Underestimating the Unemployed – IDS and the Back-to-Work Programme

Following the landmark decision by the Appeal Court last week the governments sector-based work academy programme is the latest Conservative policy to hit the metaphorical buffers, but what does this decision mean for the job seekers and what is the problem with the system?

It should be made clear right from the start the Appeal Court did not say the programme, which was criticised for being tantamount to slave labour, was illegal. The issue was about the lack of information being given to benefits claimants and the suggestion it was a mandatory requirement.

The programme itself works like this. Job seekers are placed into unpaid work, usually stacking shelves or other low-paid work, and in return receive government benefits. The idea is this gives them relevant experience, gets them into the habit of going to work and increases their chances of getting full-time paid employment.

However, right from the start the policy was fundamentally flawed, something which the recent court decision brought into the spotlight.

Cait Reilly, one of the claimants in the case last week, is a 24-year-old geology graduate from the University of Birmingham. Having left university she volunteered at a local museum, but was on benefits as she was unable to find full-time paid employment.

As part of the scheme she was told she had to go and work at a local Poundland store stacking shelves for no pay if she wished to continue claiming. This meant she had to give up her voluntary work and had less time to apply for paid work.

Regardless of your view of people who claim unemployment benefit it is hard to see any benefit for a well educated university graduate to get ‘work experience’ stacking shelves when it is clearly not what they are interested in or trained for.

The truly ironic thing about this is volunteering at a museum was actually better work experience for her and more likely to result in gainful long-term employment than the government scheme.

Long-term unemployment is a major problem in this country. There are far too many people leaving education with no qualifications who then spend years on unemployment benefits at the tax-payers’ expense.

It is these people who benefit from the sector-based work academy, not a university graduate.

When I finished training as a journalist at the height of the credit-crunch in 2009 I came out into one of the worst job markets in history and was forced to claim unemployment benefits and although this scheme did not exist at the time I suffered from many of the same problems.

Job Centre staff did not care about my qualifications, skills and experience and were only interested in getting me to apply for as many jobs as possible, almost all of which had no bearing on my qualifications or experiance.

At one point I was effectively ordered to apply for a temporary Christmas position in a retail store at a local shopping centre. I then had to explain to the advisor that, while I was willing to apply, there was no chance of me getting the job as it was the kind of position offered to 17-year-olds looking for work during the school holidays.

Thankfully I now have a great job working for a media company in London which I love and is well paid, but being asked to stack shelves would have, if anything, hindered my chances of this.

The experience of Ms Reilly and myself just goes to show the Job Centre is not fit for purpose when it comes to dealing with educated people who are unemployed.

To make matters worse over the weekend Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan-Smith had the audacity to criticise people “who think they’re too good” to stack supermarket shelves, then saying those involved in the programme were not unpaid as they were “paid” job seekers allowance.

The problem is Ms Reilly did not feel she was too good to stack shelves, it is just it is not a suitable work-

placement for somebody who is a university graduate.

Has this government completely given up on people who have aspirations to get into more gainful long-term employment, or does it honestly believe the privileged should be able to do what they want and the rest should go and work in Tesco?

Anybody taking more than a cursory glance at the policy can see how to get it to work.

Firstly look at the job seekers CV. What is their highest level of qualification and do they have any marketable skills or experience? If the answers are in the negative, or they are long-term unemployed then yes, getting them into any workplace is going to be beneficial.

Secondly, for people who have higher qualifications, for example, degrees, A-levels and the equivalents, look at their areas of specialisation and find out what can be done to help them into employment in their area of expertise, be it volunteering, internships or apprenticeships.

People stay in school and go to university so they can get better paid work, not so they can graduate and get a job in Poundland. It is not that they are too good for the job, it is that they have made the effort and are trying to get a better future for themselves and their children.

This in fact might be the first time in history a government has been against people aspiring to do better by staying in education.

Ms Reilly was not caught in the vicious circle of unemployment, she was just unlucky enough to graduate into an artificially uber-competitive job market.

There is nothing wrong with the sector-based work academy, it is just it has been implemented really badly by an organisation [Job Centre] who have no interest in actually helping people into relevant employment.

If this programme was aimed at the right people, people with no qualifications and the chronically unemployed, then it would be a great programme, but it should not be seen as a one size fits all solution to joblessness in this country, particularly not for skilled workers and graduates.

Auf Wiedersehen Pope – Benedict XVI Resignation Sets Precedent

The Catholic world is reeling following the shock resignation of Pope Benedict XVI as the head of the church and its 1 billion followers worldwide, but while a resignation of this nature is unprecedented is it likely to become the norm for future Roman Catholic leaders? 

It has never been impossible for a Pope to step-down from his position, but it is almost unheard of. The last to do so was Pope Gregory XII in 1415, who resigned due to a dispute over who was the true Pope.

The nature of their respective departing mean there are very few similarities to be drawn between Gregory and Benedict, but the 600-year gap between these two historic events says a lot about the Papacy.

Almost since the formation of the Vatican and the appointment of Papal leaders it has been accepted the position is a lifetime appointment, much like a monarchy, with the only previous deviation of Gregory being under extraordinary circumstances.

However, certain modern factors certainly need to be taken into consideration. Firstly people are living longer and medical care is much better. This means there is a much greater chance for a Pope to suffer from degenerative illnesses, such as dementia or Alzheimer’s, or even severe health problems such as cancer, where treatment will have a major impact on their working lives.

Secondly, the nature of the church and Papal leadership has changed. This is no longer a religious figurehead, but can more accurately be compared to the chief executive or managing director of a large multinational corporation.

It is perfectly reasonable to say this level of leadership in the age of 24-hour news is physically and emotionally impossible for someone who is suffering with the common afflictions of old-age.

An interesting comparison here can be made with US President Franklin Roosevelt who, like many Popes in Rome, died in office. Despite having been elected to the Whitehouse on numerous occasions and almost staggeringly high approval ratings the people were shocked when he passed away after a stoke.

Many asked why he had not told the general public about his rapidly diminishing health and this episode in American history led to the creation of the constitutional line of succession and the two-terms only policy. It is perfectly reasonable to argue the day-to-day rigors of being President are not comparable to what a Pope must endure, a common quote from Catholic leaders is the church thinks in centuries, not decades.

However, you must also consider Pope’s are already of an advanced age when they are elected. Benedict was already well into his 70s by the time he became Pope, compared to David Cameron who was just 43 when he became Prime Minister and Barack Obama who was elected President at 47.

In a democracy it would be almost impossible for a person over the retirement age to be elected to the highest office. In the corporate world older people may continue to be involved in the running of a major business, but this will take the form of a less-stressful board membership, while younger people are more directly involved in implementation and execution.

The issue remaining is politicians and business leaders are expected to step-down and retire, while it is accepted the Papacy is a life-long appointment, meaning there is more comparability with a monarch than a President.

In the UK it is incredibly rare for a King or Queen to abdicate and, although there are examples of it happening, the same can be said for all kingdoms across the world.

One of the biggest issues raised following Benedict’s resignation is his influence over who will be his successor, a problem never before faced by the Conclave of Cardinals. Similarly, whoever they choose will have to lead despite his predecessor still being alive, another conundrum never before faced by the church. 

The fact this is the first time a Pope has stepped-down for health reason is a complete paradigm shift and one which may become increasingly common for future generations. It could be argued Benedict’s lasting legacy will be Pope’s will no longer be expected to hold office until death and will allow for much younger people to take the reins of one of the largest organised groups in the world, but is this necessarily true.

Benedict’s predecessor, John Paul II was evidently unwell and frail during his final years at the Vatican, but this made his position arguably stronger as an elder statesman and as somebody able to lend both a theological and historical perspective. However, it must also be accepted John Paul was a beloved Pope and a very charismatic leader, characteristics which do not necessarily lend themselves as well to his successor. 

In the wake of Benedict’s announcement, many have suggested resignation may become the norm for future Pope’s and this is certainly not impossible and may in fact be beneficial for the church. However, realistically what Benedict has achieved is to open this door as a realistic exit strategy.

Yes, it is likely in the future a Pope resigning will be more common place, but there is certainly no reason to suggest it will become the norm. After all, those elected Pope see their selection as the choice of God, not of the Cardinals.

What this eventually comes down to is another example of the Catholic church modernising itself to be more in line with global democratic principles and the development of itself as a corporate entity, where an aging man can no longer be expected to look after both the spiritual health of its followers and maintain the complex organisation structure of a multinational organisation.

Has Benedict fundamentally changed the nature of the Papacy? Almost certainly yes. Will his successors similarly resign?

Almost, certainly no. It is impossible to say whether the next Pope will leave under similar circumstances, but what Benedict has done is remove an historical barrier allowing those following him to leave in this manner if they feel unable to execute the office.

Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Bonus Season

Bonus season, the time of year when us mere mortals wish we had paid more attention in maths class and had become bankers instead of following our less financially rewarding path.

Every annum this causes controversy and this year it was kick-started by Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) announcing chief executive Stephen Hester would receive an additional £1 million.

With RBS being 82 percent state-owned this resulted in an even stronger backlash from the banks shareholders, better known as the general public.

However, this will only be the tip of the proverbial iceberg as every other financial institution, including fellow state owned bank Lloyds TSB, reveals its bonuses.

The problem is there are two arguments here, one for the state owned banks, such as RBS, and another for the others who were not bailed out by the tax payer. Let us start with the state owned banks.

Despite both the Labour administration, who bailed out RBS and Lloyds in the first place, and the current ConDem government saying the tax payer will not play an active role as a shareholder, is there not a moral responsibility?

Mr Hester, as has been noted several times in recent days, is the worst paid bank chief executive in the country and yet was still entitled to receive nearly £1 million as a bonus.

Agree with the bailout or not, the tax payers of the UK are not just the majority shareholder in RBS, but given the option would be in total control, in an absolutely unbeatable position at an annual general meeting.

So while numerous RBS share holders are unemployed, unable to find work and struggling to make ends meet, the top dogs get more in a single year’s bonus than many will earn in a lifetime.

There have been many on the radical left who believe the RBS board should be paid in line with civil servant salaries.

Now while this may seem like a popular idea it is of cause ridiculous to suggest a bank executive should be paid £28,000 a year.

Not only would nobody be interested in taking the job, but the bank would struggle commercially, shares would become worthless and the public would never get their money back when the shares were eventually sold.

It is in the public interest to ensure RBS and Lloyds become successful again, assuming George Osborne does not take leave of his fiscally responsible mind and sell the shares at a loss.

What many would like to know is who in their right mind at RBS thought this was a good idea. It is about time the bailed out banks realised they are state owned and acted in a responsible way to their shareholders as they would normally do.

Instead, how about this for an alternative bonus plan for RBS. All the money to be paid out this year to all employees is not given to the employees, but to the government and is used to pay off the deficit.

Admittedly a couple of million quid is not going to make a huge difference, but is probably enough to buy a significant proportion of Greece at current market value.

At this point a round of applause is required for Mr Hester. He did the ethically and morally right thing by turning down the bonus, an action requiring a lot of guts from a man with the least enviable job in the financial services sector.

Now for the more difficult question of banker’s bonuses in general.

Although it looks as if the government is going to introduce legislation on the banks, many want to know why it has taken so long.

Let us begin with a little house keeping and some home truths. The recession was NOT caused by the budget deficit as the Tory’s would have people believed.

The UK owing so much money did not help and removed the safety net, but the initial problem was caused by the banks. Secondly, this government became electable as it had abandoned its conservative roots and became a caring party for the people.

Following the financial crash the people were livid with the financial services sector and wanted reform, but every government around the world has refused to tackle the problem.

Occupy Wall Street, Occupy London and others have been protesting for several months and battled court orders from various organisations for calling attention to something the people want.

This is understandably difficult. The banking sector is privately run and political parties of every stripe do not like interfering in the private sector, not to mention most political parties get themselves elected by cosying up to money bags in the city.

The fact governments do not like interfering in the private sector is in fact a reason why state owned banks like RBS are given such a loose reign when it comes to salary acquisition and bonuses.

It is also important to remember before the credit crunch the reason people complained about banker’s bonuses was motivated by envy, because everybody else was lucky if the boss gave them a bottle of cheap vino at Christmas.

The point here is despite a majority of the global population wanting regulation on bank practices and bonuses, the people are not being listened to.

Why should we be experiencing unprecedented public service and public sector jobs cuts, not to mention rising unemployment, repossessions and rising inflation, when the culprits for this have not been punished?

Not one banker has been put on trial for causing the financial crash, not one employee of a ratings agency has been called to account about the grading sub prime mortgages as safe and not one regulator has been punished for letting this situation get out of hand.

In fact the closest we have come to it is the rather British punishment of stripping the formally Sir Fred ‘The Shred’ Goodwin of is knighthood, embarrassing for him, but an action with little or no consequence.

Even this has been criticised for being a hysterical reaction aimed at a man who was only a tiny fraction of the problem.

Curbing bonuses, and excessive risk taking, requires a global solution. One country cannot make a difference here. If the UK turned around tomorrow and said no more bonuses and the splitting of commercial and investment banking operations, by Friday all financial institutions will have left the country.

It is time for premiers of every country to stop messing about and wasting the people time and actually punish these people for what the rest of us are enduring.

This is a hard decision, but almost every elected leader uses the phrase ‘will not duck the difficult decisions’, or something similar, at some point during a campaign.

To paraphrase the great Theodore Roosevelt nothing worth doing is ever easy, or, if you prefer you philosophy closer to home, as Irishman George Bernhard Shaw said ‘Nothing is worth doing unless the consequences may be serious’.

Should not all leaders take from these to legendary figures and realise fixing banking practices and bonuses is not going to be a walk in the park, but is something worth doing and worth doing well.

Perhaps they should take note of the rest of Teddy Roosevelt’s quotation. ‘I have never in my life envied a human being who led an easy life. I have envied a great many people who led difficult lives and led them well’.

Voters want action on the issues of the day, not laissez-faire.

Previewing 2012: Olympics and All That Jazz

Another year over, another year just beginning and what a year it promises to be. The US gears up for another Presidential election, London hosts the Olympics, the continuing uprising in the Middle East and the small matter of a global economic crisis.

This is not to say 2011 was dull. The Arab Spring, Autumn riots, the phone hacking scandal, economic woes, not to mention the deaths of bin Laden, Gaddafi and Kim Jong Il.

In the UK the Olympics will dominate the headlines in the run up to the summer. Chances are most stories will be of how nothing will be finished on time and how the games will be a disaster, only to find out everything will be fine in the end.

There will also be a Mayoral election in the capital this year with Johnson vs Livingston II (This Time It’s Political). It is hard to see anyone but blond Boris winning, mainly because the Labour party has not moved on in this area.

A member of the younger left wing generation may have stood a chance against a man who is not universally loved as mayor, but instead nominated Red Ken who could not beat BoJo the first time round.

In other political news it promises to be the toughest year yet for the Con-Dem coalition having already fallen out over banking regulation, student fees, voting reform, budget cuts and Europe.

A split-up before the next election is probably not on the cards, but Prime Minister David Cameron cannot afford too many fall outs with his deputy Nick Clegg, especially if it appears as if he is appeasing his back benchers.

Europe will be the key issue here following Cameron’s supposed veto of the EU treaty. Although it was good news for Euro-sceptics there is a question about the UK’s future influence in the common market.

What is needed is for politicians, both in Europe and around the world, to come together to find a solution to the crisis. If not all could find themselves out of office in the next election as people question why the situation is not improving.

Speaking of break-ups, there is still the question of Labour leader Ed Milliband. Despite some good performances he continues to slip in the opinions of the people while some commentators speculate about a potential replacement before the next election.

The question is what direction to go in. Some have called for more policy substance, while others say his image is not Prime Ministerial. The issue is the Labour party has no economic credibility and all Cameron has to do is say ‘inherited largest budget deficit from previous administration’ time and again.

Could this be the time for a true public leader? Would it be a good idea for Milliband to stand shoulder to shoulder with the protesters outside St Paul’s and with striking public sector workers?

Probably not as he would loose as many voters as he would gain, so prepare for either another year of second rate opposition or a policy deluge from the other side of the commons. Either way it is hard to see Milliband being ditched before 2015.

In other political news the US presidential election train will drag on for more months with the Republican primaries. Come November Obama will most likely win again, largely due to the ineptitude of the GOP candidates.

The greatest question is what will happen in the Congressional and Senatorial elections. Having lost the House of Representatives in the mid-terms Obama will be keen to claw back political power.

Predicating this is actually quite simple. If the economy improves then the people will swing back Democratic, if it continues to stagnate then the tea party and the Republicans will make significant gains.

A more interesting question across the pond is how much influence Sarah Palin will have in the elections. She is not a candidate and the tea party has lost some popularity, but she can still draw a crowd, although whether or not this is desirable is debatable.

Without question the largest political story of 2011 has been the Arab uprising in North Africa and the Middle East. After Tunisia it was Egypt in the headlines and as the year ends Tahrir Square was back in the news.

Syria, Bahrain and others will stay in the news for a while as people demand their democratic rights, protest against political oppression and military tactics. It is impossible to judge which direction these countries will go in, but Western military intervention is very unlikely.

China’s political system will be ever more in the spotlight this year as the West relies more and more on the only country with any money left. Also prepare for the continued rise of Brazil, India and Russia on the political scene.

Speaking of Russia Vladimir Putin will return the Kremlin this year, probably. This will be met by joy and despair both in Russia and the rest of the world. There is also likely to be major court cases involving Russian oligarchs including Chelsea owner Roman Abramovic.

North Korea’s ‘Dear Leader’ has also died and his successor Kim Jong Un will come to power in what is seen as the most unstable, unpredictable and closeted regime in the world. The US and Europe will be hoping this is an opportunity to curb nuclear ambitions in the country, but only time will tell.

Libya’s long running dictator, Colonel Gaddafi, was killed this year during the countries uprising. It will be interesting to see how popular revolutionary rebels organise themselves to bring democracy and stability to this oil rich country.
It is also worth keeping an eye on South America. Falkland Island based ships are being denied entry to ports on the continent and with vast Chinese investment and fewer economic problems. This may be the chance the likes of Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela are waiting for.

Problems with drug cartels will continue in Mexico and Columbia, although the FARC rebels influence is being eroded continually. This year hardly a week has gone by without another report from Mexico of shoot-outs in the street or mass graves. The US has pledged to help, but this is a problem likely to trundle on.

Japan has been in the news a lot this year following the earthquake, tsunami and subsequent nuclear incident. The big question this could raise this year is when a government elsewhere in the world dares to suggest nuclear power as a potential energy source again.

If the climate change conferences continue to yield no fruit then it may not be to long before government, probably on the quite, start to make plans for new reactors.

Away from the major news this will also be a big year in the world of entertainment and sport. The Olympics, Paralympics and European football championships all occur over the summer, F1 is set to return to the US, England rugby is in disarray and the astronomic rise of the Man City millionaires continues.

Racism has also raised its ugly head in the EPL with charges being brought against Liverpool’s Luis Suarez and Chelsea’s John Terry. Uruguayan international Suarez has been handed an eight game ban for racially abusing Manchester United’s Patrice Evra.

Terry will face criminal prosecution for similar accusations against QPR’s Anton Ferdinand, but has yet to find out if he will face any punishments from the FA. Expect renewed efforts on the Kick on Racism Out of Football campaign and tough punishments for Terry.

Rooney will also miss the first two games of Euro 2012 and this will probably be Fabio Capello’s last tournament in charge of the national team. Every Englander will be hoping for a performance befitting the quality of the team, but with group games against a resurgent France, Sweden (a country England have never beaten in a major tournament) and the co-hosts Ukraine this may be difficult.

In the world of entertainment there has been much speculation the 3D revolution may have been a damp squib. Nobody can complain about improvements in special effects, but it is important they do not get in the way of what film making is supposed to be about.

Over the next couple of years expect a change towards films using 3D as a true cinematic effect rather than just as a gimmick to increase box office revenues. Is it really possible to get independent film in 3D?

X-Factor has yet again been popular this year, but has struggled in the ratings war. Do not be surprised if 2012 sees the last series of the glorified karaoke show. Excited about The Iron Lady, being released soon, and The Great Gatsby, this time next year. Less excited about the apparent release of Texas Chainsaw Massacre in 3D.

In conclusion if 2012 is as exciting as 2011 there will be plenty to of column inches and news segments to fill. There are many stories yet to play out and many more still to come to light.

For now have a Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukah and a Happy New Year.