'Cablegate' is political reprieve for Lib Dems

Unless Vince Cable is forced to resign due to the media furore surrounding the 'Cablegate' controversy, it will prove a victory for the Lib Dem propaganda machine.

The Telegraph's revelations are superbly timed for a party at a historical low in terms of public relations. The tuition fee fiasco threatened to blow the Lib Dems apart and seriously eroded their credibility, but recent controversy surrounding Vince Cable and other senior Lib Dems - such as Norman Baker, Michael Moore, Ed Davey and Steve Webb - acts, in a bizarre way, to rehabilitate their sullied image. They may be stooges, but at least they're not complete stooges - or so the journalistic stings would have us believe.

Call me cynical, but I think it's highly unlikely that all these senior Lib Dem figures could be duped by undercover journalists. Surely, as experienced public figures, they have more political nous. Instead, it smells like a co-ordinated media ploy to resurrect their reputation as an unsilent partner which is curtailing the Conservative right and championing progressive politics. The sidelining of Cable also has the convenient side-effect of removing senior Lib Dem officials from the firing line of front line government. For now, the Lib Dems have shifted the focus. Instead of spineless political chameleons, they look like spineless political martyrs too enamoured with power to stand up for their crumbling beliefs.

If the Lib Dems had any backbone at all then they wouldn't boast to undercover journalists, they would resign. All Cablegate has shown is that the Lib Dems lack all sense of political principle. Let's hope in the local elections next May - and future General Elections - the electorate doesn't forget the Lib Dem betrayal or their continuing love of 'old' politics.

Working towards the Führer

Tory MP Nicholas Boles recently criticised central planning and called for local government planning to be replaced by ‘chaos’. Bole’s revelations draw alarming parallels with the power structures of Nazi Germany.



There are obvious conceptual obstacles to comparing Nazi Germany to our contemporary democracy – namely the Holocaust – but it does provide a useful analytical framework for understanding modern bureaucracy. Structuralist historians such as Martin Broszat and Hans Mommsen view Nazi Germany as a polycratic shambles of rival bureaucracies in perpetual power struggles. This doesn’t seem far removed from what Boles is suggesting – albeit the polycratic structures will encompass voluntary and private sector bodies too. Either way, it leads to convoluted and divided government.

Structuralists argue that Nazi bureaucracy was sophisticated and complex but, rather than emanating from detailed central authority, Hitler governed through suggestion rather than directive. Ian Kershaw developed the theory of “working toward the Führer”. This theory maintains that subordinates were charged with anticipating and interpreting Hitler’s wishes rather than formulating policy from detailed protocols. The role of the bureaucracy was to interpret perceived wishes, or to create policy from Hitler’s often loose and indistinctly phrased wishes.

A key parallel here is Cameron’s ‘big society’ which defined his General Election campaign and continues to underwrite government policy. Yet most Tories – not to mention the public – seem confused as to what the ‘big society’ actually means. Cameron has created an indistinct phrase which he now expects ministers to formulate into coherent policy.

In the case of Nazi Germany, the result of constant competition between different power structures saw the radicalisation of the regime. This is seen most obviously in the evolution of anti-Semitism. Now, it would be dangerous to equate modern democratic structures with those of Nazi Germany, but there are similarities with the interaction of power. David Cameron has created a vague but powerful idea that the whole of government needs to save money and reduce the size of the state. As a result, departments compete to find bigger savings and reduce more services.

Structuralist historians hold that the competition between departments fostered egotism. This is also echoed in the current situation and has been amplified by the presence of the Lib Dems within government. Over recent months, Lib Dem ministers have been given far more airtime than their government numbers warrant. Usually the government minister defending cuts or tuition fees has been a Lib Dem – either Danny Alexander or Vince Cable – and high profile Tories – such as Cameron and Osborne – have been relatively quiet. The reason Lib Dems have such a high profile is multi-layered. Firstly, they are competing for profile. They have to justify undermining party policy by being perceived to be driving government policy. Secondly, as the focal point for announcements they become the focal point for dissent. Responsibility is displaced from the Tories to the Lib Dems. Indeed, the whole ‘big society’ can be seen as an attempt to devolve responsibility from the state to the individual. Cameron still sets the tone of debate and change, but he won’t be blamed if anything goes wrong.

2+2=5

You know when you get that feeling that things are just not adding up? I’ve been feeling that about a few things recently, and today’s announcement on unemployment was the final straw...

1) Higher university fees, higher unemployment

The Government has passed a bill for universities to start charging fees of up to £9,000 per year. The fact some Lib Dems voted for this increase after getting students' votes on exactly the opposite pledge doesn’t add up in itself, but I want to focus on the argument that people won’t start paying back the debt until they earn above £21,000. With today’s announcement that UK unemployment rose by 35,000 to 2.5 million in the three months to October, the task of finding a job, let alone one that will allow you to start paying off your student debt, seems all the more difficult. And let’s make no mistake – the reason for the rise in unemployment is down to the Government’s cuts, because 33,000 of those affected are from the public sector, which has suffered and will continue to suffer spending cuts. So the Government has truly shafted young people by increasing tuition fees, and reducing employment prospects when they graduate.

2) Julian Assange

There are a number of problems with Julian Assange. He’s wanted in Sweden for sex offences, has been granted a £200,000 bail, but remains behind bars after Swedish authorities appealed against the bail. We will have to let the courts decide whether he’s guilty of the alleged crimes, but many people around the world think this is a cover for the fact that Assange is the founder of Wikileaks. The website and Assange have been the focus of widespread criticism (and support) for leaking classified US documents and an ABC News poll claims 6 in 10 people believe Assange should face criminal charges. To top it all off, today, TIME magazine named Facebook founder and CEO Zuckerberg its person of the year, despite Assange winning the reader’s choice (Zuckerberg came 10th in this poll). Today’s announcement is widely conceived as another snub against Assange, and joins the list of other businesses boycotting Wikileaks.

3) New Labour government, Thatcherite opinions

It may come as no surprise to those who felt New Labour largely continued many Conservative policies when they came into power in 1997, but yesterday’s opinion poll by the British Social Attitudes shows we are more Thatcherite than we were in the 1980s! After 13 years of New Labour in power, how is it possible that as a nation we have less sympathy for benefit claimants, less support of redistributing wealth and harsher attitudes towards the poor? There was some good news, with larger support for education and health, but there’s no denying that Labour must take responsibility for the fact that they didn’t try hard enough with redistributive taxation. Must try harder next time...

Latin America 2010 – Beating the blockade of Cuba

I recently wrote a seminar report on the illegal US blockade of Cuba at the Latin America 2010 conference. The article has been reproduced below or you can read it here on the Cuba Solidarity Campaign website.

Cuba: Beating the blockade – advancing the Revolution

In a lively discussion on the US blockade of Cuba, Steve Ludlam, lecturer at the University of Sheffield, denounced the embargo as the “relentless strangulation of Cuba”. As Ludlam contended, the blockade of Cuba constitutes just one facet of a dirty war against the island which includes US-sponsored terrorist groups attacking the Cuban government and the persecution and imprisonment of those defending Cuba’s right to self-determination, such as the Miami 5.

Bob Oram, Unison NEC, affirmed that the US blockade has been tightened and intensified since 1962 to “asphyxiate the economy and wear down the Cuban people”. The blockade and associated legislation has been expanded extraterritorially to adversely affect other countries trading with Cuba. As Oram postulated, US-initiated restrictions on banks, companies and shipping mean that it is practically impossible for most businesses to trade with Cuba, whilst those that do often face penalties from the US.

US pretext for the blockade asserts that Cuba fails to promote human rights but, as both the United Nations and Amnesty International have testified, the blockade disproportionately affects the most vulnerable people in Cuba. Luis Marron, Political Counsellor at the Cuban Embassy, described how a two year-old girl was denied medical treatment because the required medication was only available in the US. As Marron concluded, “the little girl wasn’t a communist and didn’t know who Castro was, she just happened to be born in Cuba”. Marron and Oram both rejected the US declaration that Cuba requires the blockade to justify internal economic conditions and referenced the Cuban Foreign Minister’s challenge to lift the embargo and normalise relations.

Both Ludlam and Luis Marron cited three obstacles to the removal of the blockade. Firstly, there is a lack of political will within the US to end the blockade as the political establishment seeks to demonstrate to Latin America and the developing world that “resistance is futile”. Secondly, the authority to remove the embargo is no longer held by the President and instead has to be passed by Congress. This further entrenches reactionary legislation and makes it harder to revoke. And finally, the influence of Cuban nationals in Miami prevents any repeal of the blockade. Florida is a key state in presidential elections and Barack Obama is the first President since 1959 to not have the electoral support of the ex-patriate Cuban lobby within Miami.

As a result, any policy change will not come from within the US political system. It requires solidarity across Latin America and real pressure from Europe. Ludlam heralded the work of the Cuba Solidarity Campaign working with the trade union movement within the UK to champion the Cuban cause whilst Luis Marron acclaimed the amazing support which Cuba has received – both politically and materially – and declared all solidarity as victory over a blockade which seeks to isolate Cuba. As Marron affirmed, “Cuba has survived 50 years without the US and will continue to exist and advance with or without the US”. Despite constant harassment and persecution, Cuba has met Millennium Development Goals in education and health - just think what would be possible without the blockade.

Progressive Nick?

Nick Clegg’s article in the Guardian last week surrounding the issue of equality and his favourite catchphrase ‘fairness’ has finally laid bare his ideals for the more progressive and fair society he campaigned with such vigour about earlier this year. For many who chose to vote for him in May this may well leave as bitter a taste as his and the Lib Dems decision to raise tuition fees.

.
Clegg states that “Social mobility is what characterises a fair society, rather than a particular level of income equality.” As many progressives know social mobility is essential in creating a more equal society but as Clegg fails to ascertain it is only truly beneficial, never mind plausible, in a society with high levels of income equality.

The UK currently finds itself with its largest ever gap between the richest and poorest in society and thus a very low level of income equality. With Clegg’s refusal to support greater income equality by deeming supporters of maintaining the 50 pence high tax rate as ‘old progressives’ he fails to understand that without it social mobility is nigh on impossible.

The closer the income gaps in society the easier it is not only to climb up the salary scale but to come down. The higher the income gaps the harder it is to step up, no matter what tools are in place, and more importantly the harder it is for the highest to come down. Also Clegg’s inability to talk about how, if at all, the UK’s tax system needs reforming highlights how he is in favour, systematically at least, of the status quo.

But of course does the ConDem government really want greater equality after all??? For as George Eaton stated in relation to Clegg’s article in the New Stateman “greater inequalities of outcome make it easier for rich parents to pass on their advantages to their children.”

As coincidently many of the government happen to be millionaires who are privately educated we can rest assured that the ‘new progressives’ may well be new but are in no way progressive.

EDUCATION! OCCUPATION! ORGANISATION!

Before the election, the buzz word was apathy, and we’d all heard the phrase “no one’s interested in politics anymore”. Since the hung-parliament that delivered this coalition government, who would have thought the fight-back would be spearheaded by students, young people and school children, angry about education cuts and tuition fee increases.

The student protests, and most recently university occupations, have been the most successful form of anti-cuts protest to date, and it’s a shame Aaron Porter (NUS President) did not support the occupations earlier. This is politics in action, and no one can deny their message is getting across in the media and even the Lib Dems are starting to think perhaps they shouldn’t vote for fee increases, knowing support for their party is at rock bottom.

But where the message needs to really hit home is to the rest of us, disgruntled by the cuts. The students have taken the lead, and it’s in everyone’s interest now to get out and show solidarity, show our politicians that it’s not only students who are angry that they will have to bear the brunt of free market capitalist cuts.

And it won’t just do for Labour to criticise the Lib Dems and Conservatives. Labour needs to become THE party for no cuts and court the logical resentment that’s brewing. There’s never been a better time to propose a RADICAL alternative. Shake up the party, Ed Miliband. Get out on the streets with students, strikers and the public to show that Labour is the party of the people it so wants to be.

In recent days, Nick Robinson has described the tuition fees dilemma as the Lib Dem’s Iraq war. The Lib Dems need to make sure they don’t make the mistake Labour did by going against thousands of voices out on the street. Listen to all the angry students, listen to the number of people who are/would be out supporting them if they weren’t working, and make the right decision. We don’t care about your reputation, but we do care about the future of thousands of children, and so do they.

Top 10: Dystopian Novels

10. Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury

Fahrenheit 451 is a bleak vision of a future where literature and free thought are outlawed. In Bradbury’s macabre world fireman don’t fight fires, they start them to burn books. Originally serialised by Playboy, Fahrenheit 451 attacks state censorship and explores the value of literature and the effects of television and mass media on reading.

9. The Road by Cormac McCarthy

The Road charts the journey of an unnamed father and son in a post-apocalyptic world. The anonymity of the characters focuses attention on their struggle for survival whilst the unspecified disaster – climate change, nuclear fall-out or natural disaster – leaves the reader intrigued. The delicate use of language contrasts to some of the shocking events within the book whilst themes focus on courage, love, hatred and despair.

8. A Very British Coup by Chris Mullin

Although A Very British Coup’s dystopian credentials can be questioned, the frightening mobilisation of the conservative establishment against the democratically elected working-class Prime Minister Harry Perkins draws alarming parallels with contemporary politics. Many of the issues raised – a reactionary and ubiquitous civil service coupled with an all-powerful self-interested media – resonate with the politics of today. The novel may lack the violence of other dystopian novels, but it certainly feels the most real – and it makes you wonder whether a progressive or socialist government would ever be allowed to exist.

7. The Day of the Triffids by John Wyndham

The Day of the Triffids expresses many of the political concerns of the early 1950s – the Cold War, the fear of biological warfare, the man-made holocaust – but it is the issues of environmental sustainability and genetic modification which echo today. Wyndham skilfully creates a hugely compelling post-apocalyptic world of anarchy, violence and love. With much of humanity condemned to terminal blindness, what is the biggest threat to survival –the terrifying flesh-eating triffids or the self-destructive nature of mankind?

6. A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess

A Clockwork Orange is the tale of tearaway teenager Alex who spends his time tormenting society with ultra-violence. The book explores the machinations of a totalitarian police state and asks how far the establishment will go to enforce law. Written from Alex’s perspective, Burgess adopts a futuristic slang based on Russian dialect which – although initially confusing – serves to pacify the incessant violence. Burgess’ genius lies in his ability to make Alex sympathetic in contrast to the brutal state.

5. The Trial by Franz Kafka

The Trial is the chilling tale of a senior bank clerk, Josef K, who is arrested and prosecuted by an inaccessible labyrinthine judiciary. The nature of the crime is never revealed to K, but still he must blindly build his defence against the omnipresent bureaucratic monolith. The plot and Kafka’s writing style creates a tense and confused atmosphere reflecting the mental state of the protagonist. The hellish nightmare is festooned with mysterious dead ends and wonderfully surreal characters whilst the conclusion is powerfully harrowing.

4. Brave New World by Aldous Huxley

Brave New World is a satirical tour de force with numerous references to classical literature, Soviet communism and American consumerism. It is overflowing with time-honoured dystopian themes – the dangers of an all-powerful state, the incompatibility of truth and happiness, consumerism and alienation. The central theme, however, is the use of technology to control society – particularly reproduction – and the stark chasm between technological advancement and personal fulfilment.

3. We by Yevgeny Zamyatin

George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four owes much to the plot, theme and characters of Zamyatin’s masterpiece. We tells the tale of one man’s struggle against an omniscient and omnipotent dictator. Printed in 1920s Russia, Zamyatin’s all-powerful Benefactor is a chilling foreshadow of Stalin’s totalitarianism. It is the archetypical dystopian novel and is a resounding champion for individual freedom.

2. Animal Farm by George Orwell

Animal Farm is an accessible and enthralling political fable about a workers’ revolution gone wrong. Orwell’s allegory is a razor-sharp satire on Soviet Russia as the oppressed animals of Manor Farm overthrow their human overlord only to succumb to the same laws of prejudice and hierarchy. The story is overflowing with beautifully crafted characters – from the inspirational Stakhanovite workhorse Boxer to the terrifying Stalinist pig Napoleon. Animal Farm is hilarious and poignant in equal measure. All dystopian novels are equal, but some dystopian novels are more equal than others...

1. Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell

Nineteen Eighty-Four is consistently recognised as the definitive dystopian novel. Orwell skilfully explores how a totalitarian government can manipulate the populace by re-writing history, manufacturing news and waging perpetual war. Many of its themes and phrases – Big Brother, Orwellian nightmare, Thought Police, Room 101 doublethink and newspeak – are in common parlance today whilst its themes of media control and perennial war remain hugely relevant. This novel is doubleplusgood.

Case Study: The Future Jobs Fund

I recently wrote an article about the Future Jobs Fund for left-wing blog Left Foot Forward. The article has been reproduced below or you can read it here on Left Foot Forward.

Background

For the past 15 months I have worked on recruitment and employer engagement on the Future Jobs Fund (FJF) at Brighton & Hove City Council. In that time, 400 new vacancies have been created across the city for long-term unemployment 18-24 year-olds. Partners range from community-based arts projects to local charities and social enterprises. 50% of jobs have been match-funded by employers to create apprenticeship or NVQ training and, by March 2011, 500 jobs in total will have been created. After that, however, the picture isn’t so clear. 27% of current benefit claimants within the city are young people and an astonishing 1 in 5 are graduates. With cuts in housing benefit and the introduction of a universal credit it’s difficult to see what their fate will be, but prolonged gaps of unemployment can be fatal.

The FJF was one of the most high profile policy initiatives of the Labour government and, as an apparently costly enterprise, it’s not surprising that the coalition government scrapped it. Providers are allocated £6500 to subsidise an FJF placement for a minimum of 25 hours per week for 6 months – but the cost of Jobseekers Allowance and Housing Benefit (not to mention additional outgoings such as free prescriptions and free dental care) can often outweigh this figure. Furthermore, where employers can match-fund, claimants come off the books for 12 months and rarely return. Only 17% of young people coming through the FJF in Brighton have returned to benefits with most finding work elsewhere, have their contract extended or return to education. All year-long placements within Brighton & Hove also have fully-funded apprenticeship or NVQ training. Hence, the added value of taking people off benefits long-term and increasing people’s earning potential and career opportunities seems like value for money, particularly in this time of austerity.

Critics

Critics of the FJF have dismissed jobs created as glorified work placements or work experience. The key to the success of the Future Jobs Fund, however, is that, unlike most previous Jobcentre Plus schemes, the recruitment process is fully competitive and the jobs are paid. The FJF isn’t just a ‘Jobcentre scheme’ it’s a job with an actual employer, with training and with a professional reference – and participants benefit much more than they would from forced volunteering.

Commentators have also alleged that FJF vacancies ‘aren’t proper jobs’. Within Brighton & Hove’s FJF contract, over 50 vacancies have been created in partnership with the local Primary Care Trust. Jobs range from Apprentice Nursery Nurses and HR Trainees to Apprentice Physiotherapy Assistants and Support Workers. Furthermore, because the NHS has match-funded the vacancies, all employees will complete relevant apprenticeship or NVQ training. The coalition government might be treating the NHS with disdain currently, but you could hardly profess that they weren’t proper jobs. Indeed, the FJF has provided a unique opportunity for organisations to reach out to a more diverse workforce and ensure, through the use of apprenticeships, that skills are not lost.

The FJF has also been criticised as tax consuming because it moves money around public bodies. The truth, however, is that the FJF spans a range of sectors and industries beyond the public sector and local government – charities, community organisations, the voluntary sector and social enterprises. Or the ‘Big Society’ as David Cameron calls it. The only restriction is that government money, quite rightly, shouldn’t be used to subsidise employment within the commercial sector. Sussex Central YMCA – one of the biggest local charities – has taken over 100 people through Brighton & Hove’s FJF. Roles range from Trainee Sports Workers to Trainee Retail Workers. They have been able to use the support of the FJF to expand their number of shops, open a sustainable recycling plant to provide cheap white goods to poorer families and establish a painting and decorating social enterprise. All of these have been made possible by the FJF and will continue long after it ends but, if the government is serious about the community/voluntary sector stimulating the economy, then it does require financial support.

Welfare to promote social mobility

People coming through the FJF include care leavers, people with drug/alcohol problems, ex-convicts, former refugees and homeless people. For many young people it is their first job and they could be breaking generations of entrenched family unemployment. Without the FJF, they wouldn’t have this opportunity. Voluntary and community groups, unlike most private sector organisations, have much more experience of working with these vulnerable groups and, without that support and the confidence that a real job brings, they might be just another lost generation. The FJF could be dismissed as a cynical attempt by the previous Labour government to gerrymander unemployment figures, but the success of the FJF shows that the benefit system can be more than a safety net, it can be a positive force for social mobility.

The success of the FJF also illustrates the ability of the public sector to deliver change within the benefit system. The Flexible New Deal and impending Work Programme constitute the piecemeal deconstruction of the welfare state, but the FJF – in many places – was delivered successfully through Jobcentre Plus and local authorities without commercial intervention. The answer, therefore, to most of society’s ills is not always the private sector.

Where now for unemployed young people?

The FJF was a counter-recessionary measure used by the previous Labour government to control rising youth unemployment, but if the current government is really serious about helping those less well off and rewarding work, then it should be reinstated immediately. Furthermore, it should be expanded to help all those furthest from the labour market – single parents, drug/alcohol users, ex-offenders, over-50s and people with disabilities. The benefit system shouldn’t be about giving people enough to survive whilst demonising them for costing the state money, it should be about empowering people and raising aspirations. In this regard, the Future Jobs Fund was an overwhelming success.

Where do you buy ethical clothes from?

The Dispatches programme broadcast on Monday 8th November got you hooked within the first few minutes. Footage of a windowless basement paying little regard to essential health and safety measures looked like a third world sweatshop. It was unbelievable that is was happening right here in the UK. It really was an eye opener, and a valuable addition to the coverage that tends to focus on third world sweatshops. So here’s my question:

What are the realistic alternatives to high-street clothes?

We’ve all been to New Look and bought some relatively cheap clothing or ill-fitting shoes (“your feet look gorgeous”), but how can we actually get away from buying from the high street when they’re so convenient, and let’s face it, cheap!

Scratching my head at first, I head to the War on Want website – the charity featured in the Dispatches programme. Investigating and campaigning against sweatshops is only one of their worthwhile campaigns. No Sweat campaigns against sweatshop exploitation and supports people to organise in order to fight for their rights. A political and just cause, but whilst sweatshops still exist, I’m looking for ethical clothing right now.

I came across People Tree via this 2004 Guardian article on ethical clothing. People Tree recently won the ‘Most Sustainable Brand’ award at the 2010 Global Fashion Awards. They seem to do a wide variety of clothing – from belts to nightwear, office wear to comfy knits. So far so good.

Unfortunately, we’re talking over £100 for some cardigans which seems expensive. But hang on a minute. When you think how much money you spend on throw-away fashion. You can only wash a Primark cardigan (for say £12) a few times before it loses its shape. And to be fair to People Tree, you can buy simple cardigans for £25. They’ve got some really nice basic tops for £25 and some really nice skirts for £50. We tend to buy too much anyway. As Mastercard would say, a top and skirt from People Tree: £75. A limited wardrobe of sweatshop free clothes: priceless.

I’m definitely going to try People Tree. Have you shopped there before, or from any other ethical retailers? Here’s a list of other ethical clothing companies:

Greenfibres
Bishopston Trading
Chandi Chowk
Natural Collection

And my favourite place for accessories? Shared Earth

Please let us know your experience of ethical shopping below...

Further Reading: Labour rights violations in the garment industry in Bangladesh (.pdf) http://www.waronwant.org/attachments/Ignoring%20the%20Law%20-%20Labour%20Rights%20Violations%20and%20the%20Bangladeshi%20Garment%20Industry.pdf

Work Won't Pay Under Tories

This week saw the detailed announcement of Iain Duncan Smith’s welfare reforms in what equates to the biggest shake-up of the welfare system since the Beveridge Report. According to the BBC, the new programme:

... proposes consolidating the existing 30 or more work-related benefits - including jobseeker's allowance, housing benefit, child tax credit, working tax credit, income support and employment support allowance - into a single universal payment.

... A sliding scale of sanctions will see those refusing work on three occasions having their benefits taken away for three months. Those repeatedly convicted of benefit fraud could have their benefits stopped for three years.

The stated logic behind much of the reforms is sound but its practical implementation, and the rhetoric employed, is fundamentally flawed. Firstly, it makes perfect sense to simplify the current benefit and tax credit system which is jointly administered by two gargantuan and labyrinthine government departments – the Department for Work & Pensions and HM Revenue & Customs. On a purely bureaucratic basis this is a good idea, but the enforcement of a universal credit cannot act as a ‘catch all’ benefit. The current system takes into account the vast diversity of benefit claimants – single parents, care leavers, ex-servicemen, over-50s, the disabled, ex-convicts etc – and any new system must have bespoke variations which respond to individual needs.

Secondly, a key motivation behind the reforms is that “work should always pay and that you should be better off in work that out of work”. Few could disagree with this statement, but the easiest way to incentivise work is to replace the National Minimum Wage with a Living Wage and increase the threshold at which people pay income tax.

Eyes on Power has been a long-term critic of the rhetoric surrounding the unemployed and Smith’s assertion that it is a “sin” that people fail to take up available jobs further demonises benefit claimants. Anyone working with the long-term unemployed will tell you how easily people become demotivated. Claiming benefit for over 6 months whilst submitting tens of applications without response seriously erodes confidence and causes people to disengage. One person I work with “completely lost confidence” after submitting hundreds of applications without reply and, in the end, he “didn’t see the point in applying anymore”. It was only a bespoke government youth employment initiative – the Future Jobs Fund – which allowed him to return to sustainable employment and undertake NVQ training. Under the new system he would have lost his benefit for three years.

The overwhelming majority of unemployed people are desperate to find work but cannot do so because of a lack of employment opportunities or lack of experience and confidence. Resources should focus on training, qualifications, job searching, interview techniques and improving soft skills. This should be given to all jobseekers – not just those ‘easy to help’ as private sector providers do. Furthermore, obliging employers to provide feedback to unsuccessful candidates – however extensive – would help buttress jobseekers’ confidence. The new programme could even have the adverse effect of discouraging employers from recruiting benefit claimants because they perceive them of being forced into work.

The real problem with welfare reform, however, lies in forcing people into unpaid work after a period of unemployment – although the consequences are not entirely undesired by the government. Firstly, the manual nature of the proposed work – road sweeping, litter picking, gardening – is not necessarily appropriate for all jobseekers. Cheap/free labour will have the effect of forcing companies to sack people already employed in these roles and/or forcing down wages and working conditions. There is also the legal consideration of when the National Minimum Wage should be paid as, in effect, claimants would be working for little more than £1 per hour.

There is also a danger that many of the proposed placements are identical to those undertaken by those on probation community orders. This, again, has the effect of equating those on benefits to criminals and furthers the marginalisation and demonisation of those dependent on benefits.

The welfare reforms of the Conservatives and Lib Dems illustrate in whose interest the government serves. 23 members of Cameron’s original cabinet were millionaires – so why would they be bothered about those who can’t rely on family wealth or influential contacts to succeed? . The Coalition’s economic strategy is predicated on private sector growth and welfare reforms such as Iain Duncan Smith’s will have the effect of keeping wages low. From a neo-liberal perspective – and I think there’s little doubt that the Coalition are neo-liberal – the functioning of a capitalist economy relies on a reserve of labour to drive down wages and working conditions. Admitting this, however, would be political suicide and instead the unemployed must be characterised as workshy layabouts and scroungers. There is no reason why people can’t be paid to do these enforced work placements. If the government’s aim is to “make work pay” then they should do exactly that – pay people to work. The Future Jobs Fund has already demonstrated that the money saved on Jobseekers Allowance and Housing Benefit is sufficient to subsidise employment opportunities and, without work available, the government cannot expect jobseekers to remain engaged and motivated.

Image by Steve Bell @ The Guardian

Phone A Friend

I don’t know if, or what, you’ve been reading about the aftermath of the US midterm elections. I certainly get the impression that there’s a huge sigh of relief that the Tea Party’s success was limited. In the build up to the midterms, the fear here in the UK was not so much that the Democrats would lose the House of Representatives, but that the Tea Party would sweep to victory in Republican seats.

Obama was probably right when he said voters were ‘frustrated’, and this probably led to many people switching from Democrat to Republican, and therefore the Tea Party depending on where you were voting. But thankfully, people had the sense to come out in vast numbers to vote against high-profile Tea Party candidates like Sharron Angle in Nevada, and Christine O’Donnell in Delaware.

Don’t get me wrong, there’s no denying the increasing influence of the Tea Party in right-wing America, but I don’t think their success was as bad (or as good!) as generally feared.

I met someone recently at a phone bank for the Labour Party who had been closely monitoring the rise of the conservative right in both the UK and the US. It was Jon Stewart’s ‘Rally to Restore Sanity’ last week that had really opened the eyes of this one individual, who felt inspired to do something close to home. And that something was picking up the phone to speak with local Labour voters.

I agree that it’s good to feel connected with voters. Yes, it’s daunting to pick up the phone for the first, second, third, or even every time; not knowing whether someone will pick up the phone, or whether they’ll even have time to chat; but it’s important for you, your Party and the voter on the end of the line.

I’ve heard many apathetic or frustrated comments such as ‘I used to be active’, or ‘I’m not really sure why I’m still a member’, or ‘I suppose it’s the best of a bad bunch’. These are difficult to handle, but it’s always good to remind people why they are still members – the social injustices that will only be exacerbated by the Conservative government. But it’s the one phone call you make to the person who has time to chat, the person who wants to chat, and the person you hope gets involved, that makes it all worthwhile.

In our globalised world, we can learn lessons from political movements in the US and be thankful that we have a national health care service, abortion and gay marriages without controversy. We can even get involved in defending these by picking up the phone. Go on – it may be the most important phone call you make.

Media Watch: Royal Mail Bans Religion

In a recent ‘exclusive’ The Sunday Express declared that Royal Mail had banned religion. According to David Paul:

Church leaders are furious with Royal Mail bosses who ditched Christian images on Christmas stamps in favour of children’s favourites Wallace and Gromit.

Firstly, it is self-evident that Royal Mail has neither the moral authority nor the power to ban religion. Secondly the only “church leader” the newspaper could cite was the Rev Hugh Hoskins, “team rector for St Mary’s Church in Upavon, Wiltshire” – a place which has a population of little over 1200. Royal Mail make it quite clear that it is their policy to alternate non-secular and secular themed stamps whilst it is interesting to note that a certain Rev Hugh Hoskins was responsible for a religious design in 2009.

Paul even has the audacity to state that an image of the Madonna and Child will still be on sale – hardly sounds like a ban, especially when Royal Mail declare that it’s sold “tens of millions” of the stamps.

The Express’ ability to transform the sale of millions of religious stamps into a ‘religious ban’ would be funny if it wasn’t so disturbing. At a time when public sector cuts and Royal Mail privatisation is high on the political agenda, this journalistic hyperbole is another example of sensationalist and reactionary commentary which acts to undermine the public sector. The implication that the new stamps represent “a cynical bid by Royal Mail bosses to boost profits” is fundamentally flawed as the vast majority of customers purchase stamps for their function and care little for design. A pleasant picture of Wallace and Gromit does not mean that people will suddenly ditch texting each other and start writing letters. Furthermore, Royal Mail needs to make profit in certain areas to subsidise loss-making services – such as community Post Offices.

The Express specialises in misleading headlines and overstating reactionary criticism, but it is their comment section which is truly alarming. Not only have we “surrendered our Christian Nation” but, according to johnstretch, the Royal Mail is “pandering to Muslim groups”. Misrepresenting facts to undermine the public sector is one thing, but cynically hijacking emotive issues like Christmas and religion acts to fuel religious hatred and foster support for fascism.

Eyes on Power’s Guide to the Cuts

The government’s Comprehensive Spending Review has outlined some of the most extreme and – in the view of EoP– aggressively regressive and unnecessary cuts in the history of modern Britain. We’ve picked out some of the most important areas and tried to get behind the spin.

Defence: 42 000 armed forces personnel and MoD civil servants to lose jobs
Who will it affect? Private sector growth is meant to absorb public sector workers – but there are few private sector equivalents to the army, RAF and Royal Navy. A significant proportion of homeless people in the UK are ex-armed forces whilst ex-serviceman disproportionately struggle to find work when they return to civilian life and can often struggle with drug and alcohol dependency. But as least we have money for a brand new aircraft carrier – even if we can’t afford any aircraft to go on it.

Benefits #1: Council Tax Benefit to be cut by 10%
Who will it affect? Everyone in receipt of Council Tax Benefit – from pensioners to people with disabilities. The effect will price low income families out of affluent areas and will exacerbate the divide between the prosperous South East and the rest of the UK. Local authorities will determine rules for paying benefit – which feels like a major cop-out from the government and attempt to shift blame.

Benefits #2: Housing Benefit, Jobseekers Allowance, Incapacity Benefit, Employment Support Allowance and Disability Living Allowance to be merged into Single Credit
Who will it affect? Everyone in receipt of state benefit – from those incapable of working to single parents. The “catch-all” approach of a Single Credit will abandon all bespoke benefits aimed at helping different people with different needs. This will make it harder for people to return to work, particularly those furthest from the labour market – including young people, ex-servicemen, care leavers, ex-criminals, people with substance abuse problems, lone parents and people with mental and physical health issues.

Benefits #3: Claimants will face a reduction in benefit after 12 months of unemployment
Who will it affect? With £20bn of immediate cuts to the benefit system, long-term unemployment will become entrenched. There is reduced state support for back to work schemes whilst all incentives to encourage employers to recruit long-term unemployed people – including the Local Employment Partnerships, Employer Subsidies and Future Jobs Fund – have been abandoned. The new measures will force people out of affluent areas, ghettoise communities and unfairly hit young people and women.

Health: NHS budget to rise every year
Who will it affect? Protecting health spending was a key Tory election pledge – but we have already demonstrated in whose interest the decision was made.

Economy: 24 quangos to be axed
Who will it affect? As George Monbiot demonstrated, the government have carefully abolished quangos associated with protecting the environment, animal welfare and the arts but have protected – or adapted – those which promote and protect corporate profit.

Arts funding: 30% cut to Arts Council but free entry to museums to continue
Who will it affect? Mainly regional arts-based projects including theatres, orchestras arts venues and festivals. Only 15% of the cuts from £449.5m to £349m in the next four years are supposed to affect “front-line” funding, but in real terms the Arts Council estimates over 100 organisations will lose financial support. The pledge to keep free entry to museums will favour the national London-based museums, with regional museums and arts projects being left behind.

Media: BBC licence fee frozen for 6 years
Who will it affect? Everyone paying for a TV licence will not see any increases and free licences for over 75s have been protected. But these concessions can only be afforded by the government relinquishing responsibility for the World Service, and Welsh Language broadcaster SC4. The BBC will now have to swallow these budgets. There were hints that the corporation feared worse, but the 16% cut in funding will undoubtedly have a negative effect on programme quality, employment opportunities, and niche radio services like 6Music.

Transport: Cap on rail fares removed from 2012 but Crossrail stays
Who will it affect? People who cannot afford the running costs of a car and commuters who buy season tickets. The current price cap limits fares to 1% above inflation, but from 2012 this will increase to 3%, meaning fares are likely to rise by 5.8%. This may not sound like much, but for a Brighton to London commuter, it will mean a £1,000 increase on their season ticket. Meanwhile the £16bn Crossrail project that will bring faster trains on tube routes has been retained, another project that will benefit Londeners and perhaps a political move to help Boris Johnson get re-elected as mayor 2012.

Science: Research budget ringfenced at £4.6bn
Who will it affect? Academics, practitioners, everyone? The benefits of scientific advances over the years are unquestionable. When rumours emerged that the research budget may be cut up to 25% weeks ago, it caused outrage from scientists in the UK. Even 'Scientists for Labour' sent a delegate to the conference last month to raise their concerns about budget cuts. Today's announcement that the research budget will be kept at £4.6bn for the next four years appears to be good news for scientists. It actually represents a cut in real terms of 10% over the four years.

Local Government: Council funding to be cut 7.1%pa and ring-fenced grants abolished
Who will it affect? The government are championing local government reform as devolving power but it really means shifting responsibility for cuts. Many councils will use the auspices of government restrictions to outsource services, cut departments and privatise provisions. Those hit hardest will be those most in need of state support and areas dependent on the public sector for employment – such as the North-East and Wales.

Education : Real-term cut of 3.4% funding over four years. Direct funding protected with school budgets rising from £35-£39bn. £2.5bn pupil premium for ‘disadvantaged’ pupils. Sure Start protected. EMA scrapped.
Who will it affect? This is an interesting mixture and of course does not tell the full story. On the surface it would appear that the vulnerable are protected but if you couple these announcements with previous Tory policies of building less schools and encouraging ‘independent’ academies, the true picture emerges – more money in private hands and an insufficient amount of funding for the state sector. Again, the undermining of the universality of what should be a fundamental right underpins the Tories’ whole approach here.

Justice: 14 000 jobs to be axed – 20% from frontline prison, probation and court services. Extra prison building programmes scrapped. Police budget to be cut by 4% a year.
Who will it affect? Cuts in legal representation will of course hit poor people the hardest. In addition, less prison places will not mean that there is likely to be an appreciable drop in the numbers of people being sent to prison, just that an even more overcrowded, unsafe and generally unfit prison system will be created. Cutting the police budget will have effects on front-line services from police response times to victim support.

Spending: Government departments to be cut on average by 19% over parliament
Who will it affect? An estimated 500 000 public sector workers will lose their job – not to mention local government employees and private sector contractors dependent on public finance. Employees on fixed-term contracts and part-time hours (mostly women) will be the likeliest to go. The cut in public services will adversely hit poorer and more vulnerable people as they are reliant on state provisions.

We will of course be returning to the subject of cuts in more detail, but in the meantime why not let us know what you think of the cuts? Do you agree that cuts are necessary to reduce the deficit? Or do you think the fetishisation of deficit reduction is distracting from the need for a real structural change in our society?