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.

Grayling faces sleaze accusations

Reprinted below is an article first published on Liberal Conspiracy. It is reprinted in full.

Labour MP John Robertson has today written to David Cameron and the Permanent Secretary to the Cabinet Office – Sir Gus O’Donnell – concerning potentially seven breaches of the Ministerial Code by minister Chris Grayling MP over awarding of new contracts.

There is concern over his connections with one of the companies that was awarded the largest amount of contracts at the expense of a local Glasgow charity.

Employment minister Chris Grayling MP announced this month which firms were to get contracts to help the unemployed to find work.

The biggest winner of contracts was Deloitte Ingeus, who received a maximum seven of the 40 contracts on offer in 18 regions of the UK. One of these regions was Glasgow, where Deloitte Ingeus was awarded at the expense of a local charity: the Wise Group.

Deloitte, which owns 50% of the Deloitte Ingeus company, donated in kind over £27,000 to the office of Christopher Graylings in October 2009, whilst he was Shadow Secretary of State for DWP.

At the time, Deloitte was calling for prime contracts to go to large companies instead of voluntary groups due to their ability to borrow more money.

In June last year The Wise Group was short-listed for a national award by thwe DWP that recognised the quality of service it employs to help get people into work.

Last week, Care UK landed a £53million NHS contract in the North East, the same company who’s senior executive John Nash donated £21,000 to Andrew Lansley’s office before the election.

The statement from John Robertson MP says:

"It does seem odd that the same year that Mr Grayling received these payment the company that went onto win the largest contract was calling for these very contracts to go to large companies like themselves. This could just be coincidence but Mr Grayling should have taken himself out of the whole process to avoid any chance that this could be a breach of Ministerial Code.

To be honest, this whole process stinks. If we were talking about another country where a private company was bidding for a government contract after making such large donations to the Minister responsible for making the decision we would be questioning the veracity of the outcome. I don’t see why Mr Grayling simply didn’t refer this part of his brief to another minister.

Unless there is an inquiry into why he didn’t defer this to another Ministerial colleague, and into the whole decision making process of how and who awarded these contracts and the level at which Mr Grayling’s office played in the formulation and development of this policy when he was in opposition, then the general public will believe that the Big Society really stands for the Big Stitch up.

It is clear that at some stage the ability of bidders to be judged on their ability shifted to not just price but also size of the bidding company, and I am concerned about the effect that the awarding of contracts for such an important scheme could have on my constituents and other colleagues in Glasgow if the prime contractor was not picked on its ability alone."

You can read the letter from John Robertson at Labourlist.

A future on the dole?

Ahead of the IMF and World Bank meetings in Washington DC a week ago, a flurry of workshops, seminars and conferences took place, bringing together governments, unions, employers, economists, campaigners and NGOs. IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn, possible contender for the French Presidency, argued that inequality and joblessness led to social unrest of the sort seen in the Middle East and North Africa, and that “growth beset by social tensions is not conducive to economic and financial stability”. He acknowledged that ”unemployment is at record levels” and ”in too many countries, inequality is at record highs.” And without naming names, he said that ”fiscal tightening can lower growth in the short term, and this can even increase long-term unemployment, turning a cyclical into a structural problem.”

He therefore set out a social democratic manifesto not commonly associated with the IMF. Starting off by quoting Keynes on the need for jobs and equality, he concluded:

“We need policies to reduce inequality, and to ensure a fairer distribution of opportunities and resources. Strong social safety nets combined with progressive taxation can dampen market-driven inequality. Investment in health and education is critical. Collective bargaining rights are important, especially in an environment of stagnating real wages. Social partnership is a useful framework, as it allows both the growth gains and adjustment pains to be shared fairly.”

His remarks came in a debate on The Global Jobs Crisis: Sustaining the Recovery through Employment and Equitable Growth, hosted by the Brookings Institution of Washington and moderated by Kemal Dervis. ITUC General Secretary Sharan Burrow also spoke, with comments from Stephen Pursey of the ILO and Nobel Prize economist George Akerlof.

Of course, only a cynic would suggest that DSK was speaking to a French audience, or question how his views could be squared with IMF involvement in forced austerity measures across Europe….

Having said this, Britain, and Citizen Dave in particular, need to look at how they will resolve the currently record breaking levels of unemployment. Work Programme will not be enough and if this government is going to offer any hope to the jobless it will need to think of new measures to tackle the problem.

That is what they should do … but I’m not holding my breath.

Welfare to work and the 'lobster' effect

Most readers are aware that if you place a lobster in boiling water it will jump out. Yet, if you place it in cold water and increase the heat slowly it will stay in the pot until it eventually dies. If ever there was a living example of how that applies to humanity it is in the current behaviour of welfare to work staff.

Several weeks ago the government announced the closure of Pathways to Work and NDDP contracts and this was soon followed by the awarding of new contracts for the Tory flagship Work Programme. Analysts have long argued that Pathways to work and NDDP were destined for the ‘chop’ so it came as no surprise – yet a sizable number of people working in the industry seemed astonished the axe had fallen.

In a similar vein, the new prime and subcontractors are starting to recruit their staff for the delivery of the new contract. This has already meant that considerable numbers of people have been given redundancy notices and others have been advised they will be subject to TUPE regulations.

I have long argued that the new programme will not require anything like the numbers needed for the previous Flexible New Deal contract. Sadly, my insights are now starting to come to fruition. A number of large organisations have already started the process of ridding themselves of surplus staff, whilst a number have already started the process of TUPE’ing staff over to the new provider.

Inevitably this will mean that sooner or later new providers will ‘fill their books’ and have all the staff they need, leaving many staff who currently work for providers who lost out on the provision out on a limb.

Information coming in already suggests that at least three providers are without any work whatsoever after September, 2011 and this will mean they will have no need for any operational staff after that time. Unfortunately none of these companies have contacted the new providers to begin TUPE negotiations so this will inevitably leave everyone out in the cold and could result in at least 1,000 redundancies.

Overall it is unclear how many people will lose their jobs throughout the sector. Information from companies is deliberately vague and their employees are being fed little to no information. In most instances staff are being advised not to worry because they will be ‘subject to TUPE@ - but existing evidence has already shown this does not automatically mean they will still remain unemployed. Indeed, the available evidence is very much that because the financial model required by DWP was so close to the edge, most providers were forced to produce delivery designs where less staff would be required to achieve more, for less money.

Had the industry stated at the beginning of February that within six months 2 – 3,000 people (and possibly more) would be booted from their jobs there would have been an outcry. Staff would have been writing to the papers and to their MP; Grayling would have faced a picket line when he spoke at the Welfare to Work conference; some organisations might have had to contend with industrial action to protect jobs; MPs would have been asking questions in the House of Commons.

Instead the bosses remained silent – and if they did say anything, they told and continue to tell half-truths., or downright lies. Typical of this is A4e, who recently put staff in areas where they did not win on redundancy notice. The hope is that following TUPE consultation all of these people will move over to new employers – but of course this depends if they have vacancies. Also, some are starting to realise that local delivery managers may not be subject to TUPE and could find themselves out on their ear.

Sadly the people in the sector are almost certainly not going to do anything about it. Like ducks in the pond they are all waiting for the hunter to come and shoot them. Whilst they wait for the slaughter to begin most of these good people are working like Trojans in the hope that above average performance will somehow give them the chance of a new job.

It is very, very sad and people’s lives will be decimated because Duncan Smith and Grayling wanted to make their mark on the industry. Well they have – and as the cull begins, the blood is dripping from their hands.

We are in this together

Following my call yesterday for attendees of the Welfare to Work conference in June to ‘Turn they Back on Grayling’ there has been a flurry of email response from readers.

The vast majority were completely in favour of action to force the government to rethink some of their ideas on welfare to work and many supported my call for action.

Before other readers start feeing sorry for Mr Grayling please remember this is a man with an estimated personal wealth of £500, 000 and who owns four London homes. Despite his personal wealth, he still had no qualms about charging the state £40, 000 for refurbishments to one of these houses.

Iain Duncan Smith is a fair bit better off with a personal wealth estimated at £1m and owns two homes. He owes his apparent wealth to his wife, Betsy and lives in a £1million house provided by her father, the 5th Baron Cottesloe, which appears to be tied up in a series of complex family trusts.

I am sure the fact these two ministers are so comfortably off will offer great solace to the hundreds of welfare to work staff now facing redundancy. As they look forward to a future sitting ‘the other side of the desk’ at Jobcentres, these hard-working professionals will no doubt sleep much better at night knowing Duncan Smith and Grayling are able to afford the life of Reilly. And the thanks the state will give them for helping so many people back into work? A measly £67.50 or £105.95 a week if they are a married couple or living with a partner.

The time has come to stand up and take action and following a significant response to earlier posting I am proposing that staff in the sector set up a Welfare to Work Action Group (WAG) with the aim of campaigning on a variety of levels – these to be decided ultimately by those who ‘sign up’ to the concept.

Amongst issues that could be raised are the following:

1. Opposition to the government’s ill-planned Work Programme that has already been shown to offer little for the Third Sector and is unlikely to provide any real benefit to the unemployed.
2. Greater levels of equality between frontline workers and senior management and directors (including CEOs). This is not to suggest they should not be well paid, but the difference between the lowest paid and the highest should be no more than 10 times the salary. Thus, if the lowest paid frontline worker earns £16, 000 per year then the Chief Executive can only earn £160, 000
3. Professionalisation of the industry – this should not be determined by an independent think tank and a group of providers as can be seen in the POWER group, it should be determined by the staff themselves.
4. A total rethink on the way the industry is funded. Currently all staff are only secure in their jobs for 5-years. After that time they are often under threat of redundancy and, if lucky, subject to TUPE transfer. It is a disgrace and I know of no other career that places professionals in such a position. Ask yourself the question – would nurses, doctors, teachers or social workers accept such treatment?

These are just a few ideas. They are not exclusive and the ones I have proposed are not set in stone. They are merely discussion points to drive the Group forward.

If you are interested in being part of a radical group dedicated to campaigning and promoting an alternative view of welfare to work, whilst supporting staff who work in the sector then please write to me. The email is at the top of this blog.

If you do not have time to become involved, but essentially support the notion of a group, still contact. Your name can be added to a mailing list and we can keep you informed of what is happening.

This will be a members’ organisation, with policies and campaigns determined by the membership – it will not be a mouthpiece for this blog.

Help start the fightback to preserve services for the unemployed and save jobs in the industry. The more people we have on board, the stronger will be our voice, so tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and encourage them to write in and lend their support.

Turn your back on Grayling

I continue to find it disturbing that each day I am hearing of more redundancies in the welfare to work sector and nothing is happening. Latest rumours are suggesting 96 people working for Reed in Partnership have been put on consultation (though hopefully a sizable number of these will be absorbed into their restructured operation) and they are joined by a further 700 people from unidentified companies who also are under threat. If these numbers are added to those already known it could result in a loss of more than 2,000 people from the sector by next September. From information supplied by colleagues and supporters of this blog I know of at least one substantial company with approximately 300 employees that could easily ‘go to the wall’ as a result of these new contracts. Sadly the key forums for the sector have failed to respond to this seepage in any proactive manner, largely because the majority of contributors to these sites (Indus Delta, Yes Minister and Carley Consult) are mainly the managers who will be responsible for administering these redundancies. Some in the industry saw this tragic situation emerging long before the results were announced. Indeed the bid documents for the Work Programme set out a criteria guaranteed to make companies underprice themselves and plan projects based on reduced staffing. The documents stated "For each percentage point below the maximum price we will award 1 point of evaluation marks on top of the maximum 60 that are available for quality. For each percentage point reduction above 20 this will drop to an extra 0.5. The percentage reduction and the finance tender mark will be to two decimal places". This simple statement had a direct effect on the future number of people who would be employed in the sector. As on surprisingly frank commentator on Indus Delta stated “This obviously has an impact on the quality of service that can be offered, or the numbers of people that can be paid to deliver that service either directly or in their supply chain.”

Next month, Chris Grayling will dare to show his face at the Welfare to Work Convention in Manchester on 30th June and, no doubt, will be greeted with much applause by the senior managers sat inside – partly because they will be some of the people who have managed to stay in a job whilst many of their colleagues will be outside, either looking for work or, if they are lucky just starting to come to terms with a new employer. It is critical the sector tells Grayling how distressed they are with the administration of this new welfare to work scheme and how it has led to large scale redundancies throughout the industry. Sadly the evidence would suggest the industry is surrounded by apathy and a general belief in its own impotence. It sees itself more as a victim of circumstance rather than as a proactive part of the process. It is therefore critical at this time that those opposed to the cuts vocalise their opposition to the redundancies that are happening across the country. As part of this I call on the Coalition of Resistance, the Right to Work Campaign, UK Uncut, the broader trade union movement, socialist and radicals to organise now so we can picket the conference and let Grayling here our voice. Can you imagine the press reaction if the audience stood as Grayling was speaking and simply turned their back on Grayling? So the campaign begins today. If you are attending the conference I ask you, when Grayling goes to the podium, stand and turn your back throughout his speech. Those of you unable to go to the conference itself but willing to help should contact me directly to organise the picket outside the conference. TURN YOUR BACK ON GRAYLING! We may not win this struggle and save hundreds of jobs, but we can let the Tories know we will not tolerate their lack of care for people’s jobs any longer.

Welfare to work - doesn't work.

Tomorrow, DWP will announce the latest unemployment figures and if reports in the Times yesterday prove accurate, we can anticipate the number of people claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance will fall by 4,200. What is equally likely is the number of people deemed ‘inactive’ (last month 9,328,000 were put into this category) will remain static or could even rise and there will be no significant decline in the number of people in part-time work.

According to research papers in the House of Commons library, since the recession began there has been a 5.4% increase to 7.9 million in the number of people working part-time. There has been a 3.5% decline in the number working full-time, to 21.2 million. The proportion of part-time workers who state that they are only working part-time because they cannot find a full-time job has increased from 9% before the recession to 15% now. This suggests that people are settling for part-time jobs when they would prefer full-time jobs.

Citizen Dave has told us we do not need to worry as the private sector are about to pick up the tab and employ many of these people. However, on this question the jury is still out. Private sector employment is up annually – by a positive-looking 428,000 – leading to an increase in overall employment of 296,000 on the year. But the sorts of jobs that have been created do not suggest a strong labour market recovery:

• 114,000 (39 per cent) are self-employed jobs;
• 12,000 (4 per cent) are unpaid family workers;
• 11,000 (4 per cent) are positions on Government supporting employment programmes;
• 206,000 are part-time (70 per cent); and
• Only 65,000 are full-time employee positions (22 per cent).

Significantly, no-one seems to be asking serious questions about why is this happening? One of the causes is down to the welfare to work industry. Each day thousands of people are required to see staff working for one of the many training providers delivering Flexible New Deal contracts. These contracts require any unemployed person unemployed for over 12-months to attend regular ‘motivational’ meetings with a caseworker with the aim of supporting them back into work.

Seems reasonable so far – except many of these ‘clients’ attending these programmes are encouraged to accept part-time employment often taking a drop in income that is below what they were receiving when they were on benefits. Sounds crazy? Not really when you consider that all of these providers receive a handsome payment for everyone they get into work and off the claimant register.

The fact they are financially worse off as a result of accepting the job is of no concern to staff working for these providers. Their job has been done. But does it make sense to force people into jobs that pay less than the pittance they receive on JSA. Anyone who accuses an unemployed person of being a “scrounger” clearly hasn’t lived on the dole.
Just look at the figures – they hardly offer the jobless a life of luxury:

Contribution-based Jobseeker's Allowance
The maximum weekly rates are:
Aged 16 – 24 £53.45
Aged 25 or over £67.50

Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance
The maximum weekly rates are:
Single people, aged under 25 £53.45
Single people, aged 25 or over £67.50
Couples and civil partnerships (both aged 18 or over) £105.95
Lone parent (aged under 18) £53.45
Lone parent (aged 18 or over) £67.50

It doesn’t make sense to force people into such low paid work and it disturbs me that the attitude of some of these frontline workers leans towards this idea. Now, let me be clear – I am not suggesting it is OK to sit back and claim benefit indefinitely without looking for work. It is right there is an expectation that people should seek employment. However, in a culture where the jobs aren’t available it is difficult to accuse the thousands of claimants seeking work of being ‘scroungers’.

Moreover, many of the ‘back to work’ calculations done by these frontline workers often conclude the client would be ‘better off’ taking a part-time job – but these calculations often fail to take into account certain factors such as the hidden expenses of going to work. For example, this morning I will go to work and call into a shop and buy a coffee before arriving at my office. Had I been home I would have put on the kettle. At lunch I will wander through the town looking for a pair of shoes for work. Had I been home I would have worn trainers or slippers – I would not have needed a replacement pair of shoes. The other costs go on.

We need to radically review the way we treat people claiming unemployment benefits. It is not enough to cram them into the first available job just so it gets them off the claimant register. We must work towards helping these people secure permanent full-time sustainable employment.

Now, Iain Duncan Smith would tell us the Work Programme is targeted to achieve just this and with £5bn worth of contracts currently being divvied up between 18 contractors, there is clearly a lot of profit in agreeing with the minister. But with at least 5 people still applying for every job we are a long way off achieving the goal of full employment.

The hard reality is that Work Programme, like Flexible New Deal before it will not work because it is being run ‘for profit’ and whilst this demon is present, providers will always seek quick easy solutions to secure payment.

It is time to accept the inevitable – welfare to work … doesn’t work.

The Work Programme has its work cut out

Liam Byrne MP, Labour's Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, commenting ahead of the Tory-led Government’s announcement of its preferred bidders for their Work Programme, said:

“Unemployment has now hit a 17 year high and the benefits bill is soaring by over £12 billion.

“This government’s failure to get people back to work is now costing families a fortune because its forcing cuts in tax credits and children’s benefits.

“After a budget that put 200,000 more on the dole, this Work Programme has its work cut out.

“Most people will be really worried that this thinned down programme is simply not enough to get Britain back to work.”

Now THAT is an understatement!

Already firms in the welfare to work sector are setting up to shed jobs. Redundancy notices have been distributed in some organisations (A4e have given all their staff notice) and more will follow. By 1st June the sector will have lost hundreds of quality staff so Grayling can sit smugly in Whitehall, chuntering over the finer points of Tory ideology with Iain Duncan Smith.

It is a disgrace and the shame of these job losses will be laid fully on the shoulders of these hateful people. How can they legitimately say they want to get people back to work, when they take away the jobs of those who work in that sector?

Byrne should have been far more vocal defending jobs. If we can't depend on the Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to support staff in the sector, then who can we trust?

He must make a statement - and soon - defending jobs and supporting small firms in the sector who will suffer whilst the fat cats and big companies cream off the riches on this new contract.

Work Programme bid results announced today

Later today we will probably hear who has won contracts to deliver the new government flagship welfare to work scheme, Work Programme. A lot depends on the result. Already a number of companies have placed their employees on redundancy notice in a pessimistic anticipation they will not succeed in winning any bids.

The contracting vehicle for the Work Programme, called the Framework Agreement, divided the Work Programme into eleven geographic ‘lots’, comprising England’s nine regions and Scotland and Wales.

DWP has said it expects around eight organisations - likely to be large services companies, such as Serco, A4e, CDG, G4S and Maximus - to be allocated to each ‘lot’. These prime contractors will then subcontract the Work Programme to smaller jobs brokers across their contract area as they see fit.

According to the DWP, bidders needed to be “larger organisations” that have the financial capacity to handle contracts of between £10 and £50m, as well as the necessary cash flow to finance contracts where funding is provided on the basis of results, as well as the “ability to deliver across the whole of a geographical lot”.

So why did these companies bid for this contract? Because the overall purse is worth no less than £5bn

According to reports, successful companies will earn anything up to £14,000 for each client they successfully place in paid employment.

Talk about money breeding money!

Now you would hope staff working in the sector would see some benefit from all of this. You would perhaps assume the personnel would be given good salaries, decent pensions, nice working accommodation, good holiday entitlements and a high standard of continuing professional education.

Unfortunately, this is far from the case. Take this advert offering a vacancy as a job broker for a salary of

“As well as having experience in supporting employers to recruit and develop unemployed individuals, you ideally should also have experience of working with those unemployed individuals to ensure a smooth transition from benefit to employment. You should have the ability to build relationships with key employers, as well as possess excellent negotiating and mentoring skills. You must have, or be willing to work towards NVQ Level 3 in Advice and Guidance.”

Now, by the time you add on employer contributions and the cost of a little in-house training, you can expect total labour costs for hiring this person to be approximately £26 -28,000. In other words, as long as they get two people a year into a job, they are paying their way.
The reality is that many of these staff are extremely talented and dedicated people who genuinely want to help those who are jobless. They didn’t come into the sector to earn big bucks – because the flashy salaries don’t exist for frontline workers. Nor did they join the welfare to work sector because of some kudos associated with their work.

As far as the media and a large part of the public are concerned, frontline staff are a ‘welfare police’ mandated with the task of forcing scroungers back to work. Thankfully, many of these frontline staff know better and accept that nearly everyone unemployed has been forced into that situation through a series of unfortunate circumstances. No-one wants to be jobless and I cannot imagine anyone being happy to remain on benefit for the rest of their life. Penury, which is what people experience when they are on the dole, is never pleasant.

Staff employed to help the jobless back to work often come from a background where they too were unemployed and forced onto a government scheme. Indeed, many of these programmes have proven useful pickings for welfare to work companies to find good staff they can cherry-pick and then train to help others.

Unfortunately, this training is often desperately inadequate. Clients referred to training providers often come to interviews with multi-various problems – debt, housing issues, relationship problems, childcare problems, health difficulties, psychological problems and, in some instances, a lack of education. Add to this the known psychological problems often associated with unemployment such as depression, low self esteem, anxiety, paranoia and alcohol or drug misuse and you have major casework issues.

Though the NVQ level 3 in advice and guidance is a credible qualification, it is wholly inadequate for the situation. Caseworkers dealing with those who are jobless need to be skilled in counselling techniques, motivational interviewing (with detailed knowledge of approaches adopted when using models such as those recommended by Prochaska and DiClemente) and cognitive behavioural intervention skills.

The vast majority of frontline workers would jump at the opportunity to learn new skills – because they care, but the management within these companies have, until now, been disinclined to invest significantly in appropriate training. So, the end product has been a mish mash of a welfare to work scheme resulting in only 8% of those referred securing full-time, permanent work. Ask any caseworker whether they think things to could be done better and all agree. Sadly at every step along the way they have been stopped by managers exclusively focussed on the profit motive rather than the welfare of either the staff member or his/ her client.

Sometime today companies will learn if their bid has been successful and for many it will mean trying to do the same job for less money. Already some companies have set up systems to ensure staff will only keep their job if they take less pay. For others it will mean redundancy. Already many are looking to a date in June when their employment will end. They do not expect the new contract to save their jobs. They will, of course have had 90-days to find another job, but with an entire sector in total disarray, finding a new employer will not be easy. We can expect to see many really talented people to leave the sector. They will be mourned by some, but soon forgotten by others.

I say to those affected – always remember these pages will always remember the service you have given this sector. You will not be forgotten and we will never forgive the fat cats and the profiteers in the welfare to work sector for the way they have treated you.

May your successes be great and your pleasures be many. You have given several years of your life to helping others and as such, you have left an indelible mark on this world. I ask all of you now facing redundancy – when you finally walk out the door – stand proud, for you truly were professionals.

For those of you who remain – it is time to bring about change. We cannot keep doing this to ourselves. Are we truly saying we are so impotent? Are we saying we are so under the thumb of the bosses that we can’t say no to future redundancies?

Of course not. When the dust settles and we know who has won contracts it will be time for those who are angry enough to introduce the trade unions into your work place. Once we have united staff under a common ban we can face management and make the welfare to work sector an industry to be proud to work in.

In the meantime, it will be a rather grotesque experience today watching the multinationals suck off the cream from British taxpayers’ money.

Rich man, Poor man - the two face of Welfare to Work

Yesterday I talked about the 460 redundancies at A4e and today, I would like to continue along the same theme. You see, if all we were talking about were those jobs, it would be sad, but not a disaster. Regrettably, the position is far, far worse.

In a recent survey of training providers, ERSA (the trade association for all providers working in the welfare to work sector) identified that amongst a third surveyed there were 1,500 anticipated job losses as a result of the closure of Pathways to Work and New Deal programmes. Now, this was only the amount identified from those who responded to the survey. If you add to this the number from those who failed to respond, then conservatively you could easily be looking at over 2,000 redundancies within the sector.

But even this is not the end. In a few weeks, DWP will announce who has been successful in bidding for delivery of the Work Programme. Over the days that follow, those selected primes will advise subcontractors of the extent of delivery they will be offered and in which regions. Logically, not everyone will be successful and though more optimistic forecasts predict most frontline staff will be absorbed into the new delivery companies, this seems far from reality.

The hard facts are that due to the funding arrangements, companies will be forced to keep costs to a minimum. Add to this the fact that transition to a new programme is always slow and you compound the problem. Take Flexible New Deal as a previous example – many anticipated a large flow of referrals from Jobcentre Plus right from the start, but the reality was that it took over six months for numbers to even approach expected targets. For some weeks many staff were ‘hanging around’ waiting for the work to come in.

This time round, companies will be less inclined to make the same mistakes.

Many frontline staff will thankfully be subject to TUPE arrangements and, as a result, will find themselves transferred over to new deliverers. But what about those currently employed as administrators, HR staff, training teams, health and safety personnel, cleaning and maintenance departments, business development teams and, in some instances, employer engagement teams? All these people will find themselves vulnerable, especially if the new prime is already established in that area and has an existing solid infrastructure within the region.

If only 35 companies found themselves without any work as a result of the new contract, and these organisations were forced to ‘let go’ of 15 staff, this would add another 500 people to the overall seepage in the sector – and making a total of over 2,500 job losses in just over 3 months.

There is a clear divide in the Welfare to Work sector. You seldom if ever see any senior management volunteering to be the first to accept redundancy when the axe falls, it is always the grunt, the oik who has to graft whilst ‘management’ squeeze out more money for their advantage. It is seldom the managing director who says to his workforce “It’s not fair and as a gesture I will be the first to leave this company – see you on the dole queue!”

Today, Will Hutton reported on Fairer Pay and in line with some of his “recommendations” I am publishing some of the pay differentials between directors and frontline workers. Take a look at the following. In 2009, Reed in Partnership paid out £844,00 in director’s remuneration, with the highest paid director earning £238,000 – an increase of 40.83% over the last four years. Or EAGA, whose directors earned a massive £1,538, 000 (an increase of over 68%) over the last 7 years – and the salary of their highest paid director? Would you believe a meagre £457,000 – an increase of (wait for it) over 96% over the last 7 years. Or, how about Working Links, where their directors have earned a mighty £354,000 (an increase of 139% over 6 years) and their highest paid director earned £222,000.

Compare this with PeopleServe, where the last recorded average salary for employees (2009 figures) was £16,338.65. Now accepted PeopleServe are low payers, so let’s look at Working Links again – their average wage is about £25,941, a big differential between the two companies. In the latter case, staff at Working Links might like to reflect on the size of any pay rise they had over the last two years, because the highest paid director in that company allowed himself an enormous 20% increase.

G4S is a widely known public limited company with interests in a variety of sectors, including welfare to work. Last year, its 23 directors enjoyed the rewards of the company’s success by enjoying £4,460,000 between them.. Their highest paid director earned a staggering £1,656,000 … and the average salary within the company? Would you believe - £6,846.62!!!

How about Pertemps? Their directors shared out £415,000 between the 15 of them and their highest paid director earned £289,000. Meanwhile the average pay of a member of staff was £26,631,64.

If you aren’t angry by now, let’s go back to those 460 staff at A4e who are now on redundancy notice. The 15 directors of that company shared £2,128,000 between them last year, an increase overt the last 7 years of over 189.52%. Their highest paid director earned £640,000, but we should feel sorry for them, because during the same period, their salary only went up 99.38%. Unsurprisingly, the average salry of a member of staff within the company is not in the public domain, but you can bet their income hasn’t gone up as much during the same period!!!

I could bore you with many more figures. Suffice to say, there is a division between the experience of frontline staff, who are paid poorly for a highly stressful job and face the risk of redundancy every five years and the directors who manage them, most of whom have been sneakily sucking off all the cream from the milk for years.

It is time the sector started to clean up its act. It is run by ‘fat cats’ who, despite their feeble protestations, only want to feather their own nests and do not care about the thousands who, in a few weeks time, will face redundancy. Remember that patronising letter to A4e staff yesterday? It does the sector no good when directors, earning such huge salaries rely on the devotion staff have to their jobs whilst they fleece they system to fill their greedy pockets.

It is a disgrace and it is time employees in the sector started to vocalize their anger.

The rich get richer as more redundancies fall

Recently, disturbing information fell into my hands informing me of a training provider who is intending to bring about a mass redundancy programme to their workforce. Over the years, A4e has become one of the leading welfare to work companies in the UK and prior to the introduction of the Work Programme, Emma Harrison, its founder was looking forward to this £100m company said she was "proud that the company has sustained pure organic growth at a phenomenal rate" and forecast an increase in profits to a £500 million turnover by 2014.

However, this will not save the 460 frontline staff who will shortly go onto redundancy notice. In a letter to affected personnel, Executive Director Nigel Lemmon wrote:

Colleagues, We know that we have a caring, driven and passionate team. We have a team that has helped us to develop our business over the years and we have ambitious plans to continue that growth. However, we currently face a very difficult situation with some existing Welfare to Work contracts formally ending before the new Work Programme begins. This is far from ideal. We passionately want to do the right thing for our employees and our customers, but on this occasion we have had to start the formal process of collective redundancy consultations with all our New Deal for Disabled People (NDDP) and our Pathways to Work employees. This decision has not been taken lightly, we have thought long and hard about the options available to us, but regrettably have had to start this process. Whilst some providers have already started these consultations, we made the decision to wait until we had received final confirmation from DWP, ensuring that we could retain our excellent team throughout this period and well past the time that we would have clarity around the Work Programme contracts. Our focus in the coming weeks will be on securing the best possible outcome for our employees and our customers. We want the best team, we know we have got great people and your skills will be vital to the delivery of our own Work Programme and those where we hope to secure subcontractor work. We will do everything possible to secure opportunities for our team going forward. However, you will be aware that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) only last week advised us that the contracts to deliver New Deal for Disabled People and Pathways to Work will not be extended beyond 31st March 2011 and 27th April (Pathways to Work Phase 2) and that a new initiative will be offered to customers by Jobcentre Plus from 1st April until the Work Programme starts. Since we were notified last week, we have been working extremely hard to challenge this position with DWP. However, senior DWP representatives have now confirmed that it is their view that TUPE (the regulations that allow for the transfer of employees from one provider to another) does not apply, either to Jobcentre Plus when the new service starts on 1st April, or to other service providers when the Work Programme goes live (between 1st June and 31st July). This is hugely disappointing and we have now had to take the decision to start formal collective redundancy consultations. This decision only affects our New Deal for Disabled People and Pathways to Work employees. Once we have been informed of the outcome of our Work Programme bids for prime and sub-contracts, we will be able to understand the wider implications across the rest of our Welfare Division. We will continue to provide you with information as and when it becomes available By starting a lengthy 90 day redundancy consultation process, we have been able to secure your colleagues employment with A4e for the next three months. Our commitment and investment reflects our passion to support our team as much as possible and the enormous value and trust we place our team. It is our absolute intention to get the best outcomes for our people and our customers and have the best team going forward. This arrangement will take us into June and importantly, well after the Work Programme contract award announcements. This approach will give us the greatest opportunities once we know where we will be delivering the Work Programme going forward. We know that A4e has the best teams in the industry with extraordinary employees. It is as a result of the friendly and caring service that you have delivered to customers over the years that has enabled us to build A4e into what it is today. I know that we will continue to live our by DNA and to passionately provide excellent service to customers. If you have any queries regarding this announcement or the process, please speak to you manager in person, the HR Shared Services Team by telephone on *************** and we will get back to you as soon as possible. Nigel Lemmon

By implication, the letter implies some kind of genuine care for its workforces, but let’s face it – a redundancy consultation period is seldom a time to renegotiate your job. These people will almost certainly find themselves unemployed within the next few weeks, unless by some stroke of good fortune they are able to find alternate employment. Most will not be so lucky and will be forced to ‘sign on’ and claim Jobseekers Allowance. In the meantime, Emma Harrison can sit in her luxury home, swanning around with her friend, Citizen Dave, the people’s toff. They are a pair well met. Harrison, like Cameron is also a millionaire, with a personal wealth estimated at £40m – not much chance Emma will be joining her colleagues on the dole then.

Interestingly, if you go to the "MyA4e" website, you will see that Emma Harrison gave Anna Gaunt the opportunity of a 12-month secondment as her assistant. prior to this, Anna had been an employment advisor on their NDDP contract. It rather begs the question of whether has a job to go to once her placement expires. For her sake, I hope she has the chance of redeployment within the company, but the promotion of this posting on their website remains a rather fine example of Emma's team shooting her in the foot.

Now, is it just me, or are there others out there who find it pretty obscene that Some people have profited from welfare to work programmes, whilst other, like the 460 at A4e are cast aside when they have served their usefulness. Because the new programme to be implemented by Jobcentre Plus is so different from Pathways to Work and New Deal for Disabled People, these folk will not be TUPE’d over to the new programme.

Over the coming weeks, as announcements are made on who are the ‘winners’ of contracts for the Work Programme, more will follow. Soon we can expect those hundreds will turn into thousands as companies ‘rationalise’ or even close.

It is a disgrace that workers who have given years to supporting unemployed people back into work should now find themselves in a position where they also face joblessness. The shame is not exclusive to A4e – other companies have profited equally well. Seetec has become one of the largest and most experienced providers of government-funded welfare to work and skills-training programmes. The company employs more than 500 people across a national network of 50 employment and training centres, and helps thousands of people each year to find work or gain qualifications through a diverse portfolio of employability or skills contracts. Last year, Seetec pulled in £21.2m in sales and profits of £2.112m. This enabled the company, which is 56 per cent owned by founder Peter Cooper, to pay total dividends of £990,608.

Or take the example of Maximus, profits in the first nine months of 2010 shot up by 19.4 percent—to £131 million. And its top boss, Richard A Montoni, grabbed a pay package worth £2 million last year.

Perhaps instead of paying out such vast dividends to a selected bunch of money-grabbing shareholders, the company should have been establishing a welfare programme to support these workers if and when contracts come to an end. But of course that is hardly an option for these commercial giants – since when does capitalism look after the working class?

Excellent site - worth visiting

This is well worth a visit if you care about those who are jobless.

http://www.workprogramme.org.uk/

It's not me and I have no involvement in it, but they have a lot of good stuff there. Look at it and link to it.

Unemployment and the Great British Fob Off!

News that 97 per cent of posts created since the economy came out of recession are of limited hours will come as no shock the welfare to work sector. The statistics mean only 6,000 of the 200,000 jobs to have come up in a year pay a full-time wage.

Of further concern to providers is the fact that evidence showed the top performing provider only achieved 8% sustained job outcomes. The average caseworker will be already aware of this, but it seems the Department of Work and Pensions have chosen to ignore current labour market trends.

There is an increasingly trend emerging amongst employers to offer part-time, or ‘zero-hour’ contracts because there is often no National Insurance to pay on behalf of the employees as usually their earnings are comparatively low.

In addition, firms often do not have to pay overtime or pension contributions, unless the part-timer has worked more hours than a full time colleague. Unscrupulous employers have historically used zero-hours contracts as a means by which employees are only paid for work actually done. For example, a restaurant might employ three staff and not know how busy a particular night was going to be. The employer would therefore have staff 'on call' and unpaid, until it became busy enough to bring them out to serve.

One of the reasons employers have opted for these contracts is because they are worried about low growth levels, increasing inflation and the reluctance of banks to finance projects. This point was emphasized by David Frost, the Director-General of the British Chamber of Commerce, who said:

“Clearly there's a lot of nervousness about the future and companies are hiring people on a short-term basis in case the economy doesn't grow as expected. When there's more confidence companies will convert part-time people into full-time employees.”

This kind of uncertainty will not disappear overnight and the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) warned it will take at least two more years before the economy claws back output lost to the crisis of 2008. In the meantime, unemployment will soar this year to a 17-year high of 2.8m - 8.8% of the workforce.

Now, let me draw an analogy. Let us assume you had a car parked outside that you needed for work. Let us also assume that every time you needed the car, it only started and ran 3 times in every 100 – would you continue to run the car? Presumably not. Yet the government adhere to a belief that the Welfare to Work sector offers the unemployed some kind of future salvation.

Clearly this is not the case and evidence shows large numbers are being referred to independent providers (who are paid handsomely for their services), only to be fobbed off with low-grade part-time work. This is hardly a solution and one can only stand in total confusion at Iain Duncan Smith’s professed allegiance to the process. Is it that he sees our future as all being employed part-time? Perhaps he doesn’t care about the unemployed and only wants to massage the statistics? Possibly it is because he sees the vast profits the Welfare to Work sector makes and thinks he can fool us whilst making companies like Serco, A4e, Working Links and others pay low rates of corporation tax.

The system is ineffective, fails to address fundamental problems within our labour market and offers no solutions to the unemployed. Rather than encouraging large corporations to bid for the new Work Programme, the government should be reviewing the entire process of how we fail those who are workless.

Morally, it is what should be done – I won’t hold my breath!

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”.

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.

How the Coalition ignores the unemployed

Already the coalition is starting to show signs of attacking our hard earned welfare system. Over the coming months, 2.6 million people currently in receipt of incapacity benefit will be reassessed and ‘judged’ as to whether they are fit for work. Now accessing IB in the first place is not exactly easy and requires the co-operation of a GP, so one can only assume the Con-Dems are unwilling to accept medical opinion because they want to get these ‘skivers’ back to work.

Add to this the 8.1 million people who are deemed economically inactive and you have the basis of a return to Thatcherite oppression of the working class, with the government threatening to implement a series of ‘initiatives’ to force people back into work.

You don’t believe me? Take a look at Tory policy. They state:

“... anyone declining to participate on the single Work Programme will lose the right to claim out-of-work benefits until they do”.

Their manifesto (and now Coalition policy) also indicated that refusal of a job offer could lead to “forfeit of benefits for up to 3 years”.

Clearly, this approach stems from an underlying belief that the unemployed are no more than a bunch of ‘skivers’ determined to milk the welfare system. This diatribe harks back to the days of Thatcherism – an era few amongst this readership would wish to see repeated. But who exactly are these ‘skivers’ the Tories are so determined to persecute? Are they the economically inactive? The unemployed?

If they are amongst the 8.1m people deemed economically inactive, then let us break down the figures:

- Slightly over 2.3 million are students
- A bit under 2.3 million are looking after their family /home (eg housewives).
- Just over 2 million are long-term sick.
- Just under 600,000 describe themselves as retired.
- Just over 1 million part-time workers who are on reduced hours and unable to find full-time work

It is also worthy of note(before the Tories trash the record of the last government - when Labour was elected the working age population was just under 35.3 million; in the latest figures it is just over 38 million – 2.75 million higher.

Alternatively, if the Tories are referring to the unemployed, then a simple glance at the figures shows there are currently 2.51m people unemployed, with 1.51 of these receiving Jobseekers Allowance. At the same time, the number of vacancies for the three months to April 2010 was 475,000. It does not take a mathematical genius to work out there are not enough jobs to go around.

So how will the Con-Dems get people back into work?

Will they revitalise British industry? No.

Will they generate a massive house rebuilding programme to address a chronic housing need and take 750,000 workers off unemployment benefit? No.

Will they protect our public services and guarantee the safety of jobs for those employed by local, regional and national government. No – latest indicators are there will be approximately 750,000 redundancies.

But the good news is the Con-Dems are going to implement a new shiny welfare to work programme. Of course, they don’t know how it will work – they have asked independent training providers to offer some suggestions; they don’t know when it will happen – but they want it to happen soon. They don’t know how it will be paid for – although they accept smaller third sector providers might struggle to deliver the programme. Oh .. and they have absolutely no idea on where these training providers will find jobs for the unemployed.

But we don’t have to worry, because Nick and David and now Ian (I didn’t want to be party leader anyway) Duncan-Smith and Chris (of course I’m not homophobic) Grayling have a plan. They aren’t telling us what it is ... and as days turn to weeks it is rapidly becoming apparent they are trying to work it all out on the hoof. Meanwhile, 2.51 million people remain unemployed, 600,000 of these young people – with no hope of a future whilst the Con-Dems implement savage cuts across all services.

Not the best way to develop a radical new welfare system.