Skip to main content

Labour need to answer key questions on its new approach to the long-term unemployed.

Labour's attempt this month to sound tough on benefits for the long-term unemployed is worrying. They are adopting a carrot and stick approach. Britain,  Ed Balls says, "needs real welfare reform that is tough, fair and that works." It is sadly familiar language.

Labour says it will offer a "job guarantee" to the long term unemployed. Government will "ensure" there is a job for each adult who is long-term unemployed, and people will be obliged to take this job or risk losing their benefits. It sounds fair, a guaranteed job. But where would this job come from?

There are currently around 130,000 adults over the age of 25 who have been out of work for 24 months or more. According to official figures unemployment now stands at 7.7% of the work force.  But unemployment is unevenly distributed across the UK. In the worst affected areas such as Ladywood and Hodge Hill in Birmingham it is as high as 10 - 11.7 %.  Unemployment in Birmingham is greatest in the inner city areas. In one ward it stands at almost 30%. Finding jobs in these areas is particularly difficult.

The West Midlands has one of the highest economic inactivity rates in England. In February last year West Midlands business leaders urged the Government to promote a “culture of entrepreneurism” and to encourage banks to lend to industry – and warned they could not create jobs without state support.

Last year Channel 4 News uncovered data showing that the 'welfare to work' company A4e had been able to secure sustainable employment for only 3.5% of job seekers under the government's work programme. This flag-ship programme clearly isn't working. In November, Jonty Olliff-Cooper, director of policy and strategy at A4E, blamed the coalition for the failure of the company to meet targets suggesting that there "isn't enough money to tackle long-term unemployment."

There are no easy or quick fixes to finding work for the long term jobless. It requires sustainable investment to create real jobs and it requires the development of skills to match them.  It needs jobs created in areas of need. 

Joblessness is complex. There is no simple solution to matching job opportunities with required skills and to locate businesses in areas of high unemployment.  A family cannot move simply to regions of higher employment. Costs of housing and child care and moving away from family support are all barriers. Unemployment and poor job opportunities are economically structural rather than behavioural. Building real jobs needs investment, but banks are still failing to lend to start up businesses or to provide businesses with the funds they need to grow. 

Labour's guarantee of a job is great but it might be more difficult to achieve than the headline suggests. Building real jobs will take time and investment. And there is one nagging question Labour needs to answer about its new 'tough'  approach. What happens to those who fail to get a job? 

According to the new policy their benefits will be cut. But then what? Is Ed Balls willing to watch as they lose their homes and their children fall deeper into poverty? Labour's carrot and stick approach begs more questions than it answers.

Postscript

I sometimes wonder when I listen to discussion about 'the unemployed' and 'getting tough', or about 'strivers' and 'shirkers'  whether we appreciate fully the seismic impact of the financial crisis on British businesses and jobs. In the space of 12 months in 2008/09 a staggering 220,000 companies went out of business with the loss of 1 million jobs.  What is needed is investment and the creation of new jobs. What is not needed is cuts in spending that will further contract the economy and increase the deficit in public finances through loss of tax revenue. The way out of recession is to get people back to work productively, spending in the high street and paying taxes. 


Comments

  1. Exactly. And this is why I found that little disclaimer in Michael Meacher's otherwise impressive speech on Atos and the disabled so worrying. He says:

    "Is it reasonable to pressurise seriously disabled persons into work so ruthlessly when there are 2.5 million unemployed, and when on average eight persons chase every vacancy, unless they are provided with the active and extensive support they obviously need to get and hold down work, which is certainly not the case currently?"
    http://www.michaelmeacher.info/weblog/2013/01/my-speech-on-atos-work-capability-assessments/

    It is that weasly "unless". He is *still* not condemning the Unum biopsychosocial disability-denying dogma that insists even a cancer victim with less than a year to live, MUST STILL WORK. Albeit with the right "support", which, in light still of more sanctions for Labour's mandatory jobs scheme, will only amount to the continued harrassment of individuals whose doctors and consultants have recommended should refrain from *all* work.


    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The

When Finance Drives Destruction

Tackling climate change means stopping the funding of rainforest destruction, says a significant study commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund.  The UK's financial services have provided directly over £8.7 billion to 167 different traders, processors, and buyers of forest-risk commodities (cocoa, rubber, timber, soy, beef, palm oil, pulp & paper) from 2013 to 2021.   With direct and indirect investment,  the figure rises to a staggering £200 bn.  Whilst not all that investment is in destructive projects,  the study concludes there is little transparency on the risk.  Finance is the oil in the economic machine.  But it also drives decisions. We all know the importance of money. We borrow to invest. So much depends on it, such as company pensions.  Do we really know what our pension pots are doing? We invest for the future. But what kind of future? Is all investment good?  Much investment is bad. Investment drives the nature of our economy. It drives our decisions as individuals,