Over the last two days I have examined some of the discrepancies between the higher paid elite in the welfare to work sector and the average frontline staff member. In this analysis I have been highly critical of some of the attitudes of these companies. Organisations that profit from government money that we originally gave through our taxes.
Indeed, there is a rather ludicrous cycle that occurs amongst those working in the sector where staff pay the taxes that pay for the contracts that give the providers the profits that give the directors the huge salaries, whilst either keeping them on very low incomes, or force them into redundancy. Now don’t get me wrong, I am not against anyone, individual or company, getting ahead and I am enough of a realist to recognise how companies need to make profits in order to survive.
Where I have a problem is when companies make substantial profits, pretend they are making losses and don’t pass on any of their gains onto the workforce. Without doubt, this argument can be thrown at the welfare to work sector.
Let’s take a few examples of some of the bigger companies:
A4e:
Annual turnover: £190,990,000.00
Annual profit: £9,877,000.00
Turnover per employee: £58,693.92
Profit per employee: £3,035.34
EAGA
Annual turnover: £762,179,000.00
Annual profit: £41,471,000.00
Turnover per employee: £162,719.68
Profit per employee: £8,853.76
PeopleServe
Annual turnover: £9,252,000.00
Annual profit: £1,672,000.00
Turnover per employee: £36,860.56
Profit per employee: £6,661.35
Working Links
Annual turnover: £85,737,000.00
Annual profit: £1,353,000.00
Turnover per employee: £66,617.72
Profit per employee: £1,051.2
Reed in Partnership
Annual turnover: £57,460,000.00
Annual profit: £-237,000.00
Turnover per employee: £82,439.02
Profit per employee: £-340.03
(Before you feel sorry for them, this year was far from typical and normally they make large profits)
Remploy
Annual turnover: £267,951,000.00
Annual profit: £9,543,000.00
Turnover per employee: £52,611.62
Profit per employee: £1,873.75
Shaw Trust
Annual profit: £5,424,000.00
Profit per employee: £2,125.39
Seetec
Founded in 1984, Seetec, based in Essex, has become one of the largest and most experienced providers of government-funded welfare to work and skills-training programmes. The company employs more than 500 people across a national network of 50 employment and training centres, and works with thousands of people each year to find work or gain qualifications through a diverse portfolio of employability or skills contracts. Last year, Seetec pulled in £21.2m in sales and profits of £2.112m. This enabled the company, which is 56 per cent owned by founder Peter Cooper, to pay total dividends of £990,608.
JHP
Founded in 1983, it operates a national network of 117 centres and also delivers training in employees’ workplaces. Under chief executive, Jim Chambers, profits grew 52% a year, from £4.4m in 2008 to £10.2m in 2010
Maximus
Its profits in the first nine months of 2010 shot up by 19.4 percent—to £131 million. And its top boss, Richard A Montoni, grabbed a pay package worth £2 million last year.
• CEO Richard A Montoni sold 10,000 shares of MMS stock on 07/15/2010 at the average price of £59.44
• CEO Richard A Montoni sold 5,233 shares of MMS stock on 08/11/2010 at the average price of $58.59.
• CEO Richard A Montoni sold 4,767 shares of MMS stock on 08/17/2010 at the average price of $58.06
• CEO Richard A Montoni sells 10,000 shares of MMS on 09/20/2010 at an average price of $58 a share.
As a result of these transactions, Montoni earned in excess of £4m over a 3-month period. Nice for some!
It is clear many companies in the sector are making huge profits from welfare to work contracts. Their justification for discarding hundreds of people now is obscene as many of them could have been redeployed in a couple of months under the new Work Programme. The only reason companies like A4e have chosen to make their NDDP and pathways to Work staff redundant is because they are too tight to pay a couple of months salary and see if these people could be reintegrated into the company under new contracts. They chose not to do this, favouring the ‘cheaper’ route of saving a few quid from not having to pay a couple of month’s salary.
It is an absolute disgrace and it will come back to bite them.
Staff working in the sector desperately need to unionise and protect their interests. They can no longer rely on the artificial bonhomie offered by senior management – as 1,500 staff now on redundancy notice can testify. If workers join trade unions they can be protected when the results of the Work Programme are announced. Some of these staff are likely to find themselves joining their colleagues on redundancy notice. They should not assume their employer will look after them – they will not – as many can confirm.
I call upon workers in the sector – join the trade unions. Mobilise to protect your jobs before it is too late.
Tuesday, 15 March 2011
Monday, 14 March 2011
Rich man, Poor man - the two face of Welfare to Work
Yesterday I talked about the 460 redundancies at A4e and today, I would like to continue along the same theme. You see, if all we were talking about were those jobs, it would be sad, but not a disaster. Regrettably, the position is far, far worse.
In a recent survey of training providers, ERSA (the trade association for all providers working in the welfare to work sector) identified that amongst a third surveyed there were 1,500 anticipated job losses as a result of the closure of Pathways to Work and New Deal programmes. Now, this was only the amount identified from those who responded to the survey. If you add to this the number from those who failed to respond, then conservatively you could easily be looking at over 2,000 redundancies within the sector.
But even this is not the end. In a few weeks, DWP will announce who has been successful in bidding for delivery of the Work Programme. Over the days that follow, those selected primes will advise subcontractors of the extent of delivery they will be offered and in which regions. Logically, not everyone will be successful and though more optimistic forecasts predict most frontline staff will be absorbed into the new delivery companies, this seems far from reality.
The hard facts are that due to the funding arrangements, companies will be forced to keep costs to a minimum. Add to this the fact that transition to a new programme is always slow and you compound the problem. Take Flexible New Deal as a previous example – many anticipated a large flow of referrals from Jobcentre Plus right from the start, but the reality was that it took over six months for numbers to even approach expected targets. For some weeks many staff were ‘hanging around’ waiting for the work to come in.
This time round, companies will be less inclined to make the same mistakes.
Many frontline staff will thankfully be subject to TUPE arrangements and, as a result, will find themselves transferred over to new deliverers. But what about those currently employed as administrators, HR staff, training teams, health and safety personnel, cleaning and maintenance departments, business development teams and, in some instances, employer engagement teams? All these people will find themselves vulnerable, especially if the new prime is already established in that area and has an existing solid infrastructure within the region.
If only 35 companies found themselves without any work as a result of the new contract, and these organisations were forced to ‘let go’ of 15 staff, this would add another 500 people to the overall seepage in the sector – and making a total of over 2,500 job losses in just over 3 months.
There is a clear divide in the Welfare to Work sector. You seldom if ever see any senior management volunteering to be the first to accept redundancy when the axe falls, it is always the grunt, the oik who has to graft whilst ‘management’ squeeze out more money for their advantage. It is seldom the managing director who says to his workforce “It’s not fair and as a gesture I will be the first to leave this company – see you on the dole queue!”
Today, Will Hutton reported on Fairer Pay and in line with some of his “recommendations” I am publishing some of the pay differentials between directors and frontline workers. Take a look at the following. In 2009, Reed in Partnership paid out £844,00 in director’s remuneration, with the highest paid director earning £238,000 – an increase of 40.83% over the last four years. Or EAGA, whose directors earned a massive £1,538, 000 (an increase of over 68%) over the last 7 years – and the salary of their highest paid director? Would you believe a meagre £457,000 – an increase of (wait for it) over 96% over the last 7 years. Or, how about Working Links, where their directors have earned a mighty £354,000 (an increase of 139% over 6 years) and their highest paid director earned £222,000.
Compare this with PeopleServe, where the last recorded average salary for employees (2009 figures) was £16,338.65. Now accepted PeopleServe are low payers, so let’s look at Working Links again – their average wage is about £25,941, a big differential between the two companies. In the latter case, staff at Working Links might like to reflect on the size of any pay rise they had over the last two years, because the highest paid director in that company allowed himself an enormous 20% increase.
G4S is a widely known public limited company with interests in a variety of sectors, including welfare to work. Last year, its 23 directors enjoyed the rewards of the company’s success by enjoying £4,460,000 between them.. Their highest paid director earned a staggering £1,656,000 … and the average salary within the company? Would you believe - £6,846.62!!!
How about Pertemps? Their directors shared out £415,000 between the 15 of them and their highest paid director earned £289,000. Meanwhile the average pay of a member of staff was £26,631,64.
If you aren’t angry by now, let’s go back to those 460 staff at A4e who are now on redundancy notice. The 15 directors of that company shared £2,128,000 between them last year, an increase overt the last 7 years of over 189.52%. Their highest paid director earned £640,000, but we should feel sorry for them, because during the same period, their salary only went up 99.38%. Unsurprisingly, the average salry of a member of staff within the company is not in the public domain, but you can bet their income hasn’t gone up as much during the same period!!!
I could bore you with many more figures. Suffice to say, there is a division between the experience of frontline staff, who are paid poorly for a highly stressful job and face the risk of redundancy every five years and the directors who manage them, most of whom have been sneakily sucking off all the cream from the milk for years.
It is time the sector started to clean up its act. It is run by ‘fat cats’ who, despite their feeble protestations, only want to feather their own nests and do not care about the thousands who, in a few weeks time, will face redundancy. Remember that patronising letter to A4e staff yesterday? It does the sector no good when directors, earning such huge salaries rely on the devotion staff have to their jobs whilst they fleece they system to fill their greedy pockets.
It is a disgrace and it is time employees in the sector started to vocalize their anger.
In a recent survey of training providers, ERSA (the trade association for all providers working in the welfare to work sector) identified that amongst a third surveyed there were 1,500 anticipated job losses as a result of the closure of Pathways to Work and New Deal programmes. Now, this was only the amount identified from those who responded to the survey. If you add to this the number from those who failed to respond, then conservatively you could easily be looking at over 2,000 redundancies within the sector.
But even this is not the end. In a few weeks, DWP will announce who has been successful in bidding for delivery of the Work Programme. Over the days that follow, those selected primes will advise subcontractors of the extent of delivery they will be offered and in which regions. Logically, not everyone will be successful and though more optimistic forecasts predict most frontline staff will be absorbed into the new delivery companies, this seems far from reality.
The hard facts are that due to the funding arrangements, companies will be forced to keep costs to a minimum. Add to this the fact that transition to a new programme is always slow and you compound the problem. Take Flexible New Deal as a previous example – many anticipated a large flow of referrals from Jobcentre Plus right from the start, but the reality was that it took over six months for numbers to even approach expected targets. For some weeks many staff were ‘hanging around’ waiting for the work to come in.
This time round, companies will be less inclined to make the same mistakes.
Many frontline staff will thankfully be subject to TUPE arrangements and, as a result, will find themselves transferred over to new deliverers. But what about those currently employed as administrators, HR staff, training teams, health and safety personnel, cleaning and maintenance departments, business development teams and, in some instances, employer engagement teams? All these people will find themselves vulnerable, especially if the new prime is already established in that area and has an existing solid infrastructure within the region.
If only 35 companies found themselves without any work as a result of the new contract, and these organisations were forced to ‘let go’ of 15 staff, this would add another 500 people to the overall seepage in the sector – and making a total of over 2,500 job losses in just over 3 months.
There is a clear divide in the Welfare to Work sector. You seldom if ever see any senior management volunteering to be the first to accept redundancy when the axe falls, it is always the grunt, the oik who has to graft whilst ‘management’ squeeze out more money for their advantage. It is seldom the managing director who says to his workforce “It’s not fair and as a gesture I will be the first to leave this company – see you on the dole queue!”
Today, Will Hutton reported on Fairer Pay and in line with some of his “recommendations” I am publishing some of the pay differentials between directors and frontline workers. Take a look at the following. In 2009, Reed in Partnership paid out £844,00 in director’s remuneration, with the highest paid director earning £238,000 – an increase of 40.83% over the last four years. Or EAGA, whose directors earned a massive £1,538, 000 (an increase of over 68%) over the last 7 years – and the salary of their highest paid director? Would you believe a meagre £457,000 – an increase of (wait for it) over 96% over the last 7 years. Or, how about Working Links, where their directors have earned a mighty £354,000 (an increase of 139% over 6 years) and their highest paid director earned £222,000.
Compare this with PeopleServe, where the last recorded average salary for employees (2009 figures) was £16,338.65. Now accepted PeopleServe are low payers, so let’s look at Working Links again – their average wage is about £25,941, a big differential between the two companies. In the latter case, staff at Working Links might like to reflect on the size of any pay rise they had over the last two years, because the highest paid director in that company allowed himself an enormous 20% increase.
G4S is a widely known public limited company with interests in a variety of sectors, including welfare to work. Last year, its 23 directors enjoyed the rewards of the company’s success by enjoying £4,460,000 between them.. Their highest paid director earned a staggering £1,656,000 … and the average salary within the company? Would you believe - £6,846.62!!!
How about Pertemps? Their directors shared out £415,000 between the 15 of them and their highest paid director earned £289,000. Meanwhile the average pay of a member of staff was £26,631,64.
If you aren’t angry by now, let’s go back to those 460 staff at A4e who are now on redundancy notice. The 15 directors of that company shared £2,128,000 between them last year, an increase overt the last 7 years of over 189.52%. Their highest paid director earned £640,000, but we should feel sorry for them, because during the same period, their salary only went up 99.38%. Unsurprisingly, the average salry of a member of staff within the company is not in the public domain, but you can bet their income hasn’t gone up as much during the same period!!!
I could bore you with many more figures. Suffice to say, there is a division between the experience of frontline staff, who are paid poorly for a highly stressful job and face the risk of redundancy every five years and the directors who manage them, most of whom have been sneakily sucking off all the cream from the milk for years.
It is time the sector started to clean up its act. It is run by ‘fat cats’ who, despite their feeble protestations, only want to feather their own nests and do not care about the thousands who, in a few weeks time, will face redundancy. Remember that patronising letter to A4e staff yesterday? It does the sector no good when directors, earning such huge salaries rely on the devotion staff have to their jobs whilst they fleece they system to fill their greedy pockets.
It is a disgrace and it is time employees in the sector started to vocalize their anger.
Sunday, 13 March 2011
The rich get richer as more redundancies fall
Recently, disturbing information fell into my hands informing me of a training provider who is intending to bring about a mass redundancy programme to their workforce. Over the years, A4e has become one of the leading welfare to work companies in the UK and prior to the introduction of the Work Programme, Emma Harrison, its founder was looking forward to this £100m company said she was "proud that the company has sustained pure organic growth at a phenomenal rate" and forecast an increase in profits to a £500 million turnover by 2014.
However, this will not save the 460 frontline staff who will shortly go onto redundancy notice. In a letter to affected personnel, Executive Director Nigel Lemmon wrote:
By implication, the letter implies some kind of genuine care for its workforces, but let’s face it – a redundancy consultation period is seldom a time to renegotiate your job. These people will almost certainly find themselves unemployed within the next few weeks, unless by some stroke of good fortune they are able to find alternate employment. Most will not be so lucky and will be forced to ‘sign on’ and claim Jobseekers Allowance. In the meantime, Emma Harrison can sit in her luxury home, swanning around with her friend, Citizen Dave, the people’s toff. They are a pair well met. Harrison, like Cameron is also a millionaire, with a personal wealth estimated at £40m – not much chance Emma will be joining her colleagues on the dole then.
Interestingly, if you go to the "MyA4e" website, you will see that Emma Harrison gave Anna Gaunt the opportunity of a 12-month secondment as her assistant. prior to this, Anna had been an employment advisor on their NDDP contract. It rather begs the question of whether has a job to go to once her placement expires. For her sake, I hope she has the chance of redeployment within the company, but the promotion of this posting on their website remains a rather fine example of Emma's team shooting her in the foot.
Now, is it just me, or are there others out there who find it pretty obscene that Some people have profited from welfare to work programmes, whilst other, like the 460 at A4e are cast aside when they have served their usefulness. Because the new programme to be implemented by Jobcentre Plus is so different from Pathways to Work and New Deal for Disabled People, these folk will not be TUPE’d over to the new programme.
Over the coming weeks, as announcements are made on who are the ‘winners’ of contracts for the Work Programme, more will follow. Soon we can expect those hundreds will turn into thousands as companies ‘rationalise’ or even close.
It is a disgrace that workers who have given years to supporting unemployed people back into work should now find themselves in a position where they also face joblessness. The shame is not exclusive to A4e – other companies have profited equally well. Seetec has become one of the largest and most experienced providers of government-funded welfare to work and skills-training programmes. The company employs more than 500 people across a national network of 50 employment and training centres, and helps thousands of people each year to find work or gain qualifications through a diverse portfolio of employability or skills contracts. Last year, Seetec pulled in £21.2m in sales and profits of £2.112m. This enabled the company, which is 56 per cent owned by founder Peter Cooper, to pay total dividends of £990,608.
Or take the example of Maximus, profits in the first nine months of 2010 shot up by 19.4 percent—to £131 million. And its top boss, Richard A Montoni, grabbed a pay package worth £2 million last year.
Perhaps instead of paying out such vast dividends to a selected bunch of money-grabbing shareholders, the company should have been establishing a welfare programme to support these workers if and when contracts come to an end. But of course that is hardly an option for these commercial giants – since when does capitalism look after the working class?
However, this will not save the 460 frontline staff who will shortly go onto redundancy notice. In a letter to affected personnel, Executive Director Nigel Lemmon wrote:
| Colleagues, We know that we have a caring, driven and passionate team. We have a team that has helped us to develop our business over the years and we have ambitious plans to continue that growth. However, we currently face a very difficult situation with some existing Welfare to Work contracts formally ending before the new Work Programme begins. This is far from ideal. We passionately want to do the right thing for our employees and our customers, but on this occasion we have had to start the formal process of collective redundancy consultations with all our New Deal for Disabled People (NDDP) and our Pathways to Work employees. This decision has not been taken lightly, we have thought long and hard about the options available to us, but regrettably have had to start this process. Whilst some providers have already started these consultations, we made the decision to wait until we had received final confirmation from DWP, ensuring that we could retain our excellent team throughout this period and well past the time that we would have clarity around the Work Programme contracts. Our focus in the coming weeks will be on securing the best possible outcome for our employees and our customers. We want the best team, we know we have got great people and your skills will be vital to the delivery of our own Work Programme and those where we hope to secure subcontractor work. We will do everything possible to secure opportunities for our team going forward. However, you will be aware that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) only last week advised us that the contracts to deliver New Deal for Disabled People and Pathways to Work will not be extended beyond 31st March 2011 and 27th April (Pathways to Work Phase 2) and that a new initiative will be offered to customers by Jobcentre Plus from 1st April until the Work Programme starts. Since we were notified last week, we have been working extremely hard to challenge this position with DWP. However, senior DWP representatives have now confirmed that it is their view that TUPE (the regulations that allow for the transfer of employees from one provider to another) does not apply, either to Jobcentre Plus when the new service starts on 1st April, or to other service providers when the Work Programme goes live (between 1st June and 31st July). This is hugely disappointing and we have now had to take the decision to start formal collective redundancy consultations. This decision only affects our New Deal for Disabled People and Pathways to Work employees. Once we have been informed of the outcome of our Work Programme bids for prime and sub-contracts, we will be able to understand the wider implications across the rest of our Welfare Division. We will continue to provide you with information as and when it becomes available By starting a lengthy 90 day redundancy consultation process, we have been able to secure your colleagues employment with A4e for the next three months. Our commitment and investment reflects our passion to support our team as much as possible and the enormous value and trust we place our team. It is our absolute intention to get the best outcomes for our people and our customers and have the best team going forward. This arrangement will take us into June and importantly, well after the Work Programme contract award announcements. This approach will give us the greatest opportunities once we know where we will be delivering the Work Programme going forward. We know that A4e has the best teams in the industry with extraordinary employees. It is as a result of the friendly and caring service that you have delivered to customers over the years that has enabled us to build A4e into what it is today. I know that we will continue to live our by DNA and to passionately provide excellent service to customers. If you have any queries regarding this announcement or the process, please speak to you manager in person, the HR Shared Services Team by telephone on *************** and we will get back to you as soon as possible. Nigel Lemmon |
By implication, the letter implies some kind of genuine care for its workforces, but let’s face it – a redundancy consultation period is seldom a time to renegotiate your job. These people will almost certainly find themselves unemployed within the next few weeks, unless by some stroke of good fortune they are able to find alternate employment. Most will not be so lucky and will be forced to ‘sign on’ and claim Jobseekers Allowance. In the meantime, Emma Harrison can sit in her luxury home, swanning around with her friend, Citizen Dave, the people’s toff. They are a pair well met. Harrison, like Cameron is also a millionaire, with a personal wealth estimated at £40m – not much chance Emma will be joining her colleagues on the dole then.
Interestingly, if you go to the "MyA4e" website, you will see that Emma Harrison gave Anna Gaunt the opportunity of a 12-month secondment as her assistant. prior to this, Anna had been an employment advisor on their NDDP contract. It rather begs the question of whether has a job to go to once her placement expires. For her sake, I hope she has the chance of redeployment within the company, but the promotion of this posting on their website remains a rather fine example of Emma's team shooting her in the foot.
Now, is it just me, or are there others out there who find it pretty obscene that Some people have profited from welfare to work programmes, whilst other, like the 460 at A4e are cast aside when they have served their usefulness. Because the new programme to be implemented by Jobcentre Plus is so different from Pathways to Work and New Deal for Disabled People, these folk will not be TUPE’d over to the new programme.
Over the coming weeks, as announcements are made on who are the ‘winners’ of contracts for the Work Programme, more will follow. Soon we can expect those hundreds will turn into thousands as companies ‘rationalise’ or even close.
It is a disgrace that workers who have given years to supporting unemployed people back into work should now find themselves in a position where they also face joblessness. The shame is not exclusive to A4e – other companies have profited equally well. Seetec has become one of the largest and most experienced providers of government-funded welfare to work and skills-training programmes. The company employs more than 500 people across a national network of 50 employment and training centres, and helps thousands of people each year to find work or gain qualifications through a diverse portfolio of employability or skills contracts. Last year, Seetec pulled in £21.2m in sales and profits of £2.112m. This enabled the company, which is 56 per cent owned by founder Peter Cooper, to pay total dividends of £990,608.
Or take the example of Maximus, profits in the first nine months of 2010 shot up by 19.4 percent—to £131 million. And its top boss, Richard A Montoni, grabbed a pay package worth £2 million last year.
Perhaps instead of paying out such vast dividends to a selected bunch of money-grabbing shareholders, the company should have been establishing a welfare programme to support these workers if and when contracts come to an end. But of course that is hardly an option for these commercial giants – since when does capitalism look after the working class?
at
23:14
7
comments
Labels:
A4e,
Emma Harrison,
joblessness,
Pathways to Work,
Seetec,
Work Programme
7
comments
Labels:
A4e,
Emma Harrison,
joblessness,
Pathways to Work,
Seetec,
Work Programme
Friday, 11 March 2011
Help survivors today
Tonight, while we enjoy our 'end-of-week' pint or cup of coffee, thousands of people in the Pacific will face homelessness and tragedy. Very soon we can expect the DEC and British Red Cross will coordinate rescue and support for survivors of teh horrendous tsunami that has affected so many people.
I ask that every reader tonight has one less pint or one less cup of coffee in your favourite coffee shop and donate the money to British Red Cross to support those who have survived.
Tonight it is time to put aside our political differences and work together to look after our brothers and sisters who have been so tragically affected by this disaster.
You can find more about how to support here - http://www.dec.org.uk/
I ask that every reader tonight has one less pint or one less cup of coffee in your favourite coffee shop and donate the money to British Red Cross to support those who have survived.
Tonight it is time to put aside our political differences and work together to look after our brothers and sisters who have been so tragically affected by this disaster.
You can find more about how to support here - http://www.dec.org.uk/
We are winning the arguments
(The following blog was first published on the website False Economy on 7th Match. It was written by Nigel Stanley and is published here in full).
Since the election, polling company YouGov has been regularly asking the same questions about the cuts. While they are not quite the questions that we would ask, they are still useful. Asking the same question allows us to see how public opinion moves over time.
The government started off wanting voters to think that the cuts are:
•being implemented in a fair way: "we're all in this together"
•confined to "waste" and back-office services
•the route to economic recovery; and
•inevitable: "we've maxed out the nation's credit card bill and now have to pay it off".
Straight after the election they were winning these arguments. But public opinion has now moved decisively.
Cuts are unfair
This chart shows how many people think the cuts are unfair. Immediately after the election only one in three said they were unfair. Now that has gone to almost two in three. That is a big shift.
Frontline services
YouGov ask whether you are likely to "suffer directly from cuts in spending on public services such as health, education and welfare". This seems a pretty fair definition of frontline services.
As this chart of those saying yes to this question shows, ministers have never won this argument. From the word go around 70 per cent have expected to suffer from the cuts. It's increased a little perhaps, but it has been remarkably consistent.
Bad for the economy
The government message is that cutting public spending gives room to the private sector to drive an export-led recovery.
This chart reports those who say that the cuts are bad for the economy. It was about one in three before the election, but is now over half. It's not quite as dramatic as the shift in fairness, but is still a big shift.
Too deep and too fast
YouGov have not asked questions about whether people think the cuts are inevitable on a consistent basis, but have now started to ask the questions I would have put from the word go.
We can't put them on a chart therefore, but here are the results from their poll of 20/21 February 2011.
A majority think cuts are necessary.
Necessary Unnecessary
55% 33%
But before ministers get too pleased, there is little support for their speed and scale (and we already know people think they are unfair).
Too deep Too shallow About right
50% 6% 27%
Too quickly Too slowly About right
58% 5% 26%
As people start to see the effects of cuts on their local services as council budgets are agreed, it is hard to see these figures moving back to the government.
Since the election, polling company YouGov has been regularly asking the same questions about the cuts. While they are not quite the questions that we would ask, they are still useful. Asking the same question allows us to see how public opinion moves over time.
The government started off wanting voters to think that the cuts are:
•being implemented in a fair way: "we're all in this together"
•confined to "waste" and back-office services
•the route to economic recovery; and
•inevitable: "we've maxed out the nation's credit card bill and now have to pay it off".
Straight after the election they were winning these arguments. But public opinion has now moved decisively.
Cuts are unfair
This chart shows how many people think the cuts are unfair. Immediately after the election only one in three said they were unfair. Now that has gone to almost two in three. That is a big shift.
Frontline servicesYouGov ask whether you are likely to "suffer directly from cuts in spending on public services such as health, education and welfare". This seems a pretty fair definition of frontline services.
As this chart of those saying yes to this question shows, ministers have never won this argument. From the word go around 70 per cent have expected to suffer from the cuts. It's increased a little perhaps, but it has been remarkably consistent.
Bad for the economyThe government message is that cutting public spending gives room to the private sector to drive an export-led recovery.
This chart reports those who say that the cuts are bad for the economy. It was about one in three before the election, but is now over half. It's not quite as dramatic as the shift in fairness, but is still a big shift.
Too deep and too fastYouGov have not asked questions about whether people think the cuts are inevitable on a consistent basis, but have now started to ask the questions I would have put from the word go.
We can't put them on a chart therefore, but here are the results from their poll of 20/21 February 2011.
A majority think cuts are necessary.
Necessary Unnecessary
55% 33%
But before ministers get too pleased, there is little support for their speed and scale (and we already know people think they are unfair).
Too deep Too shallow About right
50% 6% 27%
Too quickly Too slowly About right
58% 5% 26%
As people start to see the effects of cuts on their local services as council budgets are agreed, it is hard to see these figures moving back to the government.
Thursday, 10 March 2011
It's cruel and it's unfair
Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing particularly against any individual Tory. I confess I don’t like the fact Citizen Dave, the people’s toff talks about addressing inequalities in this country, whilst stashing away over £30m in personal wealth, but that’s another issue.
No, let’s look today at this supposed desire to address inequalities and make Britain more efficient. According to the Public Accounts Committee, the government has "no clear plan" of action for tackling errors and fraud in the welfare system.
.
More than £2bn is being spent on benefit overpayments and no progress has been made in reducing it and it is also claimed officials had not got to grips with £1.3bn in under-payments, despite the hardship these cause. All this is despite the fact that the Tories have set a target of a 25% reduction in the cost of fraud and error by 2015. With these kinds of results, they have a long way to go.
Meanwhile, the popular media like to ‘carry on’ about social security scroungers but forget that tax evasion costs this country 15-times more than welfare fraud. Tax evasion is around 3% of total tax liabilities, while benefit fraud accounts for 0.8% of total benefit expenditure.
George Osborne made political capital out of saving £4bn on the benefits bill, and was happy for those making the claims he targeted to be called lifestyle choice fraudsters and layabouts – all, supposedly, because of the need to tackle the hole in the government's deficit. But he wouldn't have needed to make these cuts if he tackled the biggest category of fraud in the UK economy – that of tax evasion.
But of course we should not expect the Tories to attack business people, or the toffs when they try and save a little bit of tax. After all, for them it is all a bit of a game – can we dodge paying the taxman by not declaring all our income?
Meanwhile, John is a carer looking after his wife with chronic epilepsy. They live in social housing and would like to move, but they can’t get a transfer. John wants to work, but needs to be around his wife 24-hours a day. He doesn’t smoke, rarely drinks and his weekly treat is buying his family a small bag of donuts from the local supermarket – a treat they all look forward to as it is the only family event they can afford.
If John were to employ a professional carer 40 hours a week to look after his wife and charge the government, it would cost between £240 and £300 per week. Unfortunately, the rules don’t allow John to do this, so he had to claim Carer’s allowance – and how much the government gives him as a ‘thank you’ for doing the job? I meagre £53 per week – paltry by any stretch of the imagination.
But do the red tops cause an outcry about John’s allowance? Do they scream and shout when an unmarried mother’s benefit fails to turn up and she has to go to court because she stole a loaf of bread to feed her young child? No, she is another one of those state scroungers that want it all on a plate.
Let this blog send out a clear message to any Tory reader. Yes there are a small number of people who rip off the system – and they should be punished. But the vast majority of claimants are decent law-abiding people who just want a chance in life. Tory plans to bring about Universal Credits will not help them today (if at all) and the Work Programme is nothing more than a repeat of Labour’s mistakes. The DWP's own research has stated that "one quarter (27%) of claimants who leave unemployment to obtain a job return to claim unemployment benefits within 13 weeks, whilst two out of five (40%) return within six months". In addition: "just over half (53%) of workers return to JSA within 3 months of taking a permanent job either because they resigned or were sacked".
It is time the government opened their eyes and saw there are very clear injustices happening in this country and they are doing nothing to resolve it.
No, let’s look today at this supposed desire to address inequalities and make Britain more efficient. According to the Public Accounts Committee, the government has "no clear plan" of action for tackling errors and fraud in the welfare system.
.
More than £2bn is being spent on benefit overpayments and no progress has been made in reducing it and it is also claimed officials had not got to grips with £1.3bn in under-payments, despite the hardship these cause. All this is despite the fact that the Tories have set a target of a 25% reduction in the cost of fraud and error by 2015. With these kinds of results, they have a long way to go.
Meanwhile, the popular media like to ‘carry on’ about social security scroungers but forget that tax evasion costs this country 15-times more than welfare fraud. Tax evasion is around 3% of total tax liabilities, while benefit fraud accounts for 0.8% of total benefit expenditure.
George Osborne made political capital out of saving £4bn on the benefits bill, and was happy for those making the claims he targeted to be called lifestyle choice fraudsters and layabouts – all, supposedly, because of the need to tackle the hole in the government's deficit. But he wouldn't have needed to make these cuts if he tackled the biggest category of fraud in the UK economy – that of tax evasion.
But of course we should not expect the Tories to attack business people, or the toffs when they try and save a little bit of tax. After all, for them it is all a bit of a game – can we dodge paying the taxman by not declaring all our income?
Meanwhile, John is a carer looking after his wife with chronic epilepsy. They live in social housing and would like to move, but they can’t get a transfer. John wants to work, but needs to be around his wife 24-hours a day. He doesn’t smoke, rarely drinks and his weekly treat is buying his family a small bag of donuts from the local supermarket – a treat they all look forward to as it is the only family event they can afford.
If John were to employ a professional carer 40 hours a week to look after his wife and charge the government, it would cost between £240 and £300 per week. Unfortunately, the rules don’t allow John to do this, so he had to claim Carer’s allowance – and how much the government gives him as a ‘thank you’ for doing the job? I meagre £53 per week – paltry by any stretch of the imagination.
But do the red tops cause an outcry about John’s allowance? Do they scream and shout when an unmarried mother’s benefit fails to turn up and she has to go to court because she stole a loaf of bread to feed her young child? No, she is another one of those state scroungers that want it all on a plate.
Let this blog send out a clear message to any Tory reader. Yes there are a small number of people who rip off the system – and they should be punished. But the vast majority of claimants are decent law-abiding people who just want a chance in life. Tory plans to bring about Universal Credits will not help them today (if at all) and the Work Programme is nothing more than a repeat of Labour’s mistakes. The DWP's own research has stated that "one quarter (27%) of claimants who leave unemployment to obtain a job return to claim unemployment benefits within 13 weeks, whilst two out of five (40%) return within six months". In addition: "just over half (53%) of workers return to JSA within 3 months of taking a permanent job either because they resigned or were sacked".
It is time the government opened their eyes and saw there are very clear injustices happening in this country and they are doing nothing to resolve it.
Wednesday, 9 March 2011
All in a name
Earlier today I was feeling a little bored, so thought I would search for a short course to stimulate my mind. Imagine my shock when I discovered a local WEA run a free course entitled “Chase interesting women”. It rather left me wondering what goes on behind the closed doors of those classrooms. Perhaps they have small groups of drooling old men in jogging pants and plimsolls, ready for the off as soon as the tutor gives the order.
It rather left me wondering about courses available in other parts of the world. In Oregon, one of the local colleges might be running to inform local residents about local public conveniences, entitled “Flushing toilets”. Or perhaps local criminoligists might enjoy a course on the history of local homicide in a town in Idaho – “Murder in Hellhole”.
In Tennessee they may well be teaching woodwork to locals, though how many would apply for a course called “Dismal carpentry” remains to be seen.
I don’t know about readers, but I’m not sure I would want to enrol on a “History of Fascism” in Swastika. Or come to that, who would be happy learning to swim at the Ogle swimming pool? If you think that’s bad, how many students enrol on courses in Boring College, Oregon?
But its not just in the United States that weird names abound. I guess the Effin football team won’t be expecting too many supporters to turn up to their next match. If you think that’s bad, then feel for those poor villagers who have to face all the comments when they tell people they live in Piddle. I guess it explains the funny smell.
It rather left me wondering about courses available in other parts of the world. In Oregon, one of the local colleges might be running to inform local residents about local public conveniences, entitled “Flushing toilets”. Or perhaps local criminoligists might enjoy a course on the history of local homicide in a town in Idaho – “Murder in Hellhole”.
In Tennessee they may well be teaching woodwork to locals, though how many would apply for a course called “Dismal carpentry” remains to be seen.
I don’t know about readers, but I’m not sure I would want to enrol on a “History of Fascism” in Swastika. Or come to that, who would be happy learning to swim at the Ogle swimming pool? If you think that’s bad, how many students enrol on courses in Boring College, Oregon?
But its not just in the United States that weird names abound. I guess the Effin football team won’t be expecting too many supporters to turn up to their next match. If you think that’s bad, then feel for those poor villagers who have to face all the comments when they tell people they live in Piddle. I guess it explains the funny smell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
