Tabloid headlines are no basis for policy-making

Tweet

 

In their attempts to justify their planned reductions in the bill for welfare payments, Sir Starmer and his government have increasingly taken to describing their demand that anyone who can work should work as some sort of moral crusade. The underlying argument, albeit not always expressed in clear terms, seems to be that there is some sort of contract between the state and its citizens, as part of which the state agrees to protect vulnerable citizens whilst citizens agree to contribute by getting themselves gainfully employed. There’s a lot to unpick there.

It treats the state and its citizens as two different parties to said contract. Yet, in theory at least, the state is claimed to be nothing more than the way in which citizens act collectively. But if the state and the citizens are really one and the same, it’s an odd sort of contract. In the way that Labour increasingly talk about the relationship between citizens (or workers, to use their preferred term, which treats anyone not making an economic contribution as a second-class citizen) and the state, it seems as though they are closer to the Marxist understanding of the bourgeois state as an arm of the bourgeoisie to which others sell their labour – with Labour placing itself firmly on the bourgeoisie side of that equation. Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt, though, and assume that it’s just clumsy wording on their behalf, and that what they really mean is that membership of society confers both rights for its members and responsibilities to other members, and that the state is the way in which that relationship is managed and maintained.

I suspect that most of us (even if not all of us) would agree that we want to live in a society which provides a decent living for people who are young, or old, or sick, or disabled as well as those who work. By and large, we’d extend that protection to people who are temporarily out of work. Labour’s target seems to be twofold: firstly, people who can work but choose not to, and secondly tightening the definition of those who can’t work, particularly as it relates to the sick and disabled. Both are problematic. Whilst there is no doubt that there are some people who see a life on benefits as a valid life-style choice, the number is actually not as large as some tabloid headlines would suggest, and neither is the lifestyle as generous or luxurious as said tabloids would have us believe. Similarly, whilst there is no doubt that some of those who are sick or disabled could do some sort of work, the approach to assessing fitness for work – which has been largely outsourced to private providers, frequently with no medical qualifications or experience, who have performance targets to reduce the numbers – has often been heartless and cruel, to say nothing of unfair and stressful. And the sort of work which the individuals theoretically could do isn’t always available anyway. More generally, even if the number of people unemployed matches the number of vacancies, it doesn’t follow that they’re in the right places or that there’s a skills match. A carpenter in Ceredigion can’t simply become a brain surgeon in Banff.

Accepting all those caveats and exceptions, there are undoubtedly a number of people who could be gainfully employed but aren’t, even if the numbers (and therefore the potential resulting financial savings) of those who could actually be matched with suitable vacancies are very much lower that the government likes to claim. Arguably, there is a group of people who are not meeting their side of the contract with their fellow citizens. The issue of what should be done is, however, a great deal more complicated than the simple mathematics used to calculate benefits savings might suggest. Cutting the level of benefits payments is a blunt instrument, even if it could be precisely targeted (perhaps in the age of Sir Starmer, we should say ‘laser-focussed’ which seems to be his in-word) only at that small number of people, because it doesn’t only affect individuals, it also hits their families. Reducing their income can have other consequences such as homelessness which lead to other costs and problems. Even if – and it’s a very, very big if – we, as a society, want to make that group of people suffer, to starve them into accepting whatever work might be available even if not suitable, do we really want to push their children into poverty and homelessness? That’s not a consequence which sits well alongside other alleged government priorities.

At the heart of the issue is a really simple question: how does a society enforce the obligations of membership as well as protecting the rights? The question is simple enough, but the same cannot be said about the answer. Just about the only certainty is that sanctions for non-compliance aren’t the right answer when it comes to benefits, although they seem to be the only ones that Sir Starmer and his crew are considering. A political agenda driven by tabloid headlines and prejudices causes more problems than it solves.

Education with a purpose

Tweet When the annual A-level results were announced recently, we had the usual scattering of famous and successful people drawing attention to the fact that they didn’t get where they are today by passing exams.  It’s true, of course.  But the idea that such a route to fame and fortune might therefore await all those youngsters who are not successful in education owes more to the natural human tendency to assume that ‘we’ are typical than it does to any rational examination of the facts.  For sure, there will always be some people who enjoy ‘success’ regardless of academic qualifications (or lack of) due to some other talents that they possess – or in some cases down to sheer luck at being in the right place at the right time – but that’s far from being the norm.

There has also recently been some attention paid to the increase in the number of young people going to university – a trend which may well increase with the removal of caps on the number of places offered.  It leads to a situation where the number of graduates coming out of universities exceeds the likely number of ‘graduate’ jobs.  Actually, I think that the number of ‘graduate’ jobs has, in any case, been inflated for many years.  Whilst there are some jobs for which a degree is essential (I don’t think I’d want to be treated by a doctor whose highest relevant qualification was a Biology A level, for example), in many other fields the stipulation that a job is only open to graduates is just a lazy approach by employers to filtering the applications they would otherwise receive.

But in any event, why should a degree lead to a ‘graduate job’?  The suggestion that there should be a direct link from one to the other is one which isn’t challenged enough.  Those who argue that there are now ‘too many’ graduates, who have studied the ‘wrong’ subjects, are starting from a very instrumentalist view of the purpose of education.  At the heart of that perspective is the view that the job of the education system is to turn out the right number of people with the right qualifications to meet the needs of employing organisations.  It is, in short, a factory producing a workforce.

Disguised as a pragmatic approach to meeting needs, it is based, in essence, on an ideological viewpoint, which responds to the needs of the predominant ideology of the day, namely capitalism.  And it is an ideology accepted by politicians of all parties, which is why so many are able to talk about ‘post-ideological’ politics.  Ideology has never gone away; it’s simply that they’ve all signed up to one single ideology.

But for some of us, education and learning have their own intrinsic merit as part of a process through which humanity develops and which enables people to seek fulfilment other than through work.  Education solely for the purposes of employment is a way of ensuring continued subjugation to the needs of the economic system; education as a vehicle for personal and collective improvement is potentially a vehicle for regaining the freedom which has been lost. It might even be argued that more widespread education for its own sake is one of the means by which the current system can, ultimately, be changed.  A seed of destruction, perhaps? The lack of politicians who understand and support that view merely underlines the extent to which the prevailing ideology is dominating political thought.

Socks, gags, and red tape

Tweet A number of MPs and journalists have been getting quite excited recently about what they like to call “gagging clauses” in the agreements under which some public sector employees – notably in the health service – have left their posts.  The suspicion is that, ungagged, the ex-employees concerned would have some juicy stories to tell.

I suspect reality is rather more mundane than that.  What are more properly called “compromise agreements” are not unique to the public sector in any event; and buying the silence of those with whom they are made is rarely – if ever – the main objective (although it would be hard to draw that conclusion from the press coverage).

They are, rather, an attempt to short-circuit the processes which employees who might feel their dismissal to be unfair could otherwise follow, including of course employment tribunals.  Pay people enough, the theory goes, and you can sack them for any reason you like – even the colour of their socks. 

From the employer’s point of view it avoids the hassle and bother of the legal processes.  That’s what some of the same people condemning the practice might otherwise call “red tape” – that’s certainly a label which has been placed on the process by Tory MPs and ministers in the past.  There’s a certain amount of irony in seeing some of that party’s MPs being so vocal about the practice, given that background.

The “gagging” part is usually incidental.  Is it necessary?  In almost all cases, probably not.  Staff offered such an agreement don’t have to accept it, of course – if they do so it’s probably because they think it’s a better deal than they’d otherwise get.  Having left by “mutual consent” looks better on the CV than having been sacked.

On the other hand, if any employer really had sacked someone because they didn’t like the colour of the socks, I suppose that they probably would prefer that not to come out…

Never mind the facts

Tweet

I’ve referred to the Beecroft report previously.  The Prime Minister asked Beecroft, a venture capitalist, to review employment laws and come up with some suggestions for cutting red tape, which Beecroft duly did.  The main thrust of his idea of cutting red tape seems to have been whittling away hard-gained employment rights in the name of flexibility.

From earlier reports, most people will have assumed that there was at least some basis for his claims that he was putting forward the views of ‘business’ in general; but it seems from this report that was a wildly inaccurate conclusion.  In fact, the recommendations seem to have been put forward on the basis of what he and a few of his (presumably like-minded) mates think.

He didn’t have time to do any research or investigation into what businesses in general might think, so he had a chat with a few people and then sat down to write his report.  And, on such a flimsy basis, the government is proceeding to implement the bulk of his recommendations.

But then, if you think – as he said he did – that the case for making it easier for small firms to hire and fire people is ‘self-evident’, then what need is there for any objective evidence?  And why should anyone expect the PM to require any more evidence than that?

Weeding out the incompetent

Tweet

Most people starting a new job know and understand that there is some sort of ‘probationary’ period, during which their new employer can sack them if they don’t prove themselves.  It’s easy to see why employers want such a condition; judging people on the basis of an application form, cv, and interview is never going to be as effective as judging their actual performance.  And it’s not an unreasonable condition.

But how much more protection than that do competent and effective employers really need?  To listen to some business organisations, the answer is lots.  What they really seem to want is to be able to hire and fire at will, so that they have maximum flexibility with no come-back; the employees are just a resource like any other. 

Sadly, the UK Government has been listening to such views, and has proposed extending the period during which employees are barred from bringing a claim for unfair dismissal from 12 months to 24.

(In passing, it’s interesting to note that the announcement was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer – since when did he take on the responsibility for employment law?)

In effect, the government are proposing to double the period during which employers can legally sack someone unfairly.  It amounts to condoning unfair action by employers as long as it happens within the first two years of employment.

Why should we tolerate ‘unfair’ dismissal at all?  If the dismissal is fair, then the employer will win any tribunal case.  This proposal bans the reasonable cases as well as the unreasonable ones. 

The argument seems to be that there is a cost to the employer of having to defend any action, and abolishing the right to bring a case will therefore save businesses time and money – but there are surely better ways of weeding out the vexatious cases than simply banning all cases?

I can’t help wondering why anyone would conclude that the way to protect employers from unjustified claims is to abolish the rights of everyone, and simply allow unfair behaviour to go unpunished.  Allowing people to ignore health and safety rules for two years would be a good way of reducing their administration costs as well, but it doesn’t make it a good idea.

It’s another example of the thinking that the way to make business competitive is to give employers more freedom to treat employees as they wish.  Competent managers don’t need that sort of freedom.  We’d be better off ensuring that those running businesses have the competence and skills to do so, and to ensure that they treat employees fairly in the process, rather than simply licensing incompetence.

Wasting scarce energy resources

Tweet It looks increasingly likely that the gas turbine power station proposed for Pembroke will get the official go-ahead. I have argued against this proposal before and will continue to do so. It's not an easy stance to take when others are queuing up to welcome the jobs (although this week's events elsewhere underline the fact that there's never any guarantee that the construction jobs will go to local people anyway).

But I genuinely believe that it's the wrong thing to do, and however easy it might be to join in with the prevailing consensus, I think it is dishonest and unprincipled for a politician to support the wrong developments for purely local advantage.

Natural gas is a finite resource, at some point we will run out. I don't know when that will be - and nor does anyone else - but we all know that, at some point, run out it will. So if we are going to use it to provide us with energy at all, it is surely important that we do so in the way that makes the best possible use of the resource.

The CCGT station proposed for Pembroke will deliver, overall, less than 50% energy efficiency – that is to say, over half the available energy content of the gas will be simply wasted, thrown away. Yet a number of smaller CHP schemes, situated closer to towns and industries, could burn the same amount of gas and achieve an overall energy efficiency level of around 85%. That means we would not only get almost twice as much energy for a given volume of gas, but we would also halve the level of emissions per unit of useful energy. In terms of which is best for the environment, this is a no-brainer.

Even on the jobs front, a series of smaller CHP stations would not only be better for the environment – it would also probably provide more jobs. And since the same amount of gas would last twice as long for the same energy output, they might even be more secure and long term jobs.

A few days ago, in relation to the proposal for a nuclear station at Wylfa, I argued that we should not be willing to accept jobs at any price, and I'm taking the same line with this development closer to home. We need jobs, but we need jobs which are consistent with our environmental policies, not jobs which undermine them. And those jobs are available if we take the right decisions on energy policy – it's not pie in the sky.

So why is that not happening? That's where we come right back to the way energy policy is (or rather is not) being determined in the UK. Decisions on what type of plant to build where are being left to the free market; so the plant we get is that which makes the most profit for its operators, not that which best fits the environmental needs. That will continue to be the case until we have a government which is prepared to take direct responsibility for ensuring that energy policy matches the commitments made to reducing greenhouse emissions.

When is a job not a job?

Tweet According to the front-page story in this week's "Carmarthen Journal", (the story appears not to be in their online version, so no link) a company in Cynwyl Elfed has been advertising through Jobcentre for 'webcam performers'. The job description goes on to say that the successful applicants would have to be nude or semi-nude whilst performing in front of the webcam in response to customers' fantasies.

The image of people queuing up in Cynwyl Elfed to display their all is an interesting one, but as the story goes on to say, it isn't quite that simple. The company concerned is an introduction service, "which may introduce people to webcam work amongst other things".

It's up to individuals, of course, to decide whether this is the sort of activity in which they wish to engage in order to earn their daily crust, and since it can apparently be done entirely in the comfort of their own homes, I suppose there may even be some people in Cynwyl Elfed who decide to offer their services.

There are three things that concern me about this, however.

Firstly, it appears that there aren't really any 'jobs' at all on offer, merely an opportunity to go onto a register on the off-chance that there may be a 'job' at some point in the future. A Jobcentre spokesperson defended the advert by saying that they have a duty to advertise any legal jobs. Maybe, but I'm not actually convinced that these are 'jobs' at all.

Secondly, is this really what Jobcentres should be offering what are likely to be increasing numbers of increasingly desperate unemployed people? There may well be no obligation on the jobless to apply, but there is a real danger here that vulnerable people are going to be exploited, and that it will appear that the government is in some way approving that.

And finally, in this age of lies, damned lies and government statistics, are these 'jobs' being counted when government spokespersons tell us that there's plenty of work available at local Jobcentres?