By Professor Cecile Wright
We recently saw the launch of the Conservative Liberal Democratic government’s version of a social mobility strategy (1st April, 2011). Social mobility has been the policy goal of successive post-war governments- exemplified by the creation of the Welfare State in 1945. Over the decades we have seen the post- war consensus connected to this goal dismantled during the Thatcher/Major years and attempts by the Blair/ Brown governments to resurrect the rhetoric of social mobility (eg Alan Milburn Report, 2009).
It is observed that current discussions on social mobility or more aptly referred to by Simon Jenkins as an “another national debate on Britain’s favourite sociological topic, the class system”( Guardian(6th April ,2011,p33),and are often conducted without a rigorous assessment of the significance of its cognate term. Perhaps, an apparent assessment of the term may lead to the recognition that, even though research continue to show that large inequalities of wealth and income within a society damages the social fabric and quality of live for everyone (e.g the most recent Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, The Spirit Level,2009),social immobility is inherent in the structure of British society.
In my recent co-authored book – “Black Youth Matters: Transitions from School to Success”(2010), raises the issue of how some individuals overcome their negative school experiences and “succeed”( regarding educational success and/or success in the labour market). This raises the issue of whether each marginalised group can necessarily succeed- the educational system and labour market are structured so this isn’t required. Hence social mobility is only possible for limited numbers. Are the 1 million young people currently unemployed to be regarded as surplus to requirement? At the same time a certain level of social mobility does occur.
This also raises the wider issue of the prominence that education is frequently given as being the major route for social mobility/social/economic advancement. Does greater access to Higher Education, such as we have seen in the United Kingdom in the last 20 years, result in greater social mobility?
There has not been a corresponding increase in social mobility matching the increase in numbers in Higher Education. The economic structuring of the job market appears not to be changing so fundamentally that graduates are required in vastly increasing numbers. No matter how much is invested in education financially without corresponding change in the job market ,social mobility will remain relatively unchanged.
This raises the issue as to an understanding of the meaning of social mobility. For economists it is a primarily a matter of increasing income. For sociologists it is a rise in occupational status. As such a useful definition is that provided by Aldrige(2003), “the movement of opportunities for movement between different social classes or occupational groups”. However, this raises further questions. For whom is social mobility possible? What are the possibilities for those living in a deprived inner city location? Who within the class structure can be given “opportunities for movement”? Are we referring to the traditional white working class, the so called “ underclass” or just the better off lower middle class? One suspects that the mindset of those with a social mobility agenda means little more than small numbers of non-middle class individuals gaining middle class social/economic status. What about those born into middle class families who become part of the top 10% of earners via ownership or professional group status? Is this social mobility of the type we are seeking to promote?
When one examines social mobility in both the USA and US Blanden et al (2005) find that of the eight highly developed countries the UK and US have the lowest levels of social mobility. The UK has similar levels of social mobility to the US but the UK position relative to the USA has declined over recent decades. It is suggested that social mobility in the UK has become limited. Blanden et al (2005) reveals a strong correlation between social mobility and income, inequality- i.e countries with longer income differences tend to have lower social mobility. In the later twentieth century social mobility in the US declined as income differences widened. But the issue is not only one of income inequality in the UK and USA but static real wages in the USA where real wages have not increased for many years. Increase in family incomes has occurred through either multiple jobbing or more family members entering the job market. So although family income may have increased in real terms with apparent improvement in social mobility this may not be the case for individuals. The last few years have seen no increase in real wages in the UK with a prediction from the Bank of England that this will continue for some years. Will social mobility grind to a halt? Income inequality looks destined to widen with the vast majority of the wealth created in recent years going to the richest 10%. An economic system that inherently leads to this situation cannot but allow only limited social mobility.
Such data may suggest that anyone may not be able to achieve a better social/economic position for themselves and their families by their own merits and hard work. Equality of opportunity essentially means the possibility of social mobility.
Merit, agency, self determination are important in social mobility but for relatively disadvantaged groups merit based factors are not sufficient in determining opportunities for social mobility. There are structural constraints/factors involved. The class structure is clearly a significant factor for many sociologists. Goldthorpe(2004) suggests that there is little evidence of changes in social openness in the UK despite a vast investment in education aimed at improving equality of opportunity. Despite this, it has been found that there has been downward movement for some groups in the class structure in the UK. Blanden et al (2005) demonstrate that expansion of higher education in the UK has largely benefitted people with richer parents but overall has led to a fall in social mobility. Furthermore as long as low pay dominates much of the service sector- millions of people are required as part time, temporary or casual workers- the chances for escaping from this type of work would appear to be minimal.
We therefore are led to the conclusion that “social mobility” is an unclear term and would appear to mean little more than certain individuals moving upwards through occupational/ class structure. Providing more opportunities in the education system does not appear to have any marked improvement in income inequality in the UK or USA with the economic system ebbing and flowing in and out of recession and public spending being cut for those in greatest need and benefitting those already wealth, clearly, issues of social mobility are not part of the government’s serious agenda.
References
Aldridge, S (2003). The facts about social mobility: A survey of recent evidence on social mobility and its cause. New Economy, 10, (4), 189-193.
Blanden , J, Gregg, P& Machin, S (2005). Intergenerational mobility in Europe and North America. London School of Economics, Centre for Economic Performance.
Goldthrope, J. (2004). Trends in intergenerational mobility in Britain in the late twentieth century. In R. Breen (Ed.) Social mobility in Europe(pp. 195-225). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Milburn, A(2009) Unleashing Aspiration: The Final Report of the Panel of Fair Access to the Professions, Pub: Cabinet Office
Wilkinson, R, Pickett, K(2009) The Spirit Level: Why more equal societies almost always do better, Penguin Books Ltd.
Wright, C; Standen, P; Patel, T , “Black Youth Matters- Transitions from School to Success(2010), Routledge, New York.
Wednesday, 27 April 2011
Wednesday, 20 April 2011
CUTS WILL START TO BITE IN THE NEXT 12 MONTHS
It is now one year since the outcome of the General Election saw the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats form a coalition and embark on a programme of huge cuts in public spending.
Some cuts, such as the tripling of tuition fees and the abolition of the Education Maintenance Allowances, have received a lot of publicity while others have slipped through relatively unnoticed.
The austerity programme is set to last for another four years, but we have already seen decisions taken that will severely impact upon local people in Derby. Here are some examples of the annual costs of the government’s decisions on you and your family.
• The Child Trust Fund that was designed to provide a nest egg for children when they reach adulthood and was worth £250 has been scrapped.
• The rise in VAT will cost an average household an extra £275 each year.
• Removing entitlement to child benefit for people earning over £44,000 will see families losing £1,055 each year for the eldest child and £749 for younger children.
• The decision to freeze the value of child benefit will result in everyone else with children losing over £100 per annum.
• The abolition of the Health in Pregnancy grant will see new mums losing £190.
• The Winter Fuel Allowance for pensioners will be cut this winter by £50 for pensioners under 80 and by £100 for pensioners over 80.
• The Future Jobs Fund that provided financial support to employers to take on young people has been cancelled even though youth unemployment has reached a record high.
Here in Derby Conservative and Liberal Democrat Councillors have agreed huge cuts affecting local people while simultaneously signing off a contract to spend £40m refurbishing the council’s HQ!
They are planning to close six Sure Start children’s centres, four youth centres, the Silk Mill Industrial Museum and recycling facilities around the city. They will also be reducing school transport, refuse collection and library opening times.
The cuts in funding for Derby City Council, Derbyshire Police and Derbyshire Fire Service will see well over 1,000 public service workers losing their jobs. This includes 670 council workers, 178 police officers, 23 PCSOs, 49 fire fighters and 148 non-operational Police and Fire Service staff.
These public service cuts will also impact on local businesses by taking demand out of the local economy. The full impact of that is yet to be determined, but it is likely to be significant. That is why people working inside and outside the public sector should be equally concerned about the impact of the coalition’s cuts.
With fewer people in employment, tax revenues will be reduced; social security payments will increase making it more difficult to reduce the national debt. This was evident at the last budget when George Osborne announced increased borrowing of £45bn.
Some cuts, such as the tripling of tuition fees and the abolition of the Education Maintenance Allowances, have received a lot of publicity while others have slipped through relatively unnoticed.
The austerity programme is set to last for another four years, but we have already seen decisions taken that will severely impact upon local people in Derby. Here are some examples of the annual costs of the government’s decisions on you and your family.
• The Child Trust Fund that was designed to provide a nest egg for children when they reach adulthood and was worth £250 has been scrapped.
• The rise in VAT will cost an average household an extra £275 each year.
• Removing entitlement to child benefit for people earning over £44,000 will see families losing £1,055 each year for the eldest child and £749 for younger children.
• The decision to freeze the value of child benefit will result in everyone else with children losing over £100 per annum.
• The abolition of the Health in Pregnancy grant will see new mums losing £190.
• The Winter Fuel Allowance for pensioners will be cut this winter by £50 for pensioners under 80 and by £100 for pensioners over 80.
• The Future Jobs Fund that provided financial support to employers to take on young people has been cancelled even though youth unemployment has reached a record high.
Here in Derby Conservative and Liberal Democrat Councillors have agreed huge cuts affecting local people while simultaneously signing off a contract to spend £40m refurbishing the council’s HQ!
They are planning to close six Sure Start children’s centres, four youth centres, the Silk Mill Industrial Museum and recycling facilities around the city. They will also be reducing school transport, refuse collection and library opening times.
The cuts in funding for Derby City Council, Derbyshire Police and Derbyshire Fire Service will see well over 1,000 public service workers losing their jobs. This includes 670 council workers, 178 police officers, 23 PCSOs, 49 fire fighters and 148 non-operational Police and Fire Service staff.
These public service cuts will also impact on local businesses by taking demand out of the local economy. The full impact of that is yet to be determined, but it is likely to be significant. That is why people working inside and outside the public sector should be equally concerned about the impact of the coalition’s cuts.
With fewer people in employment, tax revenues will be reduced; social security payments will increase making it more difficult to reduce the national debt. This was evident at the last budget when George Osborne announced increased borrowing of £45bn.
Friday, 8 April 2011
GIVING PARLIAMENTARY TIME TO BLOODSPORTS AT A TIME OF AUSTERITY “BEGGARS BELIEF”
Polling published by ComRes shows that 49% of members of the House of Lords would vote in favour of a repeal of the Hunting Act, while 43% would vote against. The charity that led the campaign to ban hunting says it is encouraged by a “massive shift” in peers’ views.
“Ten years ago, in March 2001, a bill to ban hunting failed by 317 votes to 68 in the House of Lords, and it took another three years to get the ban through. These new figures show how the landscape has changed – the balance of opinion in the Lords has shifted massively against hunting,” said Douglas Batchelor, chief executive of the League Against Cruel Sports.
The polling shows that 85% of peers born since 1960 oppose hunting, compared with 40%of older members.
Figures published today by the League show that a vote in the House of Commons would be lost by a significant majority. 324 MPs have said they would vote against repeal whilst 261 say they would vote in favour. Those opposing repeal include 24 Conservatives. “There is a real sense of shift in both Houses, but with the government committed to a free vote on the issue we cannot be complacent,” said Mr Batchelor. “At a time when everyone’s facing hardship and cuts, it beggars belief that some politicians want to start legalising bloodsports that the vast majority of the public find abhorrent.”
“The modern House of Lords prides itself on really standing up for the views of the public and we have no doubt they’d see sense on this issue,” Mr Batchelor added.
Polling by Ipsos MORI in December found that 76% of the public support the ban on fox hunting, whilst 84% support the ban on hare coursing and stag hunting.
“Ten years ago, in March 2001, a bill to ban hunting failed by 317 votes to 68 in the House of Lords, and it took another three years to get the ban through. These new figures show how the landscape has changed – the balance of opinion in the Lords has shifted massively against hunting,” said Douglas Batchelor, chief executive of the League Against Cruel Sports.
The polling shows that 85% of peers born since 1960 oppose hunting, compared with 40%of older members.
Figures published today by the League show that a vote in the House of Commons would be lost by a significant majority. 324 MPs have said they would vote against repeal whilst 261 say they would vote in favour. Those opposing repeal include 24 Conservatives. “There is a real sense of shift in both Houses, but with the government committed to a free vote on the issue we cannot be complacent,” said Mr Batchelor. “At a time when everyone’s facing hardship and cuts, it beggars belief that some politicians want to start legalising bloodsports that the vast majority of the public find abhorrent.”
“The modern House of Lords prides itself on really standing up for the views of the public and we have no doubt they’d see sense on this issue,” Mr Batchelor added.
Polling by Ipsos MORI in December found that 76% of the public support the ban on fox hunting, whilst 84% support the ban on hare coursing and stag hunting.
Friday, 25 February 2011
SCORCHED EARTH POLICIES EXACERBATE YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT
Last week’s publication of the latest youth unemployment figures made for highly depressing reading. In the last three months of 2010 youth unemployment increased by 66,000 to 965,000 and now stands at 20.5 per cent – the highest level since comparable records began in 1992.
The information about unemployment has come at a time when the Government is stacking the odds even further against young people making it more difficult for them to get on in life. By forcing children and families to bear the brunt of their cuts, this Tory-led Government is showing that they have no idea what pressure ordinary families and young people are under.
In spite of the dismal youth unemployment statistics, the Government is sticking to its decision to scrap the ‘Future Jobs Fund’ that made sure young people were guaranteed work or training. It is also cancelling a number of other schemes specifically designed to give young people a leg up. Child Trust Funds and Educational Maintenance Allowances are being abolished while university tuition fees are being tripled. Here in Derby, six Sure Start children centres are under threat of closure and almost 10,000 city residents have already signed Labour’s petition to save them.
These policies are being implemented even though, less than a year ago, the Prime Minister David Cameron, promised to protect young people’s services. He pledged to back Sure Start Children’s centres, keep Educational Maintenance Allowances, and continue to provide Child Trust Funds for children from the poorest families. But he has changed his mind and the long term consequences of Mr Cameron’s volte-face will blight the prospects for many young people in Derby throughout the course of their lives. His policies are making it harder for young people to continue in education, get a decent job and buy a home of their own.
When I was growing up with my peers, we were able to look forward with a sense of optimistic anticipation that we would enjoy greater opportunities and prosperity than our parents. Indeed that has been true for every generation growing up in the post-war era. But the policies being pursued by the current Government will make life a lot more challenging for young people. We are entering a period when, for the first time in post-war history, the promise of a better life to future generations will be broken.
Government ministers try to justify their scorched earth economic policy by saying they want to avoid passing on debt to future generations. But by insisting on cutting the deficit so quickly, their legacy is likely to be considerably worse, with long term mass unemployment, negative or minimal economic growth and emaciated public services. They should be investing to secure improvements in the quality of life for upcoming generations - something the British people have enjoyed ever since they elected the first majority Labour Government in 1945.
With the country now teetering on the brink of a double-dip recession, the Government should change course to offer hope to young people who are contemplating what the future holds. But there isn’t any sign of a change of heart. On the contrary, George Osborne seems determined to plough on with policies that will scar the lives of many young people long into the future.
The Government would do well to heed the words of the great Nelson Mandela who said: "There can be no keener revelation of a society's soul than the way in which it treats its children.” The evidence of the last nine months shows that this Conservative-Liberal Government is quite clearly failing Nelson Mandela’s test.
The information about unemployment has come at a time when the Government is stacking the odds even further against young people making it more difficult for them to get on in life. By forcing children and families to bear the brunt of their cuts, this Tory-led Government is showing that they have no idea what pressure ordinary families and young people are under.
In spite of the dismal youth unemployment statistics, the Government is sticking to its decision to scrap the ‘Future Jobs Fund’ that made sure young people were guaranteed work or training. It is also cancelling a number of other schemes specifically designed to give young people a leg up. Child Trust Funds and Educational Maintenance Allowances are being abolished while university tuition fees are being tripled. Here in Derby, six Sure Start children centres are under threat of closure and almost 10,000 city residents have already signed Labour’s petition to save them.
These policies are being implemented even though, less than a year ago, the Prime Minister David Cameron, promised to protect young people’s services. He pledged to back Sure Start Children’s centres, keep Educational Maintenance Allowances, and continue to provide Child Trust Funds for children from the poorest families. But he has changed his mind and the long term consequences of Mr Cameron’s volte-face will blight the prospects for many young people in Derby throughout the course of their lives. His policies are making it harder for young people to continue in education, get a decent job and buy a home of their own.
When I was growing up with my peers, we were able to look forward with a sense of optimistic anticipation that we would enjoy greater opportunities and prosperity than our parents. Indeed that has been true for every generation growing up in the post-war era. But the policies being pursued by the current Government will make life a lot more challenging for young people. We are entering a period when, for the first time in post-war history, the promise of a better life to future generations will be broken.
Government ministers try to justify their scorched earth economic policy by saying they want to avoid passing on debt to future generations. But by insisting on cutting the deficit so quickly, their legacy is likely to be considerably worse, with long term mass unemployment, negative or minimal economic growth and emaciated public services. They should be investing to secure improvements in the quality of life for upcoming generations - something the British people have enjoyed ever since they elected the first majority Labour Government in 1945.
With the country now teetering on the brink of a double-dip recession, the Government should change course to offer hope to young people who are contemplating what the future holds. But there isn’t any sign of a change of heart. On the contrary, George Osborne seems determined to plough on with policies that will scar the lives of many young people long into the future.
The Government would do well to heed the words of the great Nelson Mandela who said: "There can be no keener revelation of a society's soul than the way in which it treats its children.” The evidence of the last nine months shows that this Conservative-Liberal Government is quite clearly failing Nelson Mandela’s test.
Wednesday, 23 February 2011
DAVID CAMERON GETS 10 OUT OF 10 FOR U-TURNS
David Cameron’s Government has shown the same pattern again and again in its approach to policymaking.
First, the hasty, ill-thought-through announcement. Next, the chorus of opposition from those who understand the dangerous consequences of the policy. Finally, the humiliating u-turn.
The Tory-led Government isn’t just going too far and too fast in its approach to cutting the deficit – on policy after policy, the Government has rushed headlong in the wrong direction, and then been forced by its own incompetence into one embarrassing climbdown after another.
U-TURN: FORESTRY SELL-OFF
The Government announced last year that it intended to dispose of public forest estate, “with diminishing public ownership and a greater role for private and civil society partners”. Forestry minister Jim Paice said that the disposal “could go to the extent of all of it”.
The proposal met widespread opposition, including a petition signed by over half a million people. Charities including the National Trust, the Woodland Trust and the RSPB raised serious concerns.
Ed Miliband challenged David Cameron over the policy at Prime Minister’s Questions on 16 February; Mr Cameron admitted that he was not happy with the policy, but refused to commit to cancelling it.
By the end of the day, the policy had been dropped altogether.
U-TURN: HOUSING BENEFIT CUT BY 10% FOR LONG-TERM UNEMPLOYED
George Osborne’s June Budget contained a policy to cut Housing Benefit by 10% for people who had been on Jobseekers Allowance for 12 months.
The policy was strongly criticised by expert groups including Shelter, Gingerbread and the Child Poverty Action Group.
Ed Miliband challenged David Cameron on the 10% cut in housing benefit for long-term JSA claimants at Prime Minister’s Questions in October. David Cameron said that “These are difficult changes, but I think that they are right” and “we are sticking to our plans”.
Labour repeatedly made it clear that it strongly opposed the policy, with then Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary describing it as “completely unacceptable”.
Now, Iain Duncan Smith has confirmed that the policy has been dropped.
U-TURN: ANONYMITY FOR RAPE DEFENDANTS
The Coalition agreement included a commitment to “extend anonymity in rape cases to
defendants”. This had not been included in either the Conservative or Liberal Democrat
manifesto.
Harriet Harman, as Labour Leader, raised the issue with David Cameron at Prime Minister’s Questions in June. Mr Cameron defended the policy, saying “I think this does represent a good
way forward”.
The plans were dropped in July.
U-TURN: 55% THRESHOLD FOR DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT
The Coalition agreement included a commitment to require 55% of the House of Commons to vote in favour of the dissolution of Parliament before the end of a fixed five-year term.
This had not been included in either the Conservative or Liberal Democrat manifesto.
The proposal met cross-party opposition, with strong criticism from, amongst others,
Conservative David Davis and former Labour ministers David Blunkett, Jack Straw and Lord Falconer.
The Government announced a u-turn in July. Nick Clegg said that instead of the 55% rule, there would be a provision for a general election to be held if a Government could not be formed within 14 days of a vote of no confidence.
U-TURN: AUTOMATIC PRISON SENTENCES FOR CARRYING A KNIFE
Before the election, David Cameron said that people caught carrying a knife “should go to prison” as an “automatic deterrent”.
The Government’s December Green Paper on Sentencing says that they will develop a new “community based intervention” for people caught in possession of a knife. It says that only adults caught committing a crime with a knife and juveniles found guilty of serious knife offences can expect to go to prison.
U-TURN: DAVID CAMERON’S PERSONAL PHOTOGRAPHER
In November it was reported that Andrew Parsons, David Cameron’s personal photographer, had been given a civil service contract after previously being a member of Conservative Party staff. Nicky Woodhouse, who ran the Webcameron website, was also given a civil service job.
Ed Miliband raised the issue at Prime Minister’s Questions in November. David Cameron
complained about the question, saying “Honestly, why not engage with the issues?”
Two weeks later, on the day of the announcement of the Royal Wedding, David Cameron reversed the decision to employ Mr Parsons and Ms Woodhouse.
U-TURN: SCHOOL SPORT CUTS
In October, Michael Gove wrote to Baroness Sue Campbell of the Youth Sport Trust to tell her that the Government was cutting its £162 million funding for school sports partnerships.
Ed Miliband challenged David Cameron on the issue at Prime Minister’s Questions in November, saying that it was “frankly a daft decision that he should U-turn on as soon as possible“. David Cameron defended the policy. The Department for Education said that “The decision around the £162m and the sports strategy has been made and will not be reversed."
On 20 December, in a partial u-turn, Michael Gove announced that he had found an additional £112 million of funding to continue school sport partnerships and support school sport.
U-TURN: BOOKSTART CUTS
On 17 December the charity Booktrust, which provides free books for children from the age of nine months until 11, was informed by the Department for Education that funding for all of its English bookgifting programmes was to be cut by 100% from April 2011.
Well-known authors including Ian McEwan and Carol Anne Duffy attacked the plan. Philip Pullman described it as “sheer stupid vandalism”. Ed Miliband called on the Government to reconsider.
The Department for Education initially continued to maintain that “in these difficult economic times ministers have to take tough decisions on spending”.
In January, the Government announced that it would “continue to fund Booktrust book-gifting programmes in the future”.
U-TURN: FREE SCHOOL MILK SCRAPPED
In August 2010, Public Health Minister Anne Milton wrote to her Scottish counterpart Shona Robison to tell her about “our proposals to abolish the long-standing statutory Nursery Milk scheme”. She admitted “I am aware that the abolition of the scheme is likely to he highly controversial, particularly as this will affect some children in low-income families.”
Universities minister David Willetts defended the policy on air, before being informed mid-interview of a statement from Downing Street saying that it had in fact been scrapped.
U-TURN: DEBT ADVICE CUTS
The Government confirmed in January that it planned to close the Financial Inclusion Fund, which helped Citizens’ Advice increase the availability of face-to-face debt advice to financially excluded clients, at the end of March 2011.
Citizens’ Advice Chief Executive Gillian Guy told the Justice Select Committee that the axing of the Financial Inclusion Fund, taken together with the other cuts to the funding of Citizens’ Advice, would have a “devastating” impact on the kind of advice it would provide at a time of increasing demand.
Last week, the Government announced that it would provide £27 million of funding to
continue debt advice services for another year.
First, the hasty, ill-thought-through announcement. Next, the chorus of opposition from those who understand the dangerous consequences of the policy. Finally, the humiliating u-turn.
The Tory-led Government isn’t just going too far and too fast in its approach to cutting the deficit – on policy after policy, the Government has rushed headlong in the wrong direction, and then been forced by its own incompetence into one embarrassing climbdown after another.
U-TURN: FORESTRY SELL-OFF
The Government announced last year that it intended to dispose of public forest estate, “with diminishing public ownership and a greater role for private and civil society partners”. Forestry minister Jim Paice said that the disposal “could go to the extent of all of it”.
The proposal met widespread opposition, including a petition signed by over half a million people. Charities including the National Trust, the Woodland Trust and the RSPB raised serious concerns.
Ed Miliband challenged David Cameron over the policy at Prime Minister’s Questions on 16 February; Mr Cameron admitted that he was not happy with the policy, but refused to commit to cancelling it.
By the end of the day, the policy had been dropped altogether.
U-TURN: HOUSING BENEFIT CUT BY 10% FOR LONG-TERM UNEMPLOYED
George Osborne’s June Budget contained a policy to cut Housing Benefit by 10% for people who had been on Jobseekers Allowance for 12 months.
The policy was strongly criticised by expert groups including Shelter, Gingerbread and the Child Poverty Action Group.
Ed Miliband challenged David Cameron on the 10% cut in housing benefit for long-term JSA claimants at Prime Minister’s Questions in October. David Cameron said that “These are difficult changes, but I think that they are right” and “we are sticking to our plans”.
Labour repeatedly made it clear that it strongly opposed the policy, with then Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary describing it as “completely unacceptable”.
Now, Iain Duncan Smith has confirmed that the policy has been dropped.
U-TURN: ANONYMITY FOR RAPE DEFENDANTS
The Coalition agreement included a commitment to “extend anonymity in rape cases to
defendants”. This had not been included in either the Conservative or Liberal Democrat
manifesto.
Harriet Harman, as Labour Leader, raised the issue with David Cameron at Prime Minister’s Questions in June. Mr Cameron defended the policy, saying “I think this does represent a good
way forward”.
The plans were dropped in July.
U-TURN: 55% THRESHOLD FOR DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT
The Coalition agreement included a commitment to require 55% of the House of Commons to vote in favour of the dissolution of Parliament before the end of a fixed five-year term.
This had not been included in either the Conservative or Liberal Democrat manifesto.
The proposal met cross-party opposition, with strong criticism from, amongst others,
Conservative David Davis and former Labour ministers David Blunkett, Jack Straw and Lord Falconer.
The Government announced a u-turn in July. Nick Clegg said that instead of the 55% rule, there would be a provision for a general election to be held if a Government could not be formed within 14 days of a vote of no confidence.
U-TURN: AUTOMATIC PRISON SENTENCES FOR CARRYING A KNIFE
Before the election, David Cameron said that people caught carrying a knife “should go to prison” as an “automatic deterrent”.
The Government’s December Green Paper on Sentencing says that they will develop a new “community based intervention” for people caught in possession of a knife. It says that only adults caught committing a crime with a knife and juveniles found guilty of serious knife offences can expect to go to prison.
U-TURN: DAVID CAMERON’S PERSONAL PHOTOGRAPHER
In November it was reported that Andrew Parsons, David Cameron’s personal photographer, had been given a civil service contract after previously being a member of Conservative Party staff. Nicky Woodhouse, who ran the Webcameron website, was also given a civil service job.
Ed Miliband raised the issue at Prime Minister’s Questions in November. David Cameron
complained about the question, saying “Honestly, why not engage with the issues?”
Two weeks later, on the day of the announcement of the Royal Wedding, David Cameron reversed the decision to employ Mr Parsons and Ms Woodhouse.
U-TURN: SCHOOL SPORT CUTS
In October, Michael Gove wrote to Baroness Sue Campbell of the Youth Sport Trust to tell her that the Government was cutting its £162 million funding for school sports partnerships.
Ed Miliband challenged David Cameron on the issue at Prime Minister’s Questions in November, saying that it was “frankly a daft decision that he should U-turn on as soon as possible“. David Cameron defended the policy. The Department for Education said that “The decision around the £162m and the sports strategy has been made and will not be reversed."
On 20 December, in a partial u-turn, Michael Gove announced that he had found an additional £112 million of funding to continue school sport partnerships and support school sport.
U-TURN: BOOKSTART CUTS
On 17 December the charity Booktrust, which provides free books for children from the age of nine months until 11, was informed by the Department for Education that funding for all of its English bookgifting programmes was to be cut by 100% from April 2011.
Well-known authors including Ian McEwan and Carol Anne Duffy attacked the plan. Philip Pullman described it as “sheer stupid vandalism”. Ed Miliband called on the Government to reconsider.
The Department for Education initially continued to maintain that “in these difficult economic times ministers have to take tough decisions on spending”.
In January, the Government announced that it would “continue to fund Booktrust book-gifting programmes in the future”.
U-TURN: FREE SCHOOL MILK SCRAPPED
In August 2010, Public Health Minister Anne Milton wrote to her Scottish counterpart Shona Robison to tell her about “our proposals to abolish the long-standing statutory Nursery Milk scheme”. She admitted “I am aware that the abolition of the scheme is likely to he highly controversial, particularly as this will affect some children in low-income families.”
Universities minister David Willetts defended the policy on air, before being informed mid-interview of a statement from Downing Street saying that it had in fact been scrapped.
U-TURN: DEBT ADVICE CUTS
The Government confirmed in January that it planned to close the Financial Inclusion Fund, which helped Citizens’ Advice increase the availability of face-to-face debt advice to financially excluded clients, at the end of March 2011.
Citizens’ Advice Chief Executive Gillian Guy told the Justice Select Committee that the axing of the Financial Inclusion Fund, taken together with the other cuts to the funding of Citizens’ Advice, would have a “devastating” impact on the kind of advice it would provide at a time of increasing demand.
Last week, the Government announced that it would provide £27 million of funding to
continue debt advice services for another year.
Tuesday, 15 February 2011
AV DOES NOT EQUATE TO FAIR VOTING
A line in Tom Stoppard’s 1972 'Jumpers' says: “It’s not the voting that’s democracy, it’s the counting.”
The same could be said for AV. It has been claimed that AV would allow voters to “vote for who they really want to win and still have a vote that counts.” Indeed, Nick Clegg, in his evidence to the Select Committee, claimed that AV “...stops people voting tactically”.
However, the Lib Dems have never worried about the facts getting in the way of their misleading brand of politics. Clegg was wrong when he made this assertion to the Select Committee It’s not surprising therefore that the Ipsos MORI Social Research Institute’s Guide to the Alternative Vote says: “This is DEMONSTRABLY NOT TRUE (their emphasis). In fact there is complex mathematical proof, the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem, that no meaningful electoral system can eliminate the possibility of tactical voting.” http://tinyurl.com/5soxulc
Indeed, the guide goes onto say: “...the situation is very easy to demonstrate in the case of AV...there is a real incentive for tactical voting, because the order in which candidates are eliminated affects the results.” The guide reinforces the point saying: “...there are extra tactical voting possibilities under AV that mean it is possible that ‘honest’ voting is sometimes directly counter-productive.”
So, while it is true that, under AV, voters are unlikely to cast their first choice tactically, the evidence from Australia is that voting in AV elections is highly tactical since it is necessary to place candidates in a very specific order of preference to maximise the chances of any particular favoured candidate. This is explained in the Constitution Society’s AV briefing paper.
This is pretty powerful proof that tactical voting will not cease under AV, it will simply shift to the voter’s second choice. So to those who say AV represents fair votes, I say – don’t make me laugh.
The same could be said for AV. It has been claimed that AV would allow voters to “vote for who they really want to win and still have a vote that counts.” Indeed, Nick Clegg, in his evidence to the Select Committee, claimed that AV “...stops people voting tactically”.
However, the Lib Dems have never worried about the facts getting in the way of their misleading brand of politics. Clegg was wrong when he made this assertion to the Select Committee It’s not surprising therefore that the Ipsos MORI Social Research Institute’s Guide to the Alternative Vote says: “This is DEMONSTRABLY NOT TRUE (their emphasis). In fact there is complex mathematical proof, the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem, that no meaningful electoral system can eliminate the possibility of tactical voting.” http://tinyurl.com/5soxulc
Indeed, the guide goes onto say: “...the situation is very easy to demonstrate in the case of AV...there is a real incentive for tactical voting, because the order in which candidates are eliminated affects the results.” The guide reinforces the point saying: “...there are extra tactical voting possibilities under AV that mean it is possible that ‘honest’ voting is sometimes directly counter-productive.”
So, while it is true that, under AV, voters are unlikely to cast their first choice tactically, the evidence from Australia is that voting in AV elections is highly tactical since it is necessary to place candidates in a very specific order of preference to maximise the chances of any particular favoured candidate. This is explained in the Constitution Society’s AV briefing paper.
This is pretty powerful proof that tactical voting will not cease under AV, it will simply shift to the voter’s second choice. So to those who say AV represents fair votes, I say – don’t make me laugh.
Saturday, 5 February 2011
USELESS GIMMICK LEAVES POOREST COMMUNITIES HIGH AND DRY
Innovative solutions are required if we are to successfully enable those families who are trapped by a combination of poverty and geography to aspire to – and achieve – a better life. In my view, this isn’t something that can be left to David Cameron’s so-called ‘Big Society’. There is only so much that charities, voluntary organisations and local neighbourhoods can achieve on their own. There has to be a role for democratically accountable statutory agencies to play a part in delivering better outcomes for the communities they serve. The Total Place programme that was adopted by Labour in 2009 represented a really good start at doing so. It was designed to look at public spending and local leadership in 13 areas to identify how significant efficiencies and better collaboration could be achieved.
Total Place was first outlined in the White Paper ‘Smarter Government: Putting the frontline first’. It stated that: “Total Place pilots will provide evidence of how to unlock value within an area...by reducing duplication and...services more squarely on the needs of the users.” It promised freedoms and flexibilities that would help to “recast the relationship” between the centre and the frontline. The 13 areas in England that were covered by the initiative included 63 local authorities, 34 primary care trusts and 13 police authorities. They included a wide range of socio-economic and demographic characteristics, different local authority structures, a population of some 11 million people and a budget worth more than £82bn in public spending.
Each pilot area addressed a range of challenging issues, which included tackling unemployment and worklessness, crime and offender management including dealing with people leaving prison and young offenders’ institutions. The pilot projects also dealt with young people leaving the care system and commissioning health and social care services for children and adults.
This place-based approach to local public services demonstrated that it is possible to use a pioneering new approach to deliver better outcomes and improved value for money. The early success of the pilots was highlighted in another Government publication “Total Place: a whole area approach to public services”, which set out the case for change stressing the value of early intervention and data sharing. It also pointed to the complexity and fragmentation of public services when viewed from the citizen’s perspective. This makes it more difficult to tackle the downward spiral caused by poverty that leads to low aspiration and creates a trap into which too many families have fallen.
Apart from the moral imperative, the other key driver to developing a new approach is the unprecedented cuts in public spending. Public bodies must identify significant efficiencies if they are to have any chance of playing a part in helping families living in poverty to transform their lives for the better. I was initially encouraged when the Conservative-led Government said it supported the principles of Total Place. The evidence from the pilots showed that real savings could be made at the same time as improving the outcomes for local people. But the decision to alter and rebrand it as a ‘Community Budget’ is potentially disastrous. The Government has effectively neutered its new Community Budget proposal by excluding health, police and probation services that were included in the original Total Place initiative. The fragmentation of schools funding, abolition of PCTs and the introduction of elected police commissioners with their own agenda will make effective joint working almost impossible.
Yet it is in society’s interests to find ways of unlocking the pool of human talent that is wasted because families who are poor are often ground down by coping with multiple problems. Poverty and lack of aspiration can often lead to alcohol and drug abuse, criminality and anti social behaviour. Yet the Government’s response to the problems caused by long term unemployment, poverty and deprivation is to bury its collective head in the sand. Inflicting unprecedented public spending cuts whilst simultaneously dropping a proven methodology to do more with less is frankly bonkers. The Government’s approach could create a perfect storm leaving local authorities unable to cope. With rising unemployment, poverty and deprivation, local councils and other public bodies will be faced with rising demands on their services. But with much reduced budgets and far fewer staff to deliver public services, the challenges for many local authorities will prove to be overwhelming.
The danger is that in such an environment, vulnerable families will get less support and that could create big problems in the future. Moving away from Total Place and restricting Community Based Budgets to local government funding, albeit with less ring fencing, undermines the ability to address the needs of disadvantaged families with complex needs. As the Total Place pilots showed, there are considerable social, economic and financial advantages to a joined-up approach to such households. I have seen the benefits of early intervention with young people at risk of getting involved in criminality and anti-social behaviour, which can have remarkable outcomes. I know young people who were abusing drugs, committing burglaries and whose parents didn’t know how to be parents who have been able to completely turn their lives around.
In addition to the direct benefits to the young people and their families, such interventions provide massive long-term savings to the public purse and huge benefits to the wider community too. My worry is that because Community Budgets are restricted to local government funding, opportunities will be lost to develop new ground-breaking ways to help people transform their lives. John Tizard, the director of the Centre for Public Service Partnerships seems to agree. He suggests that councils should be given total discretion over how they work with families who have complex needs in order to develop and introduce truly innovative long-term sustainable solutions. He believes it is essential that the Department for Work and Pensions and Jobcentre Plus are devolved to localities. He describes Community Budgets as “a compromise too far” and asks why the DCLG has failed to convince other Whitehall departments of the benefits of localism based on democratic local government. It is a good question, but I doubt he will get a sensible answer out of the Tory Secretary of State who is in denial about the impact of the cuts.
Eric Pickles’ insists that reduced funding won’t lead to big cutbacks in local government services, but that assertion is only credible in the most affluent Tory strongholds. The poorest parts of the country are being hammered making his Community Budgets nothing more than a useless gimmick. In these areas the local authority is usually the main employer. But with large-scale council redundancies being announced, working class communities are going to be particularly hard hit by deteriorating public services and far fewer job opportunities.
But genuine localism, exemplified in Labour’s Total Place programme, offered a blueprint to transform public services and the lives of millions of families who rely on them. One thing is certain – Eric Pickles’ ‘Total Place Lite’ is not the answer.
Total Place was first outlined in the White Paper ‘Smarter Government: Putting the frontline first’. It stated that: “Total Place pilots will provide evidence of how to unlock value within an area...by reducing duplication and...services more squarely on the needs of the users.” It promised freedoms and flexibilities that would help to “recast the relationship” between the centre and the frontline. The 13 areas in England that were covered by the initiative included 63 local authorities, 34 primary care trusts and 13 police authorities. They included a wide range of socio-economic and demographic characteristics, different local authority structures, a population of some 11 million people and a budget worth more than £82bn in public spending.
Each pilot area addressed a range of challenging issues, which included tackling unemployment and worklessness, crime and offender management including dealing with people leaving prison and young offenders’ institutions. The pilot projects also dealt with young people leaving the care system and commissioning health and social care services for children and adults.
This place-based approach to local public services demonstrated that it is possible to use a pioneering new approach to deliver better outcomes and improved value for money. The early success of the pilots was highlighted in another Government publication “Total Place: a whole area approach to public services”, which set out the case for change stressing the value of early intervention and data sharing. It also pointed to the complexity and fragmentation of public services when viewed from the citizen’s perspective. This makes it more difficult to tackle the downward spiral caused by poverty that leads to low aspiration and creates a trap into which too many families have fallen.
Apart from the moral imperative, the other key driver to developing a new approach is the unprecedented cuts in public spending. Public bodies must identify significant efficiencies if they are to have any chance of playing a part in helping families living in poverty to transform their lives for the better. I was initially encouraged when the Conservative-led Government said it supported the principles of Total Place. The evidence from the pilots showed that real savings could be made at the same time as improving the outcomes for local people. But the decision to alter and rebrand it as a ‘Community Budget’ is potentially disastrous. The Government has effectively neutered its new Community Budget proposal by excluding health, police and probation services that were included in the original Total Place initiative. The fragmentation of schools funding, abolition of PCTs and the introduction of elected police commissioners with their own agenda will make effective joint working almost impossible.
Yet it is in society’s interests to find ways of unlocking the pool of human talent that is wasted because families who are poor are often ground down by coping with multiple problems. Poverty and lack of aspiration can often lead to alcohol and drug abuse, criminality and anti social behaviour. Yet the Government’s response to the problems caused by long term unemployment, poverty and deprivation is to bury its collective head in the sand. Inflicting unprecedented public spending cuts whilst simultaneously dropping a proven methodology to do more with less is frankly bonkers. The Government’s approach could create a perfect storm leaving local authorities unable to cope. With rising unemployment, poverty and deprivation, local councils and other public bodies will be faced with rising demands on their services. But with much reduced budgets and far fewer staff to deliver public services, the challenges for many local authorities will prove to be overwhelming.
The danger is that in such an environment, vulnerable families will get less support and that could create big problems in the future. Moving away from Total Place and restricting Community Based Budgets to local government funding, albeit with less ring fencing, undermines the ability to address the needs of disadvantaged families with complex needs. As the Total Place pilots showed, there are considerable social, economic and financial advantages to a joined-up approach to such households. I have seen the benefits of early intervention with young people at risk of getting involved in criminality and anti-social behaviour, which can have remarkable outcomes. I know young people who were abusing drugs, committing burglaries and whose parents didn’t know how to be parents who have been able to completely turn their lives around.
In addition to the direct benefits to the young people and their families, such interventions provide massive long-term savings to the public purse and huge benefits to the wider community too. My worry is that because Community Budgets are restricted to local government funding, opportunities will be lost to develop new ground-breaking ways to help people transform their lives. John Tizard, the director of the Centre for Public Service Partnerships seems to agree. He suggests that councils should be given total discretion over how they work with families who have complex needs in order to develop and introduce truly innovative long-term sustainable solutions. He believes it is essential that the Department for Work and Pensions and Jobcentre Plus are devolved to localities. He describes Community Budgets as “a compromise too far” and asks why the DCLG has failed to convince other Whitehall departments of the benefits of localism based on democratic local government. It is a good question, but I doubt he will get a sensible answer out of the Tory Secretary of State who is in denial about the impact of the cuts.
Eric Pickles’ insists that reduced funding won’t lead to big cutbacks in local government services, but that assertion is only credible in the most affluent Tory strongholds. The poorest parts of the country are being hammered making his Community Budgets nothing more than a useless gimmick. In these areas the local authority is usually the main employer. But with large-scale council redundancies being announced, working class communities are going to be particularly hard hit by deteriorating public services and far fewer job opportunities.
But genuine localism, exemplified in Labour’s Total Place programme, offered a blueprint to transform public services and the lives of millions of families who rely on them. One thing is certain – Eric Pickles’ ‘Total Place Lite’ is not the answer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
