get a second vote. Launching that research, Matthew Elliott said that in some constituencies supporters of the BNP would have had their preferences counted six times before a winner was declared. All of which assumes that those second, third, fourth and fifth preferences would go to other extremist parties. The reality is the far right are extremely sectarian and many BNP voters would rather vote Labour or Conservative than put their second vote with an NF candidate. Given this, there seems little to worry about regarding the distribution of BNP supporter second preferences. With a few weeks to go the “No” campaign has been insipid and fundamentally dishonest. They have so failed to answer the claims made by the “Yes” campaign that a move to AV would produce a fairer electoral system. This blog has been reluctant to support the “Yes” campaign because of my passionate belief that the correct voting system would have been the Single Transferrable Vote STV). This is not going to happen, so we must make full use of the opportunity to dump the defunct First Passed The Post system and change it to a more democratic approach that allows voters the opportunity to elect members of parliament who more fully represent the views of the majority. Given the options, the Alternative Vote is the only way forward and I would urge readers to vote “Yes” on May 5th

TUC - Job vacancies twice as sparse in Labour held constituencies

There are almost ten dole claimants for every job vacancy in Labour held constituencies, more than double the rate in Conservative seats, according to a TUC analysis published last week, just ahead of the latest unemployment statistics.
The TUC analysis finds that there are 9.8 Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) claimants per vacancy in Labour held constituencies, compared to a ratio of 6.1 in Liberal Democrat seats and 4.5 in seats with a Conservative MP.

Across the UK, there are 6.3 dole claimants per job vacancy.

Of the 50 constituencies with the toughest job prospects - the highest number of dole claimants per job vacancy - 43 are Labour, four are Liberal Democrat, two are Conservative and one is held by the Scottish National Party (SNP). Forty one of the 50 constituencies with the most buoyant job prospects - the lowest number of claimants per vacancy - are Conservative held.

Now, call me cynical if you will, but doesn't this sound like a strategy to run down Labour constituency and cream all the pickings so they go to Tory ones? Nah - the Tories would never be so low as to just look after their own .... would they?

Caring Conservativism - A new kind of Thatcherism

On a separate forum I was reminded of a speech made by Neil Kinnock back in 1984. Now I am no great fan of Kinnock. His witch hunt of the left and the expulsion of honest socialists who were supporters of the Militant Tendency was the second biggest travesty to hit the Labour Party this century (this first being the rewriting of Clause lV of the Constitution of the Party).
Having said that, in this speech he really hit the button.

He said:

If Margaret Thatcher is re-elected as prime minister on Thursday, I warn you. I warn you that you will have pain–when healing and relief depend upon payment. I warn you that you will have ignorance–when talents are untended and wits are wasted, when learning is a privilege and not a right. I warn you that you will have poverty–when pensions slip and benefits are whittled away by a government that won’t pay in an economy that can’t pay. I warn you that you will be cold–when fuel charges are used as a tax system that the rich don’t notice and the poor can’t afford. I warn you that you must not expect work–when many cannot spend, more will not be able to earn. When they don’t earn, they don’t spend. When they don’t spend, work dies. I warn you not to go into the streets alone after dark or into the streets in large crowds of protest in the light. I warn you that you will be quiet–when the curfew of fear and the gibbet of unemployment make you obedient. I warn you that you will have defence of a sort–with a risk and at a price that passes all understanding. I warn you that you will be home-bound–when fares and transport bills kill leisure and lock you up. I warn you that you will borrow less–when credit, loans, mortgages and easy payments are refused to people on your melting income. If Margaret Thatcher wins on Thursday– • I warn you not to be ordinary • I warn you not to be young • I warn you not to fall ill • I warn you not to get old.

As Citizen Dave’s cuts start to bite, his words are as relevant today as they were all those years ago. The poor, the disabled, the unemployed and the ill are all being hurt by Cameron’s plans. But before we lay the blame wholly on Citizen Dave, let us look at who is the philosophical ‘father’ behind these measures – none other than the silent man himself, Iain Duncan Smith.

During his period as leader of the Conservative Party he was ineffectual and lacking any charisma, but as a ‘backroom boy’ he has been central to the development of current Tory policies. His think tank, the Centre for Social Justice, has been at the heart of many of the current policies and for the last few years has acted as a resource to ‘humanise’ modern Conservativism.

The trouble is that it has all been a guise to bring about Thatcherism under another name. The proposed welfare reforms will not bring about a level playing field for all, they will introduce inequality and disadvantage. Meanwhile, leading businessmen will continue to avoid tax, multinationals will continue to make large profits and those with money will continue to milk the system.

Twenty seven years later and we still haven’t learned – you can never trust the Tories

Conservatives created the NHS ‘bureaucracy’ they are now attacking

by Guest
February 25, 2011 at 11:13 am


contribution by Jon Taylor

The Tories talk a lot about how the public sector has become bloated, according to them, it has become ‘weighed down by bureaucracy’.

But is Tory policy not responsible, at least in part, for creating the bureaucratic system we see before us today? I think it’s about time the left started to challenge the notion that bureaucracy is solely a left-wing phenomenon. It’s not.

Ironically, in terms of the NHS, much of the bureaucracy at which Lansely directs his venom was borne out of the purchaser-provider split. A policy initiated by the Tories in 1990, and regrettably not reversed by Labour in 1997.

This move, for the first time, established the internal market in the NHS. The idea being that competition would drive up quality, productivity, and efficiency.

There is no evidence that this has happened. There is evidence, however, that the purchaser-provider split has led to a huge increase in transaction costs, notably management and administration costs.

Currently it is predominantly Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) that are responsible for commissioning or purchasing services on behalf of us: taxpayers and patients. Within PCTs sit many of these bureaucrats whom the Tories like to blame for the various failings of the NHS.

These ‘commissioners’ are responsible for purchasing services from another group of bureaucrats based in provider organisations; contract managers, accountants and a like. These people perform a critical function. They manage financial transactions.

It is hardly surprising; therefore, that, as the market has become embedded in the NHS, the number of people needed to manage transactions has shot up. The moment we introduced the market we began to need people to manage money flows, negotiate contracts, and administer financial transactions.

It is for this reason that the Tories ‘war on bureaucracy’ is disingenuous populism.

The Department of Health’s own unpublished figures indicate that transaction costs resulting from the purchaser-provider split account for 14% of total NHS costs. This is money that could be spent on frontline care.

Lansley knows very well the function performed by the bureaucrats he loves to pretend to hate. He also knows that opening up the NHS to ‘any willing provider’ will increase transaction costs and, as a direct consequence, increase in bureaucracy.

Although ‘officially’ they will no-longer be on the government pay roll, the tax payer will still be paying for them from the cash handed over to private firms by GP’s.

However, in 2013 the government will be able to declare a great victory. Lansley can claim to have defeated his great nemesis – bureaucracy. He can hold up the private sector as our saviour.

The private sector, according to him I’m sure, will have come to our rescue by re-employing and rehabilitating these lazy, good for nothing, parasitic, public sector pen pushers.

Therefore, rather ironically, Andrew Lansely will actually need to recruit more people to his rapidly expanding army of demoralised x-public sector bureaucrats in order to deliver his longstanding and well documented ambition: wholesale privatisation of the NHS.

—
Jon Taylor works in the NHS for a Cancer Network, and is a trade unionist

Cameron v. Miliband - who will win?

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

The saga of MP expenses continues ...

Over the last few months, many Members of Parliament have been exposed for claiming excessive or inappropriate expenses. As a result we have seen the public attitude towards politics and the political system diminish. Indeed, in the last election I found many people on the street were disillusioned - even though their (then) constituency MP, David Kidney, had been seen to be beyond reproach.

Gordon Brown, as Prime Minister, promised to clean up British politics and Cameron stated that any Tory MP found to have abused the system would be required to pay the money back. it is therefore interesting to note that amongst the top 20 MPs claiming the largest amount, only 6 are Labour and of these 3 appealed and had their repayment eliminated or reduced. Only 1 Labour politician (Barbara Follett) has an amount still outstanding. Compare this with the Tories and we see that amongst those 'top 20' there remains over £46,000 of debt! Now we are not talking about lesser known MPs (past and present) here - people like David Heathcote-Amory, who owes £23,569. or Michael Spicer, who owes £10,000.

And what of the Lib-Dems? Well until today their record was reasonably good. A few had been caught out with the amendments to the rules but, by and large, their debts had fallen in between one and three thousand pounds and broadly speaking, these had been paid. But now we have the revelation that the First Secretary to the Treasury, had falsely (either through error, omission or commission) claimed for over £40,000 of expenses. Now, the fact David Laws is gay is really of little interest to me quite honestly - it is his own affair and I trust it is a happy and loving relationship, because over the coming days he will need to call on it.

No, my concern is that a man who is central to running the finances of this country fudged the records because he wanted to hide information (he wanted to keep his sexuality secret). How can we trust a politician who acts in such a manner? Will he hold back other inconvenient secrets about the state of the country should they arise?

In many respects this is a tragic case, because Laws is undoubtedly a consummate professional and a talented MP, although I have grave misgivings about his political and economic views. Harold Wilson once said that a week is a long time in politics and Laws is about to find out that it will pass excruciatingly slowly, with the red-top newspapers anxious to exploit any sexual whimsy the can obtain. I doubt Mr Laws will read this blog, but should he I would urge him to take courage and seek the support and love of your partner. At the same time I would also advocate a full and public apology followed by an immediate resignation from the government. In doing so he will show to the public an air of remorse and contrition that will allow them to quickly forgive. Then, in a few months, if G-d forbid the Con-Dems are still in power, he can return to the front bench and use his acute brain for the betterment of this country.

No doubt we will see over the next few days how things unfold.

Tacitus