Welfare to Work Doesn’t Work—and the Evidence Is Clear

Wherever we are in the world, we are being forced to live a myth; a lie that for some can destroy us physically, profoundly harm our mental health, corrupt us socially, or leave us emotionally desolate. I am, of course, talking about work, the social and economic need to ‘earn a living’ and pay our way in the world. This isn’t to suggest some don’t thrive in the work environment, clearly there are examples of retirees who shrivel away without a job to go to each day; or those dedicated few who genuinely believe they get their identity from the job they do and savour the experience every day. But I would argue most people work for the salary they are paid each month.

By now many readers will be thinking, ‘Oh here goes, another lefty wanting to ‘smash the system’, but that is very far from my intention. I have nothing against earning a living, but what I hope to show is how our hard-earned taxes are being misspent to perpetuate a grossly unhealthy myth about the idea of work and it’s not even working.

But let me first talk about how having a job may be harmful.

How work messes with your mind

For years, psychology has been used to tell us work is good. In 2006, Waddell and Burton did some research commissioned by the UK Department of Work and Pensions and it unsurprisingly argued:

·       Work meets important psychosocial needs in societies where employment is the norm;

·       Work is central to individual identity, social roles and social status;

·        Employment and socio-economic status are the main drivers of social gradients in physical and mental health and mortality;

It sounds plausible, but there is also strong psychological evidence showing how our working conditions and a lousy workplace environment can affect our mental health, so it isn’t black and white. I mean, we know high job demands, low job control, high effort–reward imbalances, injustice in the workplace, role stress, bullying and a lack of support can create mental health problems – in other words, the kind of difficulties most of us face nearly every day.

Social effects of work may not be as good as we think

The negative social impact of work may seem obvious but let me spell it out. At its most basic level, research has shown work can degrade interpersonal relationships and create spillover impacts on families. Even worse, workplace dynamics such as exclusion or not being allowed into social or work groups can affect us badly, as can being deliberately ignored by our work colleagues

A more recent social effect has been the post-Covid trend towards remote, or lone working - while offering a lot of flexibility, it brings with it distinct isolation risks, which can significantly damage natural social functioning.

Negative spiritual effects of work

We often tend to ignore the spiritual effects, but they can have a profound effect on our well-being. Take for example times when we work in a toxic environment that lead us to feel a lack of purpose or identity. We see this when people are employed in, what they feel are pointless or unfulfilling jobs and this can undermine your sense of autonomy that can lead us to feeling hopeless, depressed, or maybe simply as though our careers have stagnated. Add a toxic management, or disrespectful colleagues and all this can disrupt your inner peace, making it difficult to maintain a contented or relaxed mindset.

So why do we work?

Well, here we come to the crux of the matter, because governments and employers want us to believe work is wholesome, character-building and gives us a sense of identity (and, of course, for some this is true), but the reality is far simpler – we work because we have to. It’s as simple as that. We work because if we don’t, we can’t pay our rent or mortgage, we can’t eat, drink, or stay warm, and all this ignores the wonderful toys our consumer society churns out every day that we convince ourselves we ‘need’ – after all, where would life be if we couldn’t buy the latest smart watch, a new electric car, the latest Apple phone, or a crazy foreign holidays,

So, we work primarily to survive and secure financial independence, it fulfils core human needs by providing routine, community and, for some, it gives a sense of purpose. For those lucky enough it can challenge us to grow, foster personal development, and give us a feeling we are contributing our unique skills to society – but here I would urge caution as this is unlikely to be the common view of work.

A few years ago, an ex-colleague of mine told me he had been working so hard on a project that he’d literally made himself unwell. He didn’t offer this as a health update, or to warn me about overexertion. It was, oddly enough, a boast. But why is work treated, strangely enough, as if it were next to godliness

In 1905, Max Weber gave us some answers when he suggested work is driven by a "Protestant work ethic," where labour is viewed as a divine "calling" and wealth accumulation a sign of spiritual salvation. What Weber could never anticipate was how society would move away from this “Protestant Ethic” and turn to abstract deities that would command our deep devotion; deities like the “free market” - the ultimate, supreme deity in a consumerist world, demanding constant economic growth and competition; or the” Brand” where entities like MacDonalds, Starbucks or Walmart/ Asda act like patron saints, offering worshippers a sense of belonging, status, and identity in exchange for their loyalty. Then there is the role of “the media”, the priesthood and messengers of the modern era. Where social media platforms like Instagram and Facebook broadcast what society should desire, setting the trends and making us feel our lives are inadequate without the latest products.

But what about the unemployed

For a society to work there must be conformity to maintain order, co-operation and social cohesion so, it follows, if the norm is for people to work and participate in a consumerist society, then those unable to do so must be encouraged or forced to do so. To achieve this many governments internationally run “Workfare”, or to use a more British term, “Welfare-to-Work programmes to help, or one could argue force unemployed people back into work. There is nothing new about this approach, policies compelling unemployed people back into work trace back to inter-war Britain, or even as far back as the 1880 Famine Codes in British India.

 More modern “Workfare” programmes are government-administered social policies requiring able-bodied welfare recipients to engage in community work, public-service jobs, or job training in exchange for receiving state income benefits. Its declared aim being to reduce poverty, prevent long-term dependency on government aid and help individuals build recent work experience. The covert goal is to reintegrate the unemployed back into a thriving consumerist society.

Unfortunately, the World Bank, amongst others argue workfare programmes have no lasting effects on total national employment or the full-time long-term employment of those who have been out of work for over 12-months. It simply doesn’t work.

Despite this, these programmes remain popular and involve billions of pounds/ dollars of government investment.

I was thinking recently about Viktor Frankl who developed an argument suggesting the purpose of life is to secure well-being. The corollary is, of course the creation of meaningless work is contrary to the creation of well-being, and forcing people into such work may even be harmful.

We know workfare or public works programmes (PWPs) work effectively as social safety nets to provide temporary income and food security, but as long-term tools for returning people to employment their success is mixed; research shows they often fail to create lasting infrastructure benefits and, more importantly their effectiveness depends heavily on their context (whether they are targeting long-term unemployed, young people, elderly etc ) as they are not a one-size-fits-all solution to poverty or unemployment.

The effectiveness of UK workfare/ welfare-to-work programmes – the Restart Scheme

The Restart Scheme was established to help long-term unemployed people return to work, offering training in employability skills, skills development and job placements. Since 2021, 1.2 million unemployed were referred to the scheme and the government set a target of achieving 310,000 successful outcomes during a five-year period (an outcome assumes an individual secures 16-hours of work per week for a period of 6-months), costing the taxpayer an estimated £2,429 per person. The scheme achieved only 280,000 successful outcomes (88|%). In their analysis of Restart, the Institute of Fiscal argued had absolutely nothing been done to help these people, 246,400 would have naturally returned to employment without any form of assistance.

One of the reasons UK workfare programmes are destined to fail is because they are contracted out to independent employability companies eager to maximise profitability and secure the full funding for each referral (they only receive 30% of funding when the person is referred and the remainder when they secure employment). As a result, most providers ‘cream’ (only accept referrals from those who can be found work quickly) or ‘park’ (spend as little time as possible on those with complex needs and difficult to find work) to distort statistics and suggest high success rates.

The effectiveness of US workfare/ welfare-to-work programmes

The main workfare/ employability programme running in the US is known as TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), a federally funded, state-administered programme providing short-term cash assistance and support services to low-income families with children. Often referred to as "welfare”, it aims to help parents achieve self-sufficiency through work-focused programmes helping them back into work. In order to achieve this, the government funds states a total of $16.6 billion each year (the overall federal budget for means-tested budget for welfare programmes is about $1.1 trillion), but unlike workfare programmes in the UK, recipients are usually required to find employment or participate in job-training programmes within two-years of receiving assistance.

What we do know when we look at workfare programmes critically, is that since 1997 the UK, much of Europe and parts of Asia have been eager to adopt welfare-to-work approaches based on extremely limited evidence of their ability to boost welfare recipients' earnings on a long-term basis

So too has the belief programmes prioritising moving people into work quickly are more effective than ones seeking to enhance human capital (skills training, assistance overcoming complex needs etc). Additionally, what is particularly disturbing is how both the US and UK governments have ignored the lack of evidence on how long the beneficial effects of programmes last after people leave them and their almost inevitable future return to unemployment and poverty within five or six years.

 

Political comment

Transparently, we need to rethink the whole concept of work, ranging the current work leisure balance where one-third of our day is spent in work, one-third asleep and up to one-sixth travelling to or preparing for work, leaving only four hours a day for leisure or personal study. But we also need to re-examine our entire ‘back-to-work’ approach because it quite simply isn’t working. In the UK we have 10 million people who are economically inactive and close to 6 million on out of work benefits and 49% of sick and disabled people without a job, In its response, the government is intending to invest £3.8 billion during this parliament alone on programmes supposedly geared to get them back into work; programmes that consistently fail to deliver.

Additionally, we know in the UK, 2.7m people are in work and claiming benefit largely because they have forced into part-time work and have not been able to obtain full-time employment.

Action must be taken if this is to change. In particular, we need to

·       Reappraise the nature of work and re-examine our work-leisure ratio

·       Help young people into training or education programmes by offering them proper skills

·       If unemployment levels vary regionally, offer financial incentives to move to ne areas

·       Offer employers significant incentives to take long-term unemployed

·       Provide greater support to families eg. provide greater financial support for childcare

·       Dramatically increase public works spending eg attack the homelessness crisis by funding a substantial programme to build far more social housing so workers can move to where jobs are at any given time

·       Substantially improve training programmes to respond to cyclical unemployment especially in high-growth industries

·       Lowering interest rates and use tax incentives to allow new and young businesses to expand rapidly.

There’s nothing new here – it’s what we’ve always known, but what we’ve always lacked is the real desire to bring about real and effective change. Handing out hundreds of billions of pounds or dollars to employability providers so they can mage huge profits from governmental ambivalence is not the answer. It is time to develop a cohesive and strategic plan – but the key question is whether we have the willingness.

 

Why Americans Need to Get Much Angrier About Donald Trump.

Over the months and years, I’ve watched America transition from a tolerant, bastion of free speech, to a divided nation where intolerance abounds and the only permitted political comments are those lauded towards their new Caesar, President Donald J. Trump. Looking back, it was an inevitable love affair. On the international scene, presidential indecision had, by 2017 left the US looking weaker than at any other time in history. America hasn’t won a major sustained war on its own since Word War 2, though there have been a few ‘successes’ if you include smaller interventions.

In 1983, the US swiftly invaded Grenada (with an estimated population, then 110,000) and overthrow the Marxist military government. Similarly, in 1990, in Operation Just Cause, they quickly ousted dictator Manuel Noriega and installed a democratically elected government. I do not include the Gulf War as this broadly successful conflict involved a 35-nation coalition, of which the US was only a part.

Prosperity on the Home Front

On the home front, US citizens were at their most affluent (if defined by how easily a single wage earner could buy a home, raise a family and buy a car) under Dwight  Eisenhower, while they were able to save the most under Nixon and Carter;

although, unemployment was high under Reagan and Ford, but healthcare arrangements were improved the most for the elderly and low-income populations under Lyndon B. Johnson, though I’m sure some readers would argue in providing cover to over 30 million Americans,  Obama’s Affordable Care Act deserves mention.

Against this, Trump has referred to his own presidency as a “very beautiful and romantic time”, and after his first term, “our country was thriving, we were just beating everyone,” but is this true?

International markers during both Trump eras show that, if we examine the Happy Planet Index (a tool created by the New Economic Foundation to measure national well-being, we see Costa Rica is top, the UK comes in at 34^th, while the US is way behind at 108^th. Equally, if we look at the Human Development Index, an UN-inspired economic tool to measure economic opportunity and capability, Norway is top, the US 13^th and the UK close behind at 14^th. Finally, using the OECDs Better Lives Index, a tool identifying 11 facets essential to well-being (housing, income, jobs, community, education, environment, civic engagement, health life satisfaction, safety and work-life balance), Norway, Finland and Denmark come top and the US is far behind in 15th place.

Similarly, if we explore the rate of inflation over the last twenty years, the U.S. has averaged roughly 2.5% to 3.0% annually, marked by a period of historic stability between 2006–2020, followed by a massive 40-year peak of 9.1% under Trump in 2022 due to pandemic-era factors, and more recently, we see a volatile run back up to 4.25% due to recent energy price shocks following the Iran war.

Given this why I fail to see anything beautiful or romantic about Trump’s two presidencies, especially when you remember unemployment went to its highest during his first term at 14.7%. Now you might accuse me of being unfair given this was during the Covid lockdown, but comparatively during the same era, Japan kept unemployment to between 2.8 and 3.3%, Germany averaged 3.8% and the UK averaged 4.9%. So clearly something went badly wrong with Trump’s economic policy.

Taking the honesty test

Although a very bitter pill to swallow, it might be possible to forgive him if he was honest, but what is widely known and has been proven beyond doubt is the level of his dishonesty resulting in a criminal grand jury indicting him on one count of making “false statements and representations”. This related  specifically to hiding subpoenaed classified documents from his attorney, who was trying to return them to the government. And let’s not forget his 34 felony counts for falsifying business records in the first degree.

By now, “true defenders” will argue Trump is frequently maligned and these prosecutions should never have happened because they were either errors or, at worst, business matters with no bearing on his political acumen or integrity.

These are by far from his only dishonest actions. There are plenty more – let’s look at just a few:

1.  “Already, I’ve secured a record-breaking $18 trillion of investment into the United States.” It would have been great if it were true, but it was false.

2.  “Our country was being invaded by an army of 25 million people.” Those numbers weren’t even close to being true.

3.  “I was elected in a landslide.” Untrue.

4.  “The price of a Thanksgiving turkey was down 33% compared to Biden last year.” It wasn’t true.

5.  Trump said the Republicans’ “One Big Beautiful Bill” passed this year included, among other things, “no tax on Social Security.” Sound nice, but it wasn’t actually part of the package.

6.  “When I took office, inflation was the worst in 48 years, and some would say in the history of our country.” Trump says this all the time, but as I showed above, it was demonstrably false.

7.  “I’ve … settled eight wars in 10 months.” I get the sense he’s convinced himself this happened, but it hasn’t, no matter how many times he repeats the line.

8.  “Gasoline is now under $2.50 a gallon into much of the country. In some states, it, by the way, just hit $1.99 a gallon.” This is a weird thing to lie about, since consumers know better, but for the record, this obviously was not true.

9.  “The price of eggs is down 82% since March, and everything else is falling rapidly.” Trump would have been even more popular if this were true, but it was a lie.

1.  “I negotiated directly with the drug companies and foreign nations, which were taking advantage of our country for many decades, to slash prices on drugs and pharmaceuticals by as much as 400%, 500% and even 600%.” This whopper came  close to the top spot because of the sheer absurdity of the lie.

1  “Between 3 million and 5 million illegal votes caused me to lose the popular vote.” (There is no evidence of illegal voting.).

1  “Take a look at the Pew reports (which show voter fraud.)” (The report never mentioned voter fraud.)

1  “After being forced to apologize for its bad and inaccurate coverage of me after winning the election, the FAKE NEWS @nytimes is still lost!” (It never apologized.)

.  “I saved a lot of money on those jets, didn't I? Did I do a good job? More than $725 million on them.” (Many of the cost cuts were planned before Trump.)

I could go on, but rather than bore you, I will move on, as many journalists now argue there may be as many as 20,000 – 30,000 other lies I could have included. I am no great follower of either TV, or TV personalities, but I believe there is one celebrity called Judge Judith Sheindlin, who once said a teenager is likely lying simply if "their mouth is moving". It seems this is also true of President Trump.

Trump on the international stage

But it is on foreign policy he has failed the most. During his two terms, he has consistently miscalculated the strength or weakness of other parties, as well as often making promises he was obviously incapable of achieving. Take his much-touted promise to solve the ongoing conflict in Ukraine within 24-hours; a promise that ultimately fell completely flat. This failure, combined with repeated wavering commitments to ⁠NATO has discredited the United States as a dependable security provider and forced many European allies to reconsider their own defence postures. This became apparent when Trump called on NATO countries to support his action in Iran, only to find they all pretty much refused point blank. Or his operation to oust Venezuela's elected (albeit in a highly contentious election) ex-President Nicolas Maduro; a unilateral action to remove a national leader without any discussion with his allies.

It is unlikely they would have disagreed with the operation, but the fact he chose to move without consultation created a lot of global uncertainty, leading experts and senior diplomats to warn this unpredictable approach damaged diplomatic relations and emboldened other competitors. Essentially, his rogue action created an uncertainty where it became unclear where, or how, Trump might act in the future. Could he attack Guatemala, Cambodia or Turkey simply because their leaders came to power in unfair elections? The Maduro kidnap occurred because the US accused him of “narco-terrorism”, but could the same happen to other leaders in Ecuador, Colombis, or Mexico? Outrageous perhaps, but Trump’s foreign policy has lacked finesse and forethought leading many countries to distance themselves.

As for the relationship between the US and Russia, far from easing tensions, it has become a strained dynamic, because while Trump previously sought a close, transactional friendship with Putin to resolve global conflicts, it has shifted to frustration as Moscow’s aggressive actions in Ukraine continue and peace becomes increasingly elusive.

Equally, and just as in Ukraine, the once warm relationship between Trump and Netanyahu has deteriorated into name-calling and anger, but unlike Zelensky, Benjamin Netanyahu has no fear of an American withdrawal and appears to almost welcome to ‘go alone’ and destroy Hezbollah on his own, if necessary.

The Iran Deal

The recent agreement between the Trump administration and Iran has ripped the mask off the so-called “Best Friends Forever” relationship between Trump and Netanyahu. If we explore his history, we can see how Trump tends to favour alliances with political strongmen, often siding with them over traditional friends and allies, but only so long as they serve his personal purpose. However, the moment they outlive their usefulness, or become a personal liability, the friendship evaporates instantly.

For Netanyahu, the writing is now on the wall, and Trump has decided to fly solo while ignoring Netanyahu and the needs of the Israeli people; any fealty to Trump has run its course. The Iran deal is so profoundly detrimental to Israel that what was once a political asset - the bond with Trump—has become a liability.

As for the rest of the world, the Wall Street Journal defined it perfectly in their editorial when they argued: “President Trump is touting his latest ceasefire deal with Iran as peace in our time,” the Journal writes, “but the world is more likely to see it as a strategic retreat short of achieving his war aim.”

In fact, I must ask did he ever have any war aims, beyond destroying their nuclear capability? Sure, he told the Iranian people “help is on its way”, but it never really happened and anyway, it was primarily the Israeli Air Force who attacked and killed Ayatollah Khamenei and eliminated much of the IRGC hierarchy, while US forces concentrated on military and nuclear bases.

Much to Trump’s surprise, Iran did not capitulate – they stood their ground and fired back resulting in a financial cost (according to the Pentagon) of approximately $29 billion, though Sen. Chris Murphy argues the cost may be much higher and could be as much as $60 billion, along with the lives of 13 US military personnel.

With Republicans in Congress increasingly unhappy about the war and mid-terms due in November, Trump panicked and as we saw from the “Agreement”, pretty much capitulated on everything. Even his declaration of the terms of the agreement was hysterical, with him refusing to announce its content until the actual day of signing, while Tehran took the upper hand and were so cock-a-hoop they announced the full contents a full week earlier AND claimed victory in the war.

As Melanie Phillips the political commentator so eloquently stated in her blog:

“He has surrendered America to Iran.

He himself admitted that he stopped the war because of the threat of economic catastrophe if it continued. That was because of the oil shock caused by Iran seizing control of the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump was therefore signalling that America was powerless to defeat the regime. At a stroke, he turned the United States into a paper tiger, seen to be unwilling to do what it takes to fight a war until victory.

He thus ensured that Tehran would have the upper hand in everything that now follows in the negotiations for a final “deal.” It will be able to run rings round the Americans over the proposed “online blending” of the enriched uranium Trump once pledged to destroy, the destruction of centrifuges, disarmament verification, or anything else.”

After several military disasters over the last few years, the US needed a victory in Iran and with Trump’s “Make America Great Again” banners flying high, he looked to be the man to do it. He had everything in his favour: a strong ally with a highly trained and experienced well-equipped military, a region eager to see Iranian influence shut down, on the home front a nation angry with the Ayatollahs and eager to see justice for the Iranian people, and a powerful US military dedicated to defending democracy and freedom.

Trump should have been unbeatable – but somehow, he managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Political Comment

Unquestionably, the United States is full of people who pride themselves on their courage and loyalty; a people who are ever eager to defend the oppressed; and, to their eternal credit, a people who, quite simply, don’t like bullies. I’m not American but I can understand their pride and their patriotism – they have fought hard for it. Occasionally, there are people who superficially say all the right things, sound strong and upright, but beneath the bustle and bravado there is weakness. We have seen it in the UK – in 1939, Neville Chamberlain sucked up to Hitler so heavily, it was frightening and had Lord Halifax become prime minister instead of Winston Churchill, this post would have been written in German.

Despite the bravado and unusual delivery (albeit joyously funny, after all, his presidency will be remembered for his ability to create several new words to the language, including ‘bigly’,’ braggadocios’, ’hamburrderers’, ‘panican’, and my favourite ‘confide’). But despite the humour, let me be clear, Trump is weak and collapses when the conflict is tough. The international media have a nickname for him, calling him “TACO” Trump, an acronym standing for “Trump Always Chickens Out”. Sadly, in the last three months it’s a title he has earned:

21^st March – Trump issued a 48-hour deadline then extended it.

31^st March – He told Iran to make a deal, or US would obliterate energy plants.

1^st April – “We will bomb Iran into the Stone Age.”

5^th April – “open the f****n’ Straits, you crazy b******s or you will be living in hell”.

7^th April – “An entire civilisation will die tonight.”

21^st April – “I expect to be bombing.”

4 – 5^th May - Operation Project Freedom designed to escort ships through the Straits but lasted no more than a day when Iran fired on US military forces.

11^th June – “The US will hit very hard tonight” but cancelled the attack only hours later.

Was it any wonder Iran didn’t believe a single threat Trump made and felt justified in assuming they could go into negotiations with an upper hand.

Make no mistake, despite the “agreement” this war is not over, because Iran believe they are winning and while Trump may be too weak to continue, we all know Israel will not back down and if the US does not finish the job, Israel will do it for them.

Tory Housing and Pension advice to the common people of Britain

The UK's Work and Pensions Secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, has warned young people not to rely on home ownership to fund their retirement. Unveiling a radical overhaul of the state pension, the Work and Pensions Secretary said rising house prices were putting bricks and mortar out of reach. He added it was "absolutely imperative" that the Government took steps to "secure the position of the next generation" and encourage saving.

Swanbourne, Buckinghamshire

He added that 70 per cent of today's pensioners owned their own homes, but their grandchildren were "struggling to even get a foot on the housing ladder" because house prices for first-time buyers had risen by 40 per cent in real terms over the last decade. "The next generation will not be able to rely on bricks and mortar in the way their parents have been able to," he said. "It's no wonder our children are increasingly cynical about saving." Now Iain Duncan Smith happens to live not too far from the Sage's Castle in Buckinghamshire and I happen to know a bit about his own bricks and mortar.

Lord and Lady Cottesloe

This is such good advice from a person who when he was made redundant had the comfort and support of his father in law, John Fremantle, 5th Baron Cottesloe, who built and gave him a house on his 1,400 acres of land at Swanbourne, in North Buckinghamshire where IDS lives to this day. Iain Duncan Smith is married to Elizabeth "Betsy" Fremantle. As IDS observed during the Foot & Mouth epidemic, he understands the plight of the ordinary farmer. And no doubt the ordinary person made redundant who doesn't have the cushion of an aristocratic father-in-law?

His “ordinary farmer” father-in-law is the 5th Baron Cottesloe. He also inherited the Austrian noble title "Baron Fremantle", which is an authorised title in the United Kingdom by Warrant of April 27, 1932. He was Lord-Lieutenant of Buckinghamshire between 1984 and 1997. An Old Etonian and former naval commander, he owns the Swanbourne estate in Buckinghamshire, which includes the picture-postcard village of Swanbourne, complete with post office, village store, tea-rooms, prep school and houses, plus rolling acres of prime farmland. Lord and Lady Cottesloe live in the Old House, a manor house set in five acres. As Betsy is the Cottesloes' oldest child, the next village squire could be Iain Duncan Smith. Despite attempts by Tory Central Office to present him otherwise, Duncan Smith is resolutely upper class.

The Fremantle Family's Betsey Wynne Pub at Swanbourne.

The Pub’s name comes from Betsey, who married Thomas Fremantle when he was a sea Captain with the British Fleet in Naples, 1797. Horatio Nelson was the best man. From their prolific union stems the complete Fremantle line of distinguished Naval Officers, including three Admirals and the present head of the family, Lord Cottesloe, who lives at Swanbourne. IDS's wife is named after her and Fremantle, Swanbourne and Cottesloe in Western Australia are named after the family who claimed Western Australia for the crown and founded the Swan River Colony, today Perth.

IDS served as a British Army officer in the Scots Guards from 1975 to 1981 and his father was a Group Captain in the RAF. Intriguingly, given his wife's family wealth, his two homes, and his children going to public schools, Duncan Smith has complained that life as an MP had been "a financial disaster”. From his aristocratic marriage, military background, free house and personal wealth of over £1 million he is able to understand the hearts and minds of the ordinary men and women of Britain.

IDS cares about housing

It is wondrous to see the Quiet Man of British Politics lead the Tory led Coalition’s cynically amoral assault on the poor (mainly working poor) of Britain claiming there are no “soft options.”

A Newsnight investigation in December 2002 found that Iain Duncan Smith's CV contained 'inaccurate and misleading' claims about his education. The investigation found that Duncan Smith's biography on the Conservative Party website, his entry in Who's Who, and various other places, stated that he went to the Universita di Perugia in Italy. It transpired instead that he had attended the Universita per Stranieri, which is also in Perugia; however the University did not award degrees when Duncan Smith attended in 1973. When challenged by Newsnight, Duncan Smith's office confirmed that he 'didn't get any qualifications in Perugia or even finish his exams'. The first line of Ian Duncan Smith's biography on the Conservative Party website claimed that he was 'educated at Dunchurch College of Management'. Dunchurch was the former staff college for GEC Marconi, where he worked in the 1980s, again Duncan Smith's office confirmed to Newsnight that 'he did not get any qualifications there either, but that he completed six separate courses lasting a few days each, adding up to about a month in total'. John Garside, a former Dunchurch tutor, told the Newsnight investigation team 'I'm puzzled, flattered, but puzzled. What we did was offer short courses… it was not a continuous form of education by any means.

There have been plenty of soft options for IDS who became an arms salesman through the Old Boys network after his short six year Guards career in the army and had his house built for free on his father in law. Lord Cottesloe's, land when he was made redundant after six months in the only real job he ever had. He also (as an MP) took six months off work in 2009 when his wife Betsy was diagnosed with breast cancer. Is this another case of do as I say, not as I do?

IDS is 58 years old and has suckled upon the publicly-funded teat for most of his life. He's signed on the dole. He's had four children and received child benefit for all of them. He has put them each through private school, too. His wife hasn't worked since they married, except for 15 months in which he got her a job paid by the taxpayer.

He and his colleagues eat and drink food you subsidise in a palace you pay for, he is driven around in a car you own, and when he is too old to 'work' any more you will pay for him to have a better pension than you, too. He started out at the age of 21 with six years of taxpayer-funded military service, during which he acted as bag-carrier to a Major-General.

Then in 1981, aged 27, he left the Army and signed on the dole for several months. He then began a period of ordinary work based upon the skills he had gained at the taxpayer's expense, and worked in sales for arms dealer GEC-Marconi. He then moved on to a property firm, where he was made redundant after six months, and then sold gun-related magazines for Jane's Information Group.

After 11 years of this all-too brief career he succeeded in once again boarding the publicly-funded gravy train in 1992. In the intervening 20 years he has been paid by the taxpayer every year more money than most taxpayers earn. He has topped it up, along the way, to more than six figures for a few years here and there. In 2001 he helped his unemployed wife to have a suckle, arranging for you to pay her £15,000 to be his diary secretary.

These days he is given the grand total of £134,565 a year from the taxpayer. He lives for free in a £2million Tudor farmhouse on his father-in-law's ancestral estate in Buckinghamshire. He has three acres of land, a tennis court, swimming pool and some orchards, which is not bad for a life in the pay of the state.

Now let us in the spirit of the Tories Big Society all sing the first verse and chorus of the hoary old anthem “We are all in this together.”

Another disaster at DWP?

Once again the Tories are having to back pedal as their Universal Credit programme shows signs of falling behind schedule and facing major problems. The system, which will roll all benefits and tax credits into a single payment automatically linked to earnings, was expected to be trialled for new claimants across four areas of the country from late April.

Unfortunately, and typical ignorance of the simple realities of life, Iain Duncan Smith failed to check out with those who deliver welfare benefits and consequently he has been forced to scale back the trials to a single JCP office in Ashton-under-Lyne. So much for a grand roll-out.

Three other pilot areas in Wigan, Warrington and Oldham that were also due to ‘test out’ the new programme will not now begin processing the payments until at least July and possibly later.

Of course it would be nice to think that IDS would have the humility to admit to, and display a little embarrassment, but I suspect we may be waiting a long time. This is a man noted for his single-mindedness. No doubt over the coming days we will hear a range of excuses, but the bottom line is that it has been a kick in the pants for the Secretary of State.

In February, 2013, Iain Duncan Smith drafted in one of the Government’s most experienced trouble-shooters to take charge of the programme – a move which led to the departure of another senior DWP civil servant a few weeks later.

The delay in rolling out Universal Credit are probably due to the fact that most frontline staff do not have the training, computer programmes or experience in place to avoid making disastrous mistakes which could lead to people not receiving the benefits to which they are entitled. A point made by a number of welfare organisations months ago. Could this be more evidence that IDS doesn’t listen to those around him?

In its announcement of the delay the Department of Work and Pension made no attempt to explain why it was unable to proceed as planned. Interestingly, in a neat little sidestep a spokesman for the department searched for a way to get IDS off the hook and tried to suggest it was “sensible” to start with one area before rolling it out to the other three in July.

Speaking on behalf of DWP, he said:

“It will allow us to make any changes that we feel we need to make and see what works and what doesn’t”.

Liam Byrne, Labour’s Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, tried to capitalise on this bungling by condemn UC and describing the announcement as “yet another embarrassing setback”.

He went on to say:

“The scheme is already late and over-budget and in spite of earlier promises Ministers have admitted that they have no idea when out of work claimants will move over to Universal Credit … The truth is the IT for Universal Credit appears to be nowhere near ready. Universal Credit calculations depend on salary data from HMRC's new PAYE Real Time Information system. Obligations for small firms to provide PAYE data on or before each employee payment have recently been delayed from April until October. And DWP are so worried they are now barring access to their five main contractors. This scheme is now on the edge of disaster. Ministers must admit this project is in crisis and start to fix it now – before millions of families tax credits are put at risk.”

Regrettably, Byrne failed to point out that UC will create significant challenge to low-income families. The simple reality is that, according to a Resolution Foundation report, “Conditions Uncertain”, almost 1.2 million low-paid workers entitled to support under Universal Credit will have to look for extra work or face the risk of having payments withdrawn. Furthermore, in a report by Tanni Grey-Thompson, 100,000 disabled children stand to lose up to £28 a week and 116,000 disabled people who work will be at risk of losing up to £40 per week from help towards additional costs of being disabled.

These are injustices that appear to be going through on a nod and a wink. The Tories and their Lib-Dem puppies will force this programme onto the most vulnerable in our society and it is a responsibility of those on the left to expose the extent of these injustices and campaign for their eradication.

We have a responsibility to do everything in our power to protect the poor and the vulnerable. If we fail them now we have no right to ask for their support later.

Encouraging job figures – but not for women or the over 50s

The number of people in employment, 29.24 million, and the employment rate, 70.7 per cent, in January-March, were up from October-December, by 118,000 and 0.2 points respectively. This is the third successive quarter-on-quarter increase and employment is now 416,000 higher than it was twelve months ago; this is very similar to last month’s figure:ILO unemployment in January-March stood at 2.455 million; this was down 37,000 from October–December and the unemployment rate was down 0.2 points, to 7.7 per cent. Youth unemployment was down, only by 1,000 for 16 and 17 year olds (well within the statistical margin of error), but by a more substantial 29,000 for 18–24 year olds.

Unemployment is 56,000 lower than in January–March 2010; this is not as impressive as the increase in employment and the current level is still 841,000 above the April 2008 figure – just before unemployment started rising:In the past year, decent monthly employment figures have sometimes been the result of an increase in ‘atypical’ employment – part-time and temporary jobs and self-employment. But this month the number of employees working full-time grew by 146,000 – more than the total increase in employment.

The number of self-employed people actually fell and the increase in the number of full-time workers was almost four times as great as the increase for those working part-time:

There was, however, an increase in the number of temporary workers of 48,000 and the proportion of workers who are in temporary jobs also rose – from 6.2 to 6.3 per cent. On the other hand, involuntary atypical work declined – the proportion of temporary workers who are in these jobs because they couldn’t find permanent work fell from 37.6 to 36.0 per cent and the proportion of part-time workers in the same position also fell slightly, from 15.3 to 15.2 per cent.

Another cause for concern in the past year is what’s been happening to women’s employment. In recent months, good overall results have sometimes disguised the fact that what has happened to men and women have been very different stories; in particular, women’s unemployment has risen while men’s has fallen. That is less true this month, though there are still worrying differences between what is happening to men and women.

The increase in women’s employment is very welcome, but the fall in unemployment is quite anaemic and it is still true that, despite overall declines in joblessness, women’s unemployment is 57,000 (0.3 percentage points) higher than it was a year ago.

The claimant count measure of unemployment did not move in a positive direction. For the second month running, this measure – the number claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) – rose while the ILO measure fell. This probably has a great deal to do with the increasing numbers of lone parents having to switch from Income Support to Jobseeker’s Allowance.

Lone parents whose youngest child is aged over 7 have had no benefit alternative to JSA since October last year; previously the age limit was 10. The number of lone parents on the claimant count whose youngest child is over 7 and under 10 has risen in that period from 2,570 to 39,055.

The number of women on the claimant count rose by 9,300 – three times the increase for men and the claimant count for women is at its highest level for 15 years.

The policy of progressively moving lone parents onto JSA began under the Labour government. Whatever the merits this policy may originally have had, it was designed in response to debates that were current before the global financial crisis, the rise in unemployment and the spectre of public sector job cuts.

There must be a question mark about its relevance to a situation where women’s unemployment is still high and the forthcoming cuts will hit employment opportunities for women especially hard.

There are other aspects of today’s figures that suggest we are not out of the woods yet.

While youth unemployment came down, the number of unemployed people aged over 50 to 64 rose by 14,000. This is rather worrying, as older workers have not previously been as hard hit in this recession. In previous recessions, older workers were more likely to be made redundant and then found it harder to get back into employment, it would be very worrying if that were to happen again.

Long-term unemployment continues to rise – the number of people unemployed over 12 months rose by 20,000 and the number unemployed over 24 months by 47,000.

And there are still major unemployment blackspots where there are 20 or more unemployed people chasing every job vacancy. Anjum Klair has produced a list of the ten worst in this month’s figures – more than two thousand unemployed people and just 63 job vacancies in Merthyr Tydfil!

Probably the most worrying item in today’s figures is the falling number of job vacancies: the provisional figure for January–April is just 469,000, a decline of 30,000 from the November-January figures. Although the overall picture today is quite encouraging this is a worrying marker for the future.

Most major recent reports suggest large-scale public sector job losses are in prospect:

• The Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development’s Labour Market Outlook (pdf) reports that “near-term and medium-term employment prospects remain uncertain and subdued compared with pre-recession levels” and “together with the onset of public sector cutbacks, the risk of an employment slowdown appears finely balanced”.

• The Bank of England’s Agents’ summary report (pdf) describes “steady” employment growth in manufacturing and “gradual” growth in business services, but elsewhere, a great deal of uncertainty related to the prospects for household incomes and public sector cuts.

• Markit’s Report on Jobs is probably the most positive, but even they describe a “two-speed jobs market”, and are unable to say “whether the private sector can create enough jobs to offset the expected job losses in the public sector”.

Previously, I have suggested that last month’s overall good results were a blip. It’s still a finely-balanced question.

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.

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.

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.

No hope for our young people

In the next hour we will hear how youth unemployment has exceeded 1 million people – an entire generation consigned to the waste bin. According to The Times today, 33% of the population of Merthyr Tydfil are claiming unemployment benefit.

If the upward trend of leaving young people jobless and without a future we will find ourselves in the same boat as Ireland with 31.9% youth unemployment, or Greece with 36.1%.

And what is the government doing about it? Quite honestly very little. News yesterday of regional grants that will bring 40,000 jobs to the West Midlands alone must be welcomed, but these will not happen straight away – they will filter through the system slowly and will do little to affect the hundreds of thousands who will wake up this morning with nothing to do, no money and no future.

It is critical the government acts now to tackle the scourge of youth unemployment by re-opening the Flexible Jobs Fund and offering companies substantial incentives for taking on unemployed young people.

If we are to say we believe in our youth, we must invest in them and not treat them as an after-thought as has happened with this government.