What was the event?
The launch of a new political pamphlet, Not Working: Why Workfare Should Replace the New Deal, by Adam Bogdanor.
Where was it held?
At the offices of the centre-right thinktank Policy Exchange, publisher of the pamphlet.
Who was the main speaker?
There were three speakers: author Adam Bogdanor, David Willetts, head of policy for the Conservative Party and shadow work and pensions minister, and Frank Fields, MP for Birkenhead, one-time social security minister in the first year of Blair's government.
How many were in the audience?
About 25 people.
Describe a typical audience member.
The audience was a typical mix of thinktank types, from young sharp-suited males and prim females to the more senior folk that spent the evening heroically battling against the evening snooze. Of this mix, probably the former accounted for the largest proportion, so a typical audience member would be around 30-35, male, wearing a suit and sporting an inappropriate goatee.
What was the atmosphere like, pre-event?
It was fairly genial, though not particularly expectant. Maybe David Willetts is a little too intellectual to attract the frisson of excitement that flurries around some other senior politicians.
How good was the speaker?
Adam Bogdanor came up first. Rather meanly, organisers only gave him five minutes as David Willetts was late. However, instead of cutting down his talk, he decided to give it all, only reading it faster. The last thirty seconds of his speech was slightly farcical, with the matronly chairperson tapping her glass with a spoon while Adam valiantly read faster and faster with every tap.
Did anything distract you?
David Willetts' surprisingly buffed and tanned appearance; he was almost as well turned out as the always dapper Frank Field.
The digested lecture?
Adam Bogdanor: There has been a sharp fall in unemployment in recent years, but there are still lots of people in poverty. And poverty is because of no work, not low pay. The government's New Deal programme does not address many of the problems, and does not put enough pressure on Job Seeker's Allowance claimants to find work.
The starting point of the New Deal, the 'gateway' phase, does seem to work, but it is the next stage, when claimants choose one of four options, where its effectiveness ebbs away. The main problem is the full-time training option, the most popular choice by far. Only one-third of the people on the schemes obtain a qualification. Only one-quarter get a job, while three-quarters drop out.
There is a danger that the New Deal merely sponsors a series of endless training programmes – the soft option in the eyes of many employers.
In Wisconsin, in the US, the state has introduced Workfare, a more work-focused system of getting the unemployed back to work. Under Workfare, benefit claimants must work, either in the private sector or in the community. Subsidised training complements work, rather than replacing it, and social security offices compete with private sector agencies. Workfare would be more effective than New Deal.
Frank Field: Adam's pamphlet misses how much of a change the New Deal was. It changed the welfare culture, introduced 'conditionality' into the system; it is a great Labour achievement. If the welfare state is to continue in any way, it must receive the support of the population, and such conditionality is necessary for this to occur.
When I was younger, we thought the future would be an age of abundance, where the focus would be on distribution, not on production. But we were wrong. We need new debates, and we also need a version two, or maybe three, of the New Deal.
One proposal would be to redesign the offices where people sign on, making people sit interviews about their employment before they got their money. Job centres should also be based in areas of work, so the staff know about the jobs that are available. Meanwhile, we should continue to support the charities and other organisations that run short courses for the unemployed, helping them to apply to jobs, giving them confidence, as they seem to work well.
David Willetts: Adam's pamphlet shows that the emperor has no clothes. The government's programmes have done little to reduce employment; most of those young people now in jobs through the New Deal would have got them anyway. Meanwhile, the figures of those 'economically inactive' are more important, and the New Deal has not affected those people.
According to the International Labour Organisation, there are 405,000 unemployed people between the ages of 16 and 24, but there are another 650,000 of the same age that are economically inactive and not in education.
The pamphlet is also right to point out that training alone does not help the unemployed. Instead, employers should take on unskilled people and train them whilst they work. We need to replace New Deal, and Adam's pamphlet provides many new ideas that Tories can use, but maybe we would not opt for the community service jobs option, as that would seem to make the state the 'employer of last resort'.
Adam's pamphlet does not, however, address the fact that most of the American evidence comes from their different welfare system, based upon single parents. While the Tories' war against single parents is over, we do believe that it is right to ask the question: is it reasonable to expect single parents to work?
Blair's response to this problem has been a typical fudge: single parents that claim benefits have to attend job interviews, but do not have to get jobs. The Tories, however, believe that we should expect parents of secondary school age to seek work, not just go to interviews.
How long was the main speech?
While Adam Bogdanor only had five minutes, David Willetts and Frank Field each spoke for about ten to fifteen minutes.
Risk of sleep during speeches?
Low.
The most surprising thing?
If you put to one side Adam Bogdanor's ill-fitting jacket, the most surprising thing was that Tory aims for social policy are similar to those set out by Labour since 1997: how to bring people out of poverty. Both Labour and Tory politicians have been talking about Winsconsin's unemployment policies for a while.
In the past, I suspect the Tories would have focused on how to make the economy as large as possible, whatever the condition of those at the bottom of the ladder. Today, they seem to believe the state has an active role to play in bringing people up the ladder. The two parties might have slightly different ways of approaching it, but the differences between a 'New Deal phase 2' and 'Workfare' are unlikely to be obvious to anyone but a public policy professor.
Did you get a souvenir?
A couple of enthralling pamphlets about local government.