Bank of England: Brexit to put economy at risk!

THE following, which we are publishing below, is taken from the 'Monday Briefing', by Ian Stewart,  Chief Economist for Deloitte UK:-

* We start this week's Briefing with a question. In which region or country – the US, Japan, euro area or the UK – have expectations for GDP growth remained most robust over the last year? A clue: it saw the fastest GDP growth in the first quarter of this year.

* The answer is the euro area. The outlook for the US, Japanese and UK economies has deteriorated markedly in the last year while euro area growth expectations have seen only modest downgrades.

* In the last four years the US and the UK economies have comfortably outpaced a stuttering euro area. But this year, with growth in the US and UK cooling, and euro area activity nudging up, GDP growth in the three regions is likely to be roughly the same, at around the 1.8% mark.

* Euro area growth is hardly stellar. But there has been a modest recovery, one which seems to have been eclipsed in the news by political uncertainties, the migration crisis and deflation risks.

* So where has Europe's low-key recovery come from?

* The labour market has turned up in the last couple of years, with the previously weakest economies including Italy, Spain and Ireland seeing some of the largest declines in unemployment. Europe has a reputation for high unemployment, but the reverse is true of its largest economy. At 4.3% Germany's unemployment rate is lower than that in the US or the UK and at its lowest level in more than 25 years.

* Falling inflation has boosted consumer spending power. In Germany, real earnings are rising by 2.0% a year, close to previous cyclical peaks.

* The result is that consumers are spending more. Confidence about splashing out on "big ticket" items such as TVs and furniture is close to levels last seen in the early 2000s. Car sales are up by almost 10% in the last year (the Italians seem to have thrown caution to the wind; car sales there have risen 19% in the last year).

* The European Central Bank's cheap money policies are having an effect. Credit demand from consumers and corporates has revived since the nadir in 2011. In the last year unsecured borrowing by euro area consumers has risen by 6.6%, a faster rate than in the UK. Easy monetary policy is one factor behind the decline in the value of the euro which has offered some support for the region's exporters.

* Recovery in the previously recession-stricken periphery of the euro area has been an additional tailwind. Spain and Ireland have seen strong recoveries and are at the top of the European growth league. But this is an unequal recovery: the return to growth in Italy and Portugal has been muted and Greece remains in recession.

* As Britain's EU referendum approaches the euro area economy seems to be narrowing the growth gap with the UK. Deloitte's survey of Chief Financial Officers across Europe shows that perceptions of uncertainty in the UK are higher than in the euro area. Corporate risk appetite has fallen sharply in the UK and is well below euro area levels. While UK CFOs expect to reduce capital spending and employment euro area CFOs expect to raise them. Much of this gap may be due to Brexit uncertainties. But whatever the cause it seems likely that the euro area will grow faster than the UK in the first half of 2016.

* The euro area recovery is fragile and risks abound. Brexit would be a political earthquake for the EU. Inflation is worryingly low. Greece needs another bailout; Europe's borders and its monetary union need fixing.

Brexit and European politics


* The "What the UK Thinks: EU Poll of Polls", based on the average share of the vote for 'Leave' and 'Remain' in the six most recent polls carried out between 26th April and 8th May shows Remain and Leave tied on 50% (adjusting for the removal of "don't knows")

* According to the latest political betting odds cited by PaddyPower, there is currently a 31% implied probability of Brexit – unchanged from last week

* Polling by the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) found 54% of BCC members said they would vote to remain in the EU, with support for Remain down seven points from 60% in February

* In its most outspoken comments on the issue to date, the Bank of England used its quarterly Inflation Report to warn that Brexit could lead to a loss of jobs, higher prices, and even lead to recession

* Cabinet Minister Michael Gove, the leave campaign's most senior figure, said that Britain will quit Europe's single market if the country votes to leave the EU 

* Two former US national security advisers Stephen Hadley and Tom Donilon, warned that the UK's EU referendum is putting at risk the postwar project of a "Europe whole, free and at peace"

* Polling of nine EU member countries by Ipsos Mori shows that 45% of European voters now want a referendum on EU membership in their countries, suggesting wide-spread disillusionment with the current direction of the trade bloc

* The same polling by Ipsos Mori also revealed that the idea that Brexit might start a 'domino effect' with other countries then leaving the EU is shared by 48% of those polled in Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Spain and Sweden

* The French finance minister, Michel Sapin, said that a British exit from the 
EU would force European countries into closer co-operation, and might make countries like Sweden and Denmark "come closer to the euro"


* Although 697,000 EU nationals were issued with UK national insurance numbers between June 2014 and June 2015, analysis by the Office of National Statistics shows that just 265,000 of these migrants stayed in the UK beyond a short-period working here
* Former-Cabinet minister Iain Duncan Smith escalated his feud with the pro-EU Treasury by claiming that the institution should be broken up and is "the worst thing we have in Britain"

* German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble said that the UK won't be able to use a Leave vote to as leverage to negotiate a better deal with the EU, telling fellow finance ministers in Berlin that "In means in and out means out" 

* Campaigners for Britain to leave the EU have so far raised more money than their rivals in the Remain camp, according to data released by the Electoral Commission

* Chancellor George Osborne confirmed to MP's on the Treasury Committee that "The Bank of England and the Treasury are doing quite a serious amount of contingency planning for the impact on financial stability in the aftermath of a vote to leave [the EU]"

* Alan Johnson, the chairman of Labour's Remain campaign, prompted criticism from Eurosceptics after branding Leave campaigners "extremist" and "not rational" for refusing to acknowledge any positive benefits of EU membership

* George Osborne warned that Brexit would lead to "tens of thousands" of potential job losses in the financial services industry, claiming that 285,000 jobs in the sector are linked to business with Europe.

The meaning of unemployment?

IN last Saturday's Financial Times, Noel Whiteside, Professor of Comparative Public Policy at the University of Warwick wrote a letter in which he questioned the method of measuring the unemployment figures.  Mr. Whiteside asked in a letter:

'What, in this day and age, does unemployment mean?  According to the Labour Force Survey (the most common measure) anyone who undertakes one hour's work per week is not 'unemployed' (even if dependent on state support as a working tax credit claimant).  It follows that, the more employment is structured in 40-hour (or whatever) work weeks, the more likely the unemployment statistics to measure fluctuations in economic activity.  Conversely, the more disorganised and casualised the labour market, the less likely the unemployment rate to measure such changes with any accuracy.  As the UK now boasts one of the most 'flexible' labour markets in Europe, both the failure of unemployment to rise as much as expected following the 2008 crash and the recent bizarre movements of the rate over recent months become understandable...'

Billy Goat's taste for Flowers

  
A magistrate in Australia, this week, has dismissed charges against a man fined after his goat named Gary ate flowers outside the Museum of Contemporary Art in Sydney.  A video online showed Gary, a white anglo-Nubian Billy Goat sporting a colourful trilby and chewing on a geranium leaf.  His owner, Comedian Jimbo Bazoobi (real name:  James Dezarnaulds), as left they both left the Sydney court room had donned a black tee-shirt with 'Goats Need Love too' on it.

The police prosecuting the case argued that Mr. Dezarnaulds had acted recklessly in letting a hungry goat graze around the city's flower beds.  The issue seems to revolve around the problem of the Billy Goat's lack of discrimination in that in his ruminations he didn't distiguish between grass and the flowers.

The magistrate, Carolyn Barkell, found that there was no evidence that the owner had set Gary to eat off the flower bed, and was totally unaware of Gary's taste for flowers.  She there ordered that the fine of A$440 (£293) that Mr. Dezarnaulds had been ordered to pay by a lower Court should not have been issued.

This case, of course, takes us back to our own famous Manchester case in the 1990s, when a herd of goats from Rochdale were rounded up by British Rail Transport police on Victoria Station in Manchester, while attempting to travel by train to join demonstration of the unemployed workers in Bolton. The goats involved included Doris, a mature Nanny Goat and veteran of several demos who died in 2003, her surviving daughter Edna, and a young Billy Goat who.  As the owner of the trio I was handcuffed and the Irishman, Sean Dempsey, who was with me soon took to his heals and scaddled.

In that particular case, as well, the magistrate in the lower Court found against me as the owner: Breach of the Peace and obstructing a police officer, I think.  This was reversed later in the Manchester Crown Court, when the Judge found that though the police had the right to remove the goats from the Bolton bound train because they were not travelling with valid tickets; the British Rail Transport police had no right to remove their owner who had a valid ticket.  Naturally, the Judge declared the goats would leave the train when their owner was removed simply because they were tethered with a chain to their owner.  Thus the police had breached the contractual right to travel of the owner; no doubt in fairness to the police at the time in the 1990s, they didn't fancy being on their own in charge of a herd of goats on Victoria Station without their owner being on hand to help.

Demos policy wonk wants controls on how jobseekers spend their state benefits!

Busybody, Max Wind-Cowie, works as a social policy expert for the think-tank Demos and he loves to meddle, with the lives of others, especially the poor and downtrodden.  He runs the 'Progressive Conservatism Project' which identifies Conservative values and policies that have progressive ends.

At the recent Conservative Party conference held in Birmingham, Wind-Cowie, addressed a fringe meeting and spoke about a big idea that he would like the government to adopt. He believes that the state should be able to control how people in receipt of 'income based' Jobseekers Allowance, spend their money. He told the meeting:

"If it's my money you are spending I think we collectively should be free to lay down some ground rules on what you spend it on."

The Demos man explained to the meeting that technology such as pre-payment cards, like Mastercard, could be used to control the way in which people spent their state benefits. It was also possible he explained, for the system to distinguish between those who were on 'contribution based' Jobseekers Allowance and those on the means-tested 'income based' Jobseekers Allowance' who he believes, should have their spending controlled, because they are spending the state's money.

To support his case, Wind-Cowie, referred to a survey carried out by Demos which claims that of 2,000 people questioned, 60% said that the government should be able to control what people spend their universal credit on and 90%, said that some groups should have their expenditure controlled. It was also claimed that 68% of respondents think that people should be stopped from spending their benefits on gambling and 54% think, that people should be prevented from spending their benefits on things that are bad for their health, such as booze, cigarettes and pornography.

There were some Tories at the fringe meeting who were less enthusiastic about Wind-Cowie's big idea, believing that it might be all piss and wind. John Howell MP, felt that the idea that all people who were on benefits were scroungers, only applied to a minority, and that the vast majority of people were on benefits through no fault of their own. David Mowatt MP, felt that while the state had a legitimate interest in how people spent their benefits, people should be allowed to 'save up for a treat' if they wanted to.

Given the kind of negative press reports that the public are bombarded with on a daily basis about welfare scroungers, it is questionable whether surveys of this kind as carried out by Demos, have any real value. It is well known that public attitudes towards people on state benefits are often based on little knowledge or on misleading and biased reports that people read in the press.

Although it describes itself as an independent 'think-tank', Demos, which was founded in 1993 by the former Marxism Today editor Martin Jacques, and Geoff Mulgan, is closely linked to the Labour Party and was seen as central to New Labour's vision for Britain. Many think-tanks refuse to say who funds them but they are seen by the rich and powerful, as a way of exerting influence over government policy makers.

As the 'scrounger' caricature increases in popularity and people on benefits become demonised in the press, making it easier for the government to cut welfare spending, we should not be surprised that some people are now calling for controls on how people spend their benefit payments. But Max Wind-Cowie, can hardly take credit for launching this idea that as all the hallmarks of the 'nanny state'. Already, such a system is operating in Australia and it has had a mixed reception. Some people have complained that they feel stigmatised by having their spending controlled by means of a smart card while others, have said that the cards have helped them by controlling their spending.

It is unlikely that Wind-Cowie comes into contact with the unemployed very much, even though he's anxious to control their lives, but Demos say, that they are keen to have a debate on this "ethically difficult issue." If any of our readers feel inclined to join the debate and wish to tell Mr. Wind-Cowie how they feel about this issue, he can be contacted on:  020 7367 6311 or max.wind-cowie@demos.co.uk

Another Spanish Robin Hood: Juan Manuel Sánchez Gordillo

LAST month, and not for the first time, Juan Manuel Sánchez Gordillo found himself in the Spanish headlines. Dubbed 'Robin Hood' by El Pais, Sánchez Gordillo, the mayor of a small town in rural Andalusia, led farm labourers into supermarkets to expropriate basic living supplies: they filled trolleys with pasta, sugar, chickpeas and milk, left without paying, and distributed the loot to local food banks. His reasoning was blunt: 'The crisis has a face and a name. There are many families who can't afford to eat.'

It's hard to overstate how close to the brink Spain is at the moment. Unemployment is at 25% nationally (higher than Greece), 34% in Andalusia and 53% for 16-to-24-year-olds; miners in Asturias are firing homemade rocket launchers at riot police; repossessions and the collapse of the construction industry have left 800,000 empty homes, and, last May, the 8 million-strong indignados protest movement, a forerunner of Occupy, announced its total lack of faith in parliamentary democracy to solve any of these problems. And this is just the phoney war: last month, the prime minister, Mariano Rajoy, announced spending cuts of ¤65bn (£51bn) over the next two years.

In the heart of it all, like Asterix's village in Gaul implausibly holding out against the Romans, is Sánchez Gordillo's town, the self-described communist utopia of Marinaleda.  With a population of 2,600, the town has virtually full employment, communally owned land and wage equality.  Over the past three decades, the townspeople have built 350 family homes with their own hands. Residents pay a 'mortgage' of just ¤15 a month towards their homes, but have no opportunity to profit from selling them on.

When you first arrive, Marinaleda looks the same as any small town in rural Andalusia, with olive groves stretching towards a dusty horizon, children kicking footballs against worn stone walls and parasols fluttering gently outside tapas bars. Soon, you begin to notice the little differences: the lack of advertising or brand names, the streets named for Fermín Salvochea, the 19th-century anarchist mayor of Cadiz, and for Salvador Allende, Federico García Lorca and Pablo Neruda.

In the mayor's office hangs a framed portrait of Che Guevara, along with three flags: one for Andalusia, one for the Spanish Second Republic (the elected government displaced by Franco's military coup), and one sporting the red, white and green of Marinaleda itself; it's very clean, and endearingly untidy. In one corner is a flip-chart covered with semi-legible marker pen scribbles, bullet points and wonky arrows; this, it transpires, is the town's budget.

Sánchez Gordillo was born in Marinaleda in 1949; back then, he explains, it was a town of migrant workers. 'They would go to Germany, or France; or for two months a year, to the wheat fields to the north, to look for work. Otherwise, they were unemployed. It was misery. The surroundings were all huge expanses of private land. Andalusia is like Latin America: 2% of property owners own 50% of the land.'

After Franco's death in 1975, Marinaleda began struggling towards its own definition of freedom. Organising around a new trade union, a new workers' party, and with weekly mass meetings, the townspeople began occupying some of the land around the village, owned – and unused – by the Duke of Infantil. The police would arrest or evict them, and they'd start all over again. They blocked roads, broke into and shut down Malaga and Seville airports, marched on Madrid, and went on mass hunger strike. Sánchez Gordillo has been to jail seven times, and survived two assassination attempts by rightwing extremists.

After 12 years of persistent struggle, with 1992's Seville World Expo just round the corner and the regional authorities' resolve finally weakening, incredibly, they won, securing 1,200 hectares of the duke's land for their farming cooperative.

'Our union gathers people of many political stripes,' Sánchez Gordillo explains, 'but we carry the torch of anarchism's direct action.'  He cites 5,000 years of Andalusian struggle for land, and thinks for a moment.  'Even the weekly assembly is direct action.'

The town's relationship with the state is complicated. They are still subject to Spanish electoral law (Sánchez Gordillo is re-elected with a huge majority each time), but have abolished their police force.  'By law, due to the number of inhabitants we have here, we should have around four to seven cops,' he tells me.  'But we don't want police here. Because we have our voluntary work, because we fight together, because we make our lives together, there is a high degree of coexistence. When we plant trees, we do it together too.' Sánchez Gordillo's articulation of what 'community' can mean is striking, when you consider how blithely the word is used by politicians across the west.

'Utopias aren't chimeras, they are the most noble dreams that people have. The dream of equality; the dream that housing should belong to everyone, because you are a person, and not a piece of merchandise to be speculated with; the dream that natural resources – for instance energy – shouldn't be in the service of multinationals, but in the service of the people. All those dreams are the dreams we'd like to turn into realities. First, in the place where we live, with the knowledge that we're surrounded by capitalism everywhere; and later, in Andalusia, and the world.'

Leaving the gleaming white town hall building and departing into the dusk, you find a metal arch spelling out the slogan OTRO MUNDO ES POSIBLE. Another world is possible. In Marinaleda, the words represent not an aspirational mirage, but a statement of fact.

• Adapted from Utopia and the Valley of Tears: A journey through the Spanish crisis, an ebook available from amazon.co.uk from 20 August. 

Dan Hancox Guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 15 August 2012 19.30 BST

Judge rules benefit sanctions unlawful after DWP fails to comply with its own regulations!

Thousands of unemployed benefit claimants who lost money after being sanctioned, may be due a refund following a judicial review brought by two unemployed jobseekers.

In a fifty page ruling, Mr. Justice Foskett, declared that a six-month benefit sanction imposed on Jamieson Wilson a 41-year-old Midlands lorry driver who refused to work unpaid for six-months on the government's 'Community Action Programme (CAP), because he considered it 'forced labour', was unlawful because a letter sent to him by the Department of Work & Pensions (DWP) was "not sufficiently clear and precise to comply with the government's own regulations concerning benefit sanctions." After being sanctioned, Wilson was forced to live on handouts from family and friends after being stripped of his benefits.

The ruling will apply to tens of thousands of jobseekers who received the same or similar letters and were sanctioned. In his ruling, Foskett said:

"It should not be necessary to ferret around for what most people would be inaccessible regulations to find out his or her position...there could be no question of sanctions being validly imposed if no proper notice of the sanction consequences was given."

The ruling says there had been a catalogue of errors surrounding Wilson's right to benefits. He had been told his benefits could be stopped for up to six-months if he refused to participate in the 'CAP' but his benefits could only have been stopped for two weeks.

A claim brought Cait Reilly, a 23-year-old geology graduate from Birmingham, that working for her dole money for 'Poundland', breached Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), that prohibits forced or compulsory labour, was dismissed by Foskett. Although both claims brought by Wilson and Reilly contended that being forced to work unpaid for their benefits amounted to 'forced labour', Foskett ruled that the government work-for-your-dole schemes were "a very long way removed from the kind of colonial exploitation of labour that led to the formulation of
Article 4." But in the Reilly case, he stated that the DWP had broken Jobseeker regulations because she had been wrongly told the 'Work Experience Scheme' was mandatory, when in fact, it was only mandatory after she'd agreed to take part.

Lawyers acting for Reilly and Wilson had also argued that because the DWP had failed to publish enough information about the schemes setting out jobseekers rights and responsibilities, the schemes were unlawful. This claim was also rejected by Foskett.

Although the judge in this judicial review dismissed the main claim that working-for your-dole money was analagous to 'slavery' or 'forced labour', many who have been forced onto these government schemes, perceive it to be so. Likewise, so do the firms who have pulled out who say involvement in the schemes, is damaging their reputations. It is difficult to see how a scheme described as 'mandatory work activity', could not be forced labour even if if it doesn't fall within the meaning of Article 4 of the ECHR. Moreover, there is little evidence that these work-for-you-dole schemes increase peoples' chances of finding work. People who refuse to take part get sanctioned and face destitution and there is increasing evidence that these schemes, are undermining the pay and conditions of those in work. Naturally, employers are attracted to workers costing very little and people who work for nothing, are even more attractive. The government says that it wants to end the "something for nothing culture." We couldn't agree more! Why should the British taxpayer be paying a subsidy to high street stores making billions in profits by providing them with free labour. If these companies want workers, surely, they should be paying for it.

Suicide risk linked to benefit cuts and flaws in government incapacity test!

An internal e-mail which was recently circulated to staff working within the Department of Work & Pensions (DWP), has warned staff that 'ill-handling' of benefit claims involving claimants being moved off sickness benefits to Jobseekers Allowance(JSA), could lead to suicide risks amongst 'vulnerable customers'. The e-mail says:

"Very sadly, only last week a customer of DWP attempted suicide...said to be the result of receiving a letter, informing him that his sickness benefit would be cut off."

Although the e-mail from the DWP, emphasises the need for the "utmost care and sensitivity", when dealing with 'vulnerable customers', disability campaigners have repeatedly warned government ministers that flaws in the Work Capability Assessment(WCA) - which is carried out when someone applies for Employment and Support Allowance(ESA) - could lead to mentally ill people taking their own lives.

In April, the 'Daily Mirror' newspaper revealed that: "at least 32 people are dying each week despite them being ruled not sick enough in the medical test carried out by the private firm 'Atos Healthcare', for the new sickness benefit."(ESA). Among the cases referred to by the newspaper, was that of a warehouse worker whose degenerative lung condition forced him to give up work. Although the man had trouble breathing and walking and his weight had dropped to seven stone, he was awarded no points in the medical test for ESA carried out by 'Atos', and was told that he would be fit to return to work within three months. But the man died, before the 3 months had expired.

While some people gleefully clamour for more benefit cuts and want more welfare reform, it is the less well off, and the most vulnerable, who are making the biggest scarifices to pay off Britain's financial deficit brought about by the banks.

In August 2011, northernvoices blog reported the tragic case of Richard Sanderson aged 44, from Southfield, South West London, who took his own life when he and his family were threatened with eviction following government cuts in his housing benefit.

In May, it was reported in the press that a man had slashed his wrists during an appointment at Birkenhead Jobcentre. The man - who had mental health issues - had missed several appointments and was warned by the benefits officer that he was at risk of being sanctioned and had two options. He was told that he could start turning up on time or continue being late and lose his benefit. The man replied: "I have a third option." He then took out a knife and cuts his wrists.

Last month, the Guardian reported on the case of a 48-year-old man who set himself on fire outside Birmingham Jobcentre over a dispute about delays in receiving his benefits. According to the newspaper, the man had just been found fit for work following a medical assessment.

Though these kind of cases do get reported, negative press reports about feckless workshy scroungers who are "Living the life of Riley" on state benefits, has allowed the government to take away support from the disabled, the unemployed, and the 'working poor'. As a result of this, the government has been able to slash benefits by £18bn and brush aside objections because it believes that the public support a hardline, on benefit cuts. Indeed, opinion polls do suggest that the majority of the British public tends to believe that the government pays out too much in benefits and that welfare levels overall, should be reduced. However, public attitudes towards welfare are often based on little knowledge or influenced by misleading and negative press reports which are drip-fed, to the public on a daily basis. Although many may believe that benefits are too high in this country, it is a fact that out of 27 EU countries, only Estonia has a higher level of poverty among unemployed people than this country. Benefits paid in the UK are amongst the lowest in Europe and over the last 40 years, unemployment benefit has been cut by 50% as a proportion of average earnings, to just 10%. Though the cuts in benefits have been savage, what few people realise, is that 88% of all benefit cuts are still to come.

Conference on unemployment in Manchester

On Saturday I attended  a conference on 'Changing unemployment in Greater Manchester'  supported by GMATUC, Salford, Manchester , and Rochdale Trade Union Councils and union branches.    There was a long list of speakers and facilitators according to the blurb on the promotional leaflet.     The cast included Alec McFadden President Greater Manchester OFFA, Ron Marsden , Volunteer Salford  Unemployed Centre, Alex Halligan Unite the Union and Stephen Hall President Greater Manchester TUC.
Unfortunately the unemployed were manifestly uninterested.   The main hall at the Friends Meeting House was virtually empty for the morning plenary.   One workshop for youth and students had no takers.   The other 2 were poorly attended.   The conference was a resounding flop although the buffet lunch was excellent.

Frank Field calls for the work-shy to be punished. Welfare reforms are not radical enough, he says!

Frank Field (pictured), the Labour MP for Birkenhead, is back in the headlines once again after claiming that David Cameron`s proposals for reforming the welfare state, don`t go far enough. He favours a harsher welfare regime that punishes the 'work-shy' and rewards those who have contributed to the system.

A former Labour minister at the Department of Social Security, he was once dubbed by Tony Blair, his 'minister to think the unthinkable'. But he was criticised for being inclined to pose more questions than he answered. Now he`s been appointed by the Con-Dem government as their 'Poverty Tsar', to look into poverty and life chances.

As a former poverty professional himself, having worked for both the 'Child Poverty Action Group'(CPAG) and the 'Low Pay Unit', Field, ought to know something about poverty. But he has attracted a certain amount of notoriety for his right wing views on welfare reform. He has said that he favours reintroducing National Service to tackle unemployment and to inculcate, in the unemployed, a sense of order and patriotism. Some years ago, he also proposed that the unemployed (like criminals), should be subjected to compulsory DNA testing as a way of countering benefit fraud.

Curiously, as a practising Anglican and member of the Church of England General Synod, Field, seems to show a certain predilection for deriding the poor and disadvantaged. This may well be linked to his upbringing. Both his parents who were Conservatives (like himself), "believed in character and pulling oneself up by one's own bootstraps." He also exhibits a certain inclination towards using the welfare system as a means for social engineering. But as George Orwell, once pointed out, there`s a 'pew-renter' asleep in every Englishman.

Judging from his recent musings in the national press, a number of things seem to gall Frank Field about the welfare state. He says that since the election, nine-out-of-ten jobs which have been created, have gone to foreigners because the British fail to chase work. The public he says, are clamouring for tougher sanctions that force the long-term unemployed back to work, like taking their benefits off them. Moreover, he says, that voters reject the idea that entitlement to state benefits should be based solely on need and not earned. He believes that 'good and reliable' people who have worked and paid National Insurance contributions and contributed to society, should be prioritised for help above others. This equally applies when allocating social housing. Field says that priority should be given to those who are deserving, such as those who have waited the longest, paid their rent on time, and have been upright citizens who have kept their children out of trouble.

Concerning the government's work programme for the unemployed, Field says that he doubts that this will ultimately have a huge impact on the number of workless claimants, or those who have never worked, getting back to work. He believes that those who are likely to gain jobs from these schemes, will be the recently unemployed, who are 'work ready' and motivated and easier to place in work, by private companies running these schemes. However, he adds:

"But what of those lads, barely able to read or write, who tell me they wouldn't dream of taking a job that doesn't pay three times the rate they gain on benefits, and who refuse those jobs available on the grounds that such work is fit only for immigrants? This group of recidivists, workless claimants, know from past experience that governments leave them alone."

Field says that three quarters of the public - including benefit claimants - believe those who willingly refuse to seek work should lose all or part of their benefit. He wants tougher sanctions to force people back to work and believes, that if this is not introduced, the Government`s approach to welfare reform will fail. He also believes that we ought to get back to an insurance based system where benefits are only awarded to those who have paid in and not to those who are in need, or whose income is below a certain threshold.

As Frank Field is undoubtedly aware, claimants already in receipt of Jobseeker`s Allowance (JSA), have to be available for work and must provide evidence that they are seeking work every time they sign-on, in order to keep their JSA. Under the guise of 'work experience', many claimants are also working for their dole money for private employers or are being confined in modern day 'detention centres' doing job searches. If unemployed, your chances having getting a job will differ depending on where you live. Rates of unemployment vary across the country and within regions. In Dorset West, one claimant of JSA is chasing every vacancy, but in Hull North and Rhondda, there are 84 claimants chasing every vacancy. Moreover, Britain has never had a system of social insurance like that which developed in countries like France and Germany. Britain`s welfare system is a product of the new poor law and the 'workhouse', which continued in this country from 1834 to the introduction of the National Assistance Act in 1948. The 'means test', the workhouse, the 'deserving and undeserving poor' and the principle of 'less eligibility', have shaped and moulded the British Welfare State for donkey's years, as well as the opinions of its ruling political elite.

For the last 30 years, successive governments in this country have continually sought to undermine and dismantle the benefits system on a piecemeal basis, to make it less attractive to be out of work and to price the unemployed back into work by taking low-paid employment. Hyperbole about the work-shy, scroungers, and the deserving and undeserving, used by political parasites like Frank Field, are merely conjurors tricks designed to make it easier to cut the benefits bill. The Con-Dem (millionaire) government of which he is a member, is already, "looking at more radical American-style plans to set time limits on benefits for fit people of working age", (Daily Telegraph 21/6/11).

We should not forget that back in 1996 the government cut contributory unemployment benefit from 12 months entitlement to 6 months, at a stroke, regardless of how much money people had paid into the system and without any consultation whatsoever. Who would pay into social insurance system where there was no guarantee that the government would even honour the social contract? Likewise, who would want to buy into a system which is so punitive and which pays a mere pittance, to the jobless, as compared with other welfare systems in other EEC countries? While means-testing may well create perverse incentives like making people less inclined to save, it has nevertheless, been preferred by British governments because it is far cheaper than the cost of providing a universal welfare system, where everybody was entitled, who had paid in.