The Politics of Ivy

“They have learned nothing – literally nothing” David Cameron

David Cameron’s criticism of Labour captures the broader frustration of many listening to the political parties play benefit bingo over the last few weeks. Shirkers – check; something for nothing – check; hard-working – check; tough – check; work that pays – check. Think you’ve heard it all before? You have. Not only has it all been said, but much of it has been done, and evaluated, and those evaluations have been published, analysed…and then ignored by politicians instead of used as the basis for thoughtful decision making.

Instead we have policy by sound-bite, which is a bit like ivy – it may look appealing but let it take over and the impact is potentially disastrous and expensive to rectify.

The width and depth of social research and statistical data available to policy-makers in the UK provides a solid base from which to consider policy and implementation strategies. Yet too little of this finds its way into political discussion. Listening to political discourse on unemployment, benefit claimants and work over the past year, ‘learning’ does not appear to have been a priority.

What ‘learning nothing’ looks like

The experience of unemployment, of work, and of moving between the two does not exist in an evidence vacuum. However, as the list below shows, it often seems as if that is the case.

  1. Statistics are conflated, misused and or placed out of context, acting as cheerleaders rather than informers for important decisions. This came to a head in May with the head of the UK Statistics Authority reprimanding Iain Duncan Smith for a statement ‘unsupported by the official statistics’.
  2. Programmes that work (for example, the Future Jobs Fund) are dismantled. Evidence on workfare, whether domestic, international or historical is sidelined, ensuring that the possibility of success for programme participants is diminished.
  3. ‘Tough’ is consistently used as a synonym for ‘effective’. They are not the same thing. It is unclear how the complexity of issues that underpin worryingly high levels of youth unemployment will be addressed by benefit removal for under 25s, or how any job churn and negative impacts on wages that occur as a consequence will be mitigated.
  4. There is a point at which reduced budgets will have an effect on the ability of a programme to serve the target population in its entirety, institutionalizing creaming and parking. Praising a programme for offering value for money when the reason it has under-spent is poor performance is bizarre.
  5. Building good work habits is an important part of the return to sustainable work, particularly for those furthest from the labour market. Daily 8-hr long signing and jobsearch sessions at the Jobcentre is more likely, at best, to inculcate ‘presenteeism’, which employer bodies see as a drain on productivity or, at worst, to ingrain low self-esteem and exacerbate poor mental and physical health.

A considerable amount of research data, particularly that on the value of specific interventions, has been compiled or commissioned by DWP and funded by the taxpayer. Wasting such a valuable resource should be condemned forthrightly. Collective evidence and collective experience is being wasted in the rush to design populist ideas on a whim.

It’s like deciding to buy a house, paying for a full structural survey, ignoring the issues it identifies, and then building an extension on walls, that (had you read the report you would know) are not strong enough to hold it up. In welfare-to-work the situation is exacerbated by the use of combining Payment by Results and price competition, with underspend lauded as ‘value for money’ rather than failure to deliver. Much like painting over the cracks and hoping no one looks close enough to notice.

 

It should go without saying that data and evidence can be interpreted differently, and there are certainly many and varied arguments to be had about the best ways to address entrenched social exclusion. But that is not what is current happening. The issue is not one of interpretation – it is one of disregarding evidence and, more concerning still, taking pride in that position.

 

Comments
5 Responses to “The Politics of Ivy”
  1. essexandrew says:

    Thank you.

    Maybe we need an examination of ‘the politics of politics’ as too frequently the word ‘politics’ is used as a euphemism for something that might be described as party political differences.

    Such thoughts are further muddled when we realise that members of political parties espouse several conflicting policies and that can continue into governments, saying they have one aim with one policy but with another policy frustrating the first – and so on.

    My particular concerns are with the work of the probation service(s) in England and Wales. I was a practitioner for almost 30 years until 2003 not a statistician or researcher. I have experiences, first hand of what it ‘feels like’ to endeavour to engage constructively at various points in the lives of people & their families & others effected, when laws have been broken or may have been. Even finding a way to write simply but comprehensively of the ‘clientele’ is difficult – as that sentence reveals. Then it is beyond frustration to have government policy ‘wrapped up’ in soundbites, like ‘old lag mentors’ which convey an idea – I and other will recognise but give no help at understanding the detail and even less of implementing that policy.

    Yet because, that of which I have professional experience, is something most folk have a ready subjective phrase or two to pithily express themselves, it becomes nigh impossible to enter the public debate and gain a hearing that will get a response of caution from policymakers, who are determined to ‘make a difference’ by issuing an instruction for all from the centre of government.

    Hence I find such words as these from Jane Mansour a comfort, but oh how I wish we could get more folk to seriously consider the ideas behind these words!

    Andrew Hatton

    • Richard Johnson says:

      Thanks Andrew.
      I understand your frustration with the gap between policy rhetoric and operational delivery – and the ways in which constraints in the contracting process (whether internal or outsourced) actively prevent delivering the stated policy goals. One of the arguments we seek to make here is the need to look long-term at the desired goal and to rigorously examine whether proposed and existing interventions will help or hinder that process. Looking for short-term quick wins often makes little sense outside of political cycles/ministerial lifespans. Thank you for your ongoing contributions to our blog!.
      Jane

  2. Davida says:

    I see a lot of interesting content on your page.
    You have to spend a lot of time writing, i know how to
    save you a lot of time, there is a tool that creates readable, google friendly articles in couple
    of minutes, just search in google – k2 unlimited content

  3. Dorthy says:

    I read a lot of interesting content here.
    Probably you spend a lot of time writing, i know how to save you
    a lot of time, there is an online tool that creates readable, SEO friendly posts in minutes, just
    search in google – k2seotips unlimited content

Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying...


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: