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.

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.

Osborne's plans will force unemployment to rise

So much for Osborne helping the common man by keeping the price of fuel down. It seems he didn’t follow the likely possibilities through when he inflicted a £2bn tax on North Sea Oil.

According to latest news bulletins, Tens of thousands of jobs in the UK will go as a result of a windfall tax on North Sea oil producers announced in the Budget, the industry has warned.
Mike Tholen, economics director of Oil and Gas UK, said the change would also damage long-term energy security.

"What you see is the UK's reputation as a global player in oil and gas industry falter because of this. Many companies from abroad are looking at whether to invest in the UK, to help us get the new oil and gas reserves out of our waters. What we see is that image yet again shattered because of the tax change."

He said the chancellor had previously promised stability: "Some five years since the last big tax hit on our industry, investment had begun to pick up. Our big concern is that investment will collapse again as a result of what he's done."

"We will see jobs go and we will see technology lost, and we will undoubtedly see our nation less well off when it comes to energy security in the years ahead.

"As an industry, at the minute we are responsible for employing nearly half a million people across the UK, and there will be tens of thousands of those who will not now have jobs in the future because of this."

Mark Hanafin, managing director of Centrica Energy, said the tax hike "could have a chilling impact on future investment in the North Sea".

But a Treasury spokesman said: "We do not expect this tax change to have a significant effect on production and investment - and therefore on jobs - in the coming years as profits are expected to remain high because of the oil price.

"Even with this change, average post-tax profits per barrel are forecast to be higher in the next five years than the last five."

If ever you needed evidence that this government doesn’t know what it’s doing, it is here. Now we have a chancellor who will cause devastation to another industry (His colleague Iain Duncan Smith has previously caused chaos in the welfare to work sector). Over the coming months we can expect to see thousands of people made redundant – and why? Because Osborne wanted to give people 5p off fuel .. forgetting we already suffer over 80p a litre taxation on the stuff anyway.

Even his measly 1p off fuel didn’t work – the oil companies put the price up hours before the Budget, so when he reduced it, the price just went back to how it was at the start of the working day! There was no saving.

It is time for Osborne to go. He is incompetent and worse, his pathetic attempts at economic planning are causing chaos to the lives of thousands. How much more do we have to suffer under these Tories before they accept the will of the people and leave office in disgrace?

Tomorrow, thousands will march to make this sooner rather than later – join us. March against the cuts, march for jobs and march because it is the right thing to do.

TUC - Job vacancies twice as sparse in Labour held constituencies

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

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

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

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

The Doublespeak of Tory Economic Policy

George Osborne has said it would be "a huge mistake" for the government to water down its spending cuts as he prepares to deliver his second Budget. This is despite evidence last week that UK unemployment rose by 27,000 in the three months to the end of January to 2.53 million, the highest since 1994.

Despite Tory protestations that things are getting better, public sector employment fell by 45,000 in the final quarter of 2010 to 6.2 million, even before the full impact of the government's spending cuts started to take effect. At the same time, local government employment fell by 24,000, central government by 9,000 and Civil Service by 8,000, while employment in private firms increased by 77,000 to almost 23 million.

Far from getting better, things are going to get worse. Even David Kern, chief economist at the British Chambers of Commerce, has started to see the light and has argued things will not improve. He said: "We reiterate our forecast that total unemployment is likely to increase to 2.65 million over the next 12-15 months before it starts declining,"

Further evidence of things not going so well economically were revealed in a report last week from IPPR, who indicated England is facing a "growing housing crisis". The report estimated a shortfall of 750,000 homes by 2025. On a regional basis the biggest effect would be in London, with a housing gap of 325,000 homes, followed by Yorkshire and Humberside with 151,000 homes too few.

Economic growth has failed to expand at the level Osborne has hoped and, he certainly did not anticipate the current level of inflation. Indeed, with it now running at twice the Bank of England's 2% target, many economists say a rate rise soon is highly likely. Another report out last week gave little to amuse the Chancellor either. Accountants BDO said that growth would remain sluggish and any imminent rate rise could prolong the weakness. It said confidence in the manufacturing sector had risen to a seven-month high during February, with the BDO Optimism Index reaching 95.5. But despite the rise, BDO said medium-term prospects still looked bleak, with the index failing to reach the 100 mark, which signals sustainable economic growth.

Now, courtesy of Citizen Dave’s little foray into the deserts of Libya, Brent crude rose as much as $2.26 to $116.19 a barrel, while US light crude rose as much as $2.12 to $103.19.

Now yesterday, on the Andrew Marr show, Osborne said Chancellor George Osborne said he was "looking very carefully" at freezing the duty in Wednesday's Budget. In the interview he argued he understood the pressure motorists were under from record-high petrol prices.

Well George, I have some bad news for you – you may understand motorist’s anger, but there is very little you can do to assuage it. With oil running at that price, there is little likelihood of any sizable decrease in the price at the fuel pumps for a while. And, even if he succeeded in bringing down taxes, he is doing so at the price of cutting revenue. Heads he loses, tails he doesn’t win.

Finally, a report out today from the Bank of England has shown nearly two-thirds of people expect the rate of inflation to rise in the next 12 months. The poll, conducted in February, showed that 62% of those asked were expecting a rise, up from 52% in November. And a report by Nationwide shows consumer confidence fell to a record low in February, surpassing levels seen during the recession.

All in all, the current situation is far from good. Unfortunately, we cannot afford to become too hopeful that this week Osborne will do anything to stimulate growth and/ or reduce the number unemployed.

Instead we can look forward to harsher times, with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. When Osborne stands up this week and delivers his Budget, he had better remember the working class have long memories. On Saturday 26th March the mobilisation will begin and thousands will converge on London to join brothers and sisters in the trade union movement to oppose Tory cuts.

To quote Citizen Dave himself, in a comment during Comic Relief: “ Be afraid, be very afraid.”

Well Dave, I hope you are …. Because we are coming to get you.

Westminster massages housing figures; unemployed go to the bottom of list

Westminster City Council has found new ways of reducing the numbers of people in Westminster it is required to house and has announced changes to its Housing Allocation policy. These are just a few:

1. People who are unemployed will be put to the bottom of the housing lists – this includes families.

2. The local connection rule will now include those who work in Westminster.

3. The Family Quota system will be ended. This is where children of Westminster families would be re-housed locally as they became adults.

4. Families with children will be given priority over families with young adults.

5. Time limits will be imposed on families living in temporary accommodation to accept alternative housing.

Councillor Guthrie McKie, Westminster’s Labour Housing Spokesperson said: “Not only is the Council abandoning hundreds of families in housing need, it is in the process of reshaping our communities. They have failed to deal with poverty and deprivation, so they will just ship in people on middle incomes to take up housing in the City. The centre of London will become like Paris and New York where ghettos are created for the poor.

“It is no coincidence that these measures come in as the Council is putting more funding into ‘intermediate’ housing via Westminster Community Homes, the unaccountable charity set up by the Council. This higher rented housing will be out of the reach of most people in housing need.”

Wherefore art thou Labour?

I am totally convinced that if you called an election today and at the same time hog-tied David Cameron and Iain Duncan Smith, laid them on a bed of fraudulent expense claims in a seedy brothel and then called every national newspaper, Labour would still find a way to lose the election!

Take yesterday for example. Labour had it made – Spelman had to return to the House of Commons and apologise because she got the forestry sale wrong. In the same day, Iain Duncan Smith was forced to back down about the housing benefit reduction for long-term unemployed.

Did Labour come out fighting and baying for blood? Of course not – first they sent in Mary Creagh to waffle on endlessly about how Labour were bigger and better tree-huggers than the Conservatives. By the time she had finished, half the elected members were cheerfully snoozing away and all you could hear in the chamber were gentle snores coming from one or two of the leading lights in the 1922 Committee.

Labour didn’t even get excited when Iain Duncan Smith presented his welfare reform bill to parliament – this is despite the fact that many will suffer. Clause 51, for example, contains proposals, as yet scarcely noticed, that seriously jeopardise the income of many disabled people. Consider a stroke victim, who may have paid national insurance for decades before incurring a severe impairment from which there is no prospect of recovery. If they have even a low-paid working spouse, the bill will cut their money off cold the moment that 12 months have passed.

According to forensic analysis by Tim Leunig, an economist at the London School of Economics who has recently been appointed to the leading liberal think tank Centre Forum, it could leave large families even in deeply unfashionable corners of the capital trying to scrape by on £3 per person each day. And the entire bill is underpinned by a recasting of the rules on indexation, which will steadily make the poor poorer. Instead of being pegged to the total cost of living, benefits will in future be pegged to the cost of shopping, thereby stripping the rising price of keeping a roof over one's head out of the general calculation.

But did the Labour benches howl, rant and scream? Nah – they sat there whimpering, like a dog with a cut paw. They looked and behaved in a way that suggested they felt impotent and in many respects they are. Ed Miliband has proven to be almost laughable at PMQs – a guaranteed butt for the jokes and sarcasm pouring from David Cameron’s drippingly wealthy lips. As for the rest of them? Well Ed Balls has been something of a non-event – many predicted fire and brimstone. What we have had so far is more akin to tepid and mediocre. Yvette Cooper, supposedly one of the key brains in the Shadow Cabinet and a possible future leadership candidate, has been conspicuous by her silence. Not that there has been much going on in the world for her to talk about – Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Iran Bahrain, and of course, Afghanistan.

Then of course there is Liam Byrne. You may know the name but not remember why – he is actually the shadow secretary for Work and Pensions. Now, this week they announced the unemployment figures and the statistics made for pretty unpleasant reading - 2.5m people unemployed, the number of people in full-time work down 5,000 on the previous year, 2.2m people economically inactive because they are on long-term sick leave and 15% of people work part-time do so because they can’t find full-time work.

If the overall statistics were bad, they were dreadful when it came to the 16 to 24 year olds – 965,000 are out of work, a rate of 20.5%.

Against this, Chris Grayling emphasised there had been an increase of 40,000 new job vacancies in the three months to January. What he didn’t tell the House was these figures include openings for those taken on temporarily to conduct the 2011 census. If you exclude these vacancies, the actual increase was a meagre 8,000.

Now I may have blinked, but I don’t recall Byrne savaging the Tories about these results. Oh sure, they grunted a little and made polite moans in the appropriate places, but very few Tories would have felt a need to quake in their boots.

If Labour is going to have the audacity to call themselves the Opposition, they need to do just that – oppose. This doesn’t mean languishing on the green leather of the House of Commons chamber dozing off. It means vociferously and actively standing against all legislation attacking working class people.

It demands they stand against the government when they want to squeeze the poor, whilst dishing out £2bn to multinational corporations to run the Community Payback scheme.

If Labour is going to have any chance of impacting on the Tories it needs to re-evaluate its entire approach. This will mean dropping the “Mr Nice Guy” image and becoming tougher and more willing to resist. A number of Labour activists are already active in anti-cuts groups, but this need to seep through the sytem to the party leadership. Labour must take a more vital role in the Coalition against the Cuts and the Right to Work movement.

Has Ed Miliband got what it takes to lead such a party? This morning I am not so sure.

Getting 'on yer bike' is easier than getting a travel pass

On Wednesday the Government will publish the latest round of unemployment statistics and the safe bet is they will be depressing. Typically, members of the front bench will point to numerous initiatives that are now running, or shortly due to start. They will also talk about how private enterprise will shortly take up significant numbers as business grows.

Opposition benches will accuse the government of failing to tackle the rising numbers signing on. Neither will take a hard look at why the unemployed are increasingly refusing to look for work. In a report in “New Statesman”, Alice Miles correctly asserted that one of the driving factors is because the cost of transport to interviews is often prohibitive.

Jobcentre Plus has established a system to help claimants claim expenses when these things happen. Unfortunately it is bureaucratic frequently acts as a disincentive to search for work.

First the client has to go to the jobcentre to fill in a form and have an interview with an adviser, who will decide whether to fund the trip. This adviser will also check afterwards to see if the client turned up. Conservative estimates are that this bureaucracy costs approximately £50 - £75 every time a claimant needs travel money.

The problem is even more complex as we live in an information age where employers often arrange same/ next day interviews. Many claimants do not get as far as the paperwork because the jobcentre cannot see them until the following day, so they often can’t get their costs paid on time.

A while ago, American research found that inadequate transport was often one of the key determining factors that prevented claimants from looking for work. Car ownership is often too probative for most claimants, so many need to rely on public transport – but in many areas public transport routes do not exist, or are too expensive and this can frequently block opportunities for the unemployed to return to work.

Research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has shown that travel costs can often be 10 to 20 per cent higher for those living in rural areas. With significant cuts now being implemented across most councils this will result in reductions to the transport subsidy, leaving many people isolated.

The government needs to consider how they intend to get people back to work if claimants can’t get to work. No doubt the government is hopeful Work Programme will make this easier as more clients are slowly fed directly through to providers, who, in turn, will take responsibility for funding travel costs.

Unfortunately this presupposes all claimants will be transferred to an independent provider. It also assumes these providers are capable of responding immediately and appropriately to the needs of the client – something that has historically been found to be seriously wanting.

No, the solution will need to be far simpler and believe it or not, it’s not rocket science. The client rings up during office hours and jobcentres guarantee a same day service to ensure clients have funds to get to interviews. If the caller rings between 5pm and 6pm s/he can speak to a JSA adviser, who can liaise with local transport services to ensure they are able to pick up a travel warrant from the local railway station. Seamless delivery at its finest.

Unfortunately, I have reached the stage in life where I have become something of a grumpy old man. As a result I am confident that instead of looking at how DWP could iron out the wrinkles in my approach they would prefer to trash it and assume it is inoperable.

So if you are unemployed and have an interview away from home, don’t expect the jobcentre will jump for joy and respond immediately to your requests. They are more likely to suck their teeth and say “Oooh, we don’t get a lot of call for travel warrants around here!”

Your patience will be tested, your nerves frazzled and your blood pressure sent through the roof, but in some cases you will get help ……….. if you really, really, really ask nicely!

Out of work? Heaven help you ....

The Big Society has had a bad week and it looks likely things are not due to improve. Matters looked bleak when Liverpool pulled out of a Big Society pilot programme and they then moved from bad to worse when its driving force, Lord Wei announced his intention to scale back his commitment.

If all this didn’t give Cameron a headache, then pronouncements by Dame Elisabeth Hoodless didn’t help. Twenty-four hours later, revelations emerged that Eric Pickles blocked proposals to protect Cameron's flagship "big society" project from the harshest of council spending cuts. By now the PM must have been feeling like the King of Kadesh at the Siege of Meggido – except for Cameron, there was no escape route.

One concern coming from the Third Sector is that they feel they are being squeezed. The Government is encouraging them to take over delivery of critical services (running of libraries, job clubs etc). Against this, they have inflicted substantial cuts to local funding in order to reduce the deficit.

Consequences of this can be found on the GB Job Clubs website. Many of their network of over 100 local clubs are strapped for cash, so they are offering the chance to ‘put their names in a hat’ for a free laptop. GB Job Clubs was set up in 2009 by Chris Neal (a retired derivatives broker with strong Tory connections) with support from the Cobden Centre. Like many charities, it is struggling financially. The organisation was initially funded by Neal with a £500 start-up budget and has since received some support from local authorities and the Church Urban Fund.

With the latest raft of austerity measures, this funding is under threat and is likely to impact on Neal’s network. If local clubs cannot secure finance for premises, equipment and day-to-day running costs, they could close – bringing an end to the amalgamation of Tory small state idealism as seen in the Big Society and localised job-hunting services.

Would they be missed? It is far too early to gauge whether they have achieved any success. Neal claims 30% of those who lose their job find another one through friends, family or contacts and his clubs provide the social networking to make this happen.

What is known is that historically, they have not been particularly successful. First opened in 1984 in the North East, a number of studies argued they were of limited value. A 1986 Guardian report into how the scheme was functioning in Dundee found that of the city's 7,100 long-term unemployed, only 147 people had been found places at job clubs and only six people on the wider Job Start scheme had actually found work.

If they fail, or are forced to close their doors, many providers will be expected to pick up the slack they leave behind. The sector has the necessary skills and experience to take over the role, but existing job club clients will be used to a service that mentors, supports and befriend. In some instances volunteers will have given many hours encouraging clients and building their self-worth whilst helping them write CVs, providing transport to interviews, or simply offering a resource to create peer self-help support groups.

These resources are expensive and providers will be hard pushed to match such intense levels of support. If they have to take over the functions of job clubs they will need to think how they will deliver this kind of service. Equally, if job clubs survive and find the funding to continue, providers will need to consider how they will make themselves an attractive and welcome alternative.

Evidence shows only 8% of clients attending programmes run by independent training providers secure full-time, sustainable employment. With statistics like this, it would suggest the jobless would probably be just as successful sat at home writing for jobs whilst watching morning TV. Indeed, this option could save the Government millions whilst offering the unemployed the chance to feel they had some say in their own future.

There has never been any kind of caring and supportive initiative designed to support the jobless and help them achieve the goals they feel are important to them. Many want the chance to work, but current and previous provisions are dominated by ‘targets’ and ‘sales figures’ that simply move the jobless off the unemployment register and into some kind of work – even if it doesn’t suit the client. Equally, others want the chance to retrain, but the current funding structure for contracts means that it is against the best interests of providers to support this option as they will not get paid if the client goes to college.

In short, the system doesn’t work, won’t work and ultimately will collapse!

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.

The price of dogmatism

In a briefing paper prepared for Unison and the TUC, Tim Horton and Howard Reed systematically threw aside Osborne’s last claim to imposing a progressive Budget on this country. In the report, the authors showed how the average annual cut in public spending on the poorest tenth of households is £1,344, equivalent to 20.5% of their household income, whereas the average annual cut in spending on the richest tenth is £1,135 or 1.6% of household income.

Now it doesn’t take a genius to look at these figures and soon realise how low-income households are going to be the ‘net losers’ over the next few months. This is something Labour was saying before the election and has consistently shouted from the rooftops since. It’s the typical Tory game – when the going gets tough – the working class will pay.

Remember all that talk about ‘we will protect front-line services’, well now that’s going down the tube too. Already the President of the Association of Chief Police Officers has acknowledged the cuts will impact on frontline services and although he felt 28,000 job losses amongst police officers was ‘alarmist’ he (and Nick Herbert, the policing minister) was forced to admit things would be harsh over the next few months.

Precisely how many grave diggers, Police support workers, hospital cleaners or social workers will lose their job remains uncertain, but with 750,000 jobs due to go, we can be certain a good number of frontline workers will lose their jobs.
Of course, the Tories would say I am being over the top and that many of these people will find jobs in the private sector. One has to wonder how they hope to attract private enterprise into each of the regions when today they announce the abolition of the Regional Development Agencies. Take for example Advantage West Midlands (one of those RDAs) – they generate £8.14 for every £1 we invest in them.

Now in an area where unemployment is running at 9.3% and unemployment in the 18 -25 year bracket is running at about 26%, that isn’t a bad return on your investment.
The West Midlands needs investment and the support of our RDA as there continue to be a number of areas where the recession has impacted badly on communities - Bridgnorth, Cannock Chase, Newcastle-under-Lyme, North Warwickshire, Staffordshire Moorlands, Tamworth and Wyre Forest, while urban areas (e.g. Birmingham, Stoke-on-Trent) have seen the largest total increases in unemployment; rural areas (e.g. Wychavon) and some market towns (e.g. Uttoxeter, Whitchurch) have experienced larger proportionate increases in unemployment. Some of the more rural wards are seen as vulnerable because of a reliance on one employer, or because of a large proportion of residents commuted to other areas and worked in vulnerable sectors (Source: Hansard, 2009).

And if the Government scrap the RDAs, how will they ensure there isn’t a mismatch within locality or region between work skills and job availability? Can we assume that private enterprise will self regulate in such a way as to ensure that throughout the country more jobs become available in equal measure across all regions?

There is no sense to these cuts. They are based on ideological whim rather than need and it will be people who will pay the price. It remains to be seen how many people Cameron will see thrown onto the scrapheap before he can sleep peacefully. To prevent this happening the government have consistently argued their flagship Work Programme will be the ‘cure all’ aimed at getting people back into work. From the outset they have insisted it will be adequately funded and in line with Cameron’s open government, we know it will cost the country between £0.3bn and £3bn. Now call me cynical if you must, but is it only me that can see a huge discrepancy between the two figures? Are they really saying they don’t know the real cost?

As the days turn into weeks this government and its right wing policies are almost laughable and would be if the strategies they intend to employ didn’t hurt people so badly. We can only hope they disappear into the wilderness very soon.

The need to build mass action

Of course any sensible thinking person is going to be opposed to the cuts proposed by ‘Snatcher’ Osborne and his Lib Dem cronies, although I confess it is good to see at least Simon Hughes is looking a bit guilty. However, the big question is what are we going to do about it?

Unison and PCS have already said they intend to fight for their members whenever jobs are under threat and the Labour party should offer wholehearted support to any campaign organised by the unions, including industrial action if it occurs.

Let us not forget, we ‘sold out’ when it came to the miners strike in the 1980s and left thousands of working men and their families politically isolated, although there were a number of notable and courageous exceptions (Tony Benn, Dennis Skinner etc). As a result, the Tories annihilated entire communities, forced thousands onto the dole queues, destroyed the mining industry and left hundreds of other workers without work because the company they worked for was forced to close because the local pits were no longer producing coal. We must not make the same mistake again.

This fight against the cuts is going to be tough. Cameron is not going to give in easily and those who think Tuesday was harsh need to prepare for something 5 times worse come the autumn. Some are already estimating he will try and lop off another £13bn off the welfare benefit bill and if he does, it will be pensioners who will be the first to suffer. Already there are indicators the Winter Fuel Allowance is under threat, but there will be worse behind it.

Already the long-term unemployed living in rented accommodation have been attacked and in the months to come many will find themselves in debt, or homeless. Similarly, if you are poor and pregnant you will no longer be looked after as you were under a Labour government.

We need to make a firm stand. Yesterday Alistair Darling broadcast his response to the budget – it was accurate, it was reasoned, it was fair - but it lacked passion. It could have been delivered by a chartered accountant, not a socialist.

If we are going to convince people to join this struggle we will need to have passion. It is not enough to leave the fight to the unions and for parliamentarians to take the higher ground. We need to be prepared to get our hands dirty. This involves organising a mass movement with local, regional and national activities taking place. We have to show ordinary men and women we have not forgotten them – that Labour does care, that we will stand and fight for their rights whenever they are under threat.

Remember the CND campaigns of the 1980s? Remember the Anti-Nazi League? Did they rely on deep-seated reasoned argument? Yes and no. Yes there was an intellectual base to their approach, but it relied on people standing under a common single banner – united and willing to fight for what was right. We have to build that new mass movement once again.

If we don’t, what is the point in calling ourselves socialists and organising under the banner of the Labour party?

Unemployment - Do the Con-Dems know what they're doing?

A Political Overview
As the Coalition government settle into their roles it is becoming increasingly unlikely the two parties will breech their agreement and bring about an early general election.

Several reasons help support this notion:

• Neither of the two major parties will be eager to enter into a new round of campaigning after having spent between £3 – 4m during the last campaign and with their financial backers hesitant to give more so soon.
• The electorate are unlikely to change their existing voting pattern for at least the next 12 – 18 months and by that time the budgetary restriction shortly to be imposed by George Osborne will have impacted, probably meaning the coalition will be at its lowest popularity.
• David Miliband is likely to be elected leader of the Labour Party in September, 2010 and the hierarchy are unlikely to want to push for an election until he has had a chance to develop and bring forward a new team (with Ed Balls a likely contender for Shadow Chancellor).
• The fixed-term parliament ties members of the coalition to being in government for 5- years and they might squabble during this time, there are no serious breaches imminent.
• It is now apparent many previous prospective parliamentary candidates would be willing to stand again if a snap election was called in the next two years, but would be unlikely to stand in May 2015. This option is likely to be favoured by the Miliband team as it will help to eradicate elements of the New Labour project and allow for a new influx of candidates more attuned to centre left values.

Over the last few months David Cameron has shown himself to be much more of a political heavyweight than was seen in the run up to the election. His presence at the dispatch box has been formidable and he has shown himself to be a hard-hitter when confronted by accusations from the opposition benches. Equally, Nick Clegg and Vince Cable have proven to be much stronger than first suggestions would have implied, although the Lib-Dem leader will need to play a cautious role now with Simon Hughes recently elected to the deputy leadership. Cable has a commanding presence and his knowledge of economic issues is unquestionable – what remains unclear is how he will emerge as he reinvents himself from being a Keynesian to a more traditional deficit hawk.

Economic factors
In their Pre-budget forecast, the Office for Budget Responsibility suggested the economy would expand 2.6% in 2011, down from the 3 – 3.5% estimate given by Alastair Darling in the March Budget. They also predicted that the public deficit would fall from 10.5% of GDP in 2010 – 2011, compared to the 11.1% estimate of the last government. Underlying these forecasts is a fundamental belief that World GDP is set to rise by 4% in 2010 and world trade will increase by 6% this year and 6.25% in 2011. These figures should be read cautiously, as the World Bank have indicated global GDP is projected to increase by 3.3 percent in 2010 and 2011, and by 3.5 percent in 2012.. However, should current uncertainty regarding developments in Europe persist, outturns could be weaker. A high probability alternative baseline, characterized by an accelerated tightening of fiscal policy across high-income countries, would see a more muted recovery, with global GDP expanding by 3.1 percent in 2010 and by 2.9 and 3.2 in 2011 and 2012.

Additionally, the OBR Report suggests CPI inflation is expected to fall to around 2.25% by the end of 2010 and then stabilizing at around 2% by the end of 2012. Alternatively, the Bank of England suggest inflation could drop to as low as 1.3% by 2012 (with a potential high of approximately 1.6%).

The Office for Budgetary Responsibility forecast the Public Sector Net Borrowing (PSNB) is £3 billion less than in the March budget largely because of lower forecasts of social security spending. According to the London Stock Exchange, recent months have shown some signs of improvement in the public finances, with tax receipts picking up after a prolonged period of weakness. Analysts at the Stock Exchange expect these trends to continue, although both measures of public borrowing in May are still forecast to be higher than the same month last year.

Unemployment
The Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) has an annual budget of approximately £139bn and account for 24.7% of all civil service staff, although this has been reduced recently by George Osborne by £535m (0.38% of the total budget) and further cuts will be implemented under the departmental spending review this autumn. Only 26.6% of DWP staff work in London, with the remainder scattered throughout the country. At the present time it is impossible to gauge the extent of future cuts, though analysts are estimating anything from 2.5% to 7.5%. One of the pressures faced by DWP is the fact that social security payments for the unemployed alone account for £12.5bn (assuming the existing level of approximately 2.51 million people unemployed). If you add to this the estimated 700,000 additional numbers out of work suggested by some economists and this is increased by a further £3.57bn. In effect this could result in a situation where the DWP budget is pruned to £128.5bn and the social security payment increased by anything up to 28.5%.

Evidence currently being utilized by the government is proposing that labour market indicators are stabilizing. This is based on the fact that the International Labour Organization (ILO) unemployment rate has been broadly stable for the past year at or below 8% and the claimant count has fallen in five of the past six months (the NAIRU rate adopted in the UK for ‘full employment is 5.3% unemployed). However, these assumptions ignore several critical issues that will emerge over the coming months:

• 2.6 million people, now on incapacity benefit will be reassessed and there is a belief that as many as 40% of these people could be added to the unemployment register, accounting for slightly over 1 million new claimants.
• Even without these additional claimants, the Chartered Institute of Personnel Development has forecast an additional 450,000 new claimants by 2012 and this figure will remain until 2015. Other analysts have extended unemployment as rising up to 700,000 new claimants.

If these forecasts are accurate – and there is compelling evidence to support their conclusions – it mean the government prediction of achieving 1milion unemployed by the end of 2014 is ill-founded and unachievable.

All of this begs the question - have the government truly thought out their strategic plans to how they will deal with unemployment during this parliament. Existing evidence offers little to no assurance they have done their homework.