A telling fact came out in answer to a parliamentary question from John Leech MP the other day. He asked Caroline Flint, Minister for Employment, how many Job Centre Plus staff had been sacked for not turning up to work in the last year.
Whilst it would have been safe to assume there would be at least a few – every organisation gets bad apples once in a while – I don’t think anyone could have predicted the real answer: 497.
That is a lot. If you consider that these people’s profession was to advise people on how to both get and keep jobs, it is quite worrying. If you then take into account that in the public sector it is more difficult to get the sack than in the private sector, it appears that JobCentre Plus have a serious problem on their hands.
Not only is it worrying for JCP, it is also less than satisfactory for jobseekers and the taxpayer.
If there are so many job advisers who can’t even turn up to work enough to keep their own job, how on earth are the unemployed people they are supposed to assist meant to manage it? That is damaging to the prospects of jobseekers, damaging to their dependents and damaging to wider society. The individual and social harm done by long-term benefit dependency is well-documented, so it is in all our interests for this service to be as effective as possible.
Not only does the taxpayer foot the bill for those who remain on unemployment benefit, this shocking figure also represent an added recruitment bill. In 2006-07, JBC recruited 2,770 people. That means that 18% of all new recruits to JobCentres were replacements for the ineffective staff who had been fired – recruits with all the attendant costs of advertising and training.
Yet again, it seems the mismanagement of our services is letting down the taxpayer and those the services are meant to help.
Only mere days after our report highlighted massive overspend in council publicity, Coventry City Council have pledged to lower their publicity spending next year.
What a breakthrough, especially on a day where Hammersmith and Fulham council announce yet another council tax cut! It shows how our activism, combined with top notch research, is putting the pressure on local politicians and council officers to lower their wasteful spending. Quite rightly people are asking why any council should use taxpayers’ money for self-congratulatory propaganda and they’re catching the councils out. This should certainly be a wake up call to taxpayers to get involved, because we can make the changes in our government that we want!
So please get involved and hold your council to account. Pressure them into admitting the sum of our money used to pat themselves on the back is just too high. Let us know how you get on by emailing your campaign news to us so we can publicise further taxpayer victories. Keep up the fight.
The Times reports that the government is to overhaul the primary school curriculum after progress in English, Maths and Science stalled. Earlier this week the PISA reported that we are falling down international rankings and poor performance is starting to show up even in the Government’s own tests; debased by teaching to the test and relaxed standards.
"The review, the first big overhaul of primary teaching and learning since 2000, comes as this year’s Key Stage 2 test results show that nearly three in ten 11-year-olds failed to meet expected standards for their age in English, maths and science by the time they left for secondary school this summer."
That means three in ten students are going to secondary school already behind. Without the basic literacy and numeracy skills they should already be equipped with when they leave primary school they’ll struggle to keep up with the secondary school curriculum. The secondary schools themselves are rarely good enough to enable pupils who have fallen behind to catch-up.
This failure will translate into low-skilled adults, Britain has (PDF) the second highest proportion of low-skilled workers in the OECD – roughly twice that in Germany or the US, who will be left behind in an increasingly skills dependent economy. As well as letting down the individuals concerned we also undermine the future competitiveness of our economy. Real reform of education cannot wait.
Congratulations to Hammersmith and Fulham Council, who have announced today that they are delivering another 3% cut in council tax.
Across the country, council tax has doubled in the last ten years and yet councils claim they still don’t have enough money. Taxes, they claim, must be raised further. Services, they say, must also be cut.
H&F’s example gives the lie to all this blather and blarney.
Instead of squeezing taxpayers further and starving services of investment, they have now cut taxes for two years in a row and improved their performance rating to the 4-star top ranking.
The conclusion must be that the other councils have got their policies wrong – their simplistic link between money in from taxes and performance out through services is a misrepresentation. Somewhere along the line there are clearly other sinks that money is falling into; otherwise the doubling in council tax would have had a much bigger impact on services.
It is to identify some of the inefficiencies and costly irrelevancies that have swallowed all that extra tax revenue that the TaxPayers’ Alliance has launched the Council Spending Uncovered Series, the first paper of which was published this week. That paper revealed that, far from divert money into crumbling services, Britain’s councils have increased spending on publicity by 130% in the last ten years. The problem is, at least in part, one of priorities – glossy newsletters, costly advertising and PR appear to be valued in many Town Halls above meals on wheels, policing, refuse collection and the other things which actually improve quality of life for ordinary people.
The Council Spending Uncovered Series aims to shine the spotlight on areas where money is spent unnecessarily, or which are wrongly prioritised at the expense of more important activities.
Hammersmith and Fulham have done a superb job of diagnosing many of these illnesses themselves. They have correctly identified the two things that should be their priorities – reducing the tax burden on hard-pressed taxpayers and delivering front line services. Everything else in between, be it surplus office space or self-congratulatory pamphlets that no-one reads, is just so much fluff. By rightly downgrading spending on irrelevant or illusory projects, they are improving the quality of services, allowing taxpayers to keep more of their own money and materially making life better for the people they were elected to serve.
That is what local Government should be about.
Even if other councils cannot find it in themselves to follow H&F’s example out of a genuine wish to do the best for people, they should pay heed to the approval ratings that come with performance like this. It is so simple that politicians sometimes seem to overlook the basic fact that actually doing a good job, actually making people happy, is the best way to convince them to vote for you – and it’s a great deal cheaper than trying to buy approval with spin.
WMTPA friends at the West Midlands NO! campaign have been active in their protest against the ‘City Region’ plans by beating the authorities to the punch and registering the proposed name of the ‘Birmingham, Coventry and Black Country City Region’ themselves.
The City Region, which combines West Midlands’ councils and quangos alike, will no doubt become increasingly prominent, particularly with the demise of the West Midlands Regional Assembly. Like the assemblies, City Regions create another tier of government and threaten to sap even more of our money.
The campaigners at West Midlands NO! aren’t the only ones who are sceptical (to say the least!) about introducing the Birmingham, Coventry and Black Country City Region. Sandwell councillor Bob Piper (Lab) also challenges the idea on his website, asking ‘What is a City Region…and who wants it?’:
“So what is it, and what will it do? Well, it is going to be a City Region Company Limited by Guarantee… or, a Quango to anyone else. It seems to consist of the Leaders and Chief Executives of the It is expected to meet in private (except its AGM), and as far as I know it won’t publish its minutes or agendas, and it won’t have any sense of democratic accountability.”
Stuart Parr, also a WMTPA activist, states that as the electorate hadn’t been consulted on the introduction of our new City Region it was a natural step to register the name without consulting those involved with it’s creation. The powers that be left themselves wide open to sabotage by releasing the name publicly without securing it.
Mr. Parr, along with many of the West Midlands NO! supporters, comes from Telford – a city that not even mentioned in the title of this new body, despite being part of the area it presides over. Apparently the title ‘West Midlands City Region’ would have been unsuitable as the Stoke area is to have its own.
Seems like there are certainly going to be plenty of them…
Unfortunately this protest is unlikely to derail the City Region ambition, which will no doubt resurface under a pseudonym and live on to endlessly consult and “promote the interests of the citizens of the City Region” as is its ambiguous remit.