Government workfare policy almost wrecks Queen's jubilee celebrations

The Queen's jubilee celebrations provided much joy for members of the British public of all classes. They defied the rain and the cold temperatures to pay tribute to her lengthy service. However, the sceptre of spiteful Tory policy is never far away. Their workfare policy, which encourages young people to work for nothing to gain 'experience', provided an uncomfortable backdrop which threatened to tarnish the memory of the Bank Holiday weekend festivities.

In this outstanding piece of research by Shiv Malik, it was revealed that young people were bussed in to London from other areas of the country with pockets of deprivation, including Bristol and Plymouth, to provide security for the jubilee pageant. Their coaches arrived too early, at 3am, and they were left camp under London Bridge. Yes - in 2012, the young poor found themselves in a situation that could have been straight out of the history books of Victorian Britain. They were unpaid slaves. Having spent hours cold and wet under a bridge, they worked for nothing, as royalty flowed down the river in a golden boat and hoards of royalists watched on, expressing their pride in being British by waving flags.

This is a completely unacceptable state of affairs. Instead of forcing young servants to work for nothing, the long British summer should be used as a means to provide economic opportunities for these people. The Olympics, the jubilee celebrations, and the prospect of perhaps a warm summer, should be opportunities to provide paid employment - not another means for the wealthiest to exploit the poorest. It is another example how those holding currency in this country do not want to share any of it with the nation's poorest. Unemployment will not go down while the so-called wealth creators know they can employ people for nothing.

There are a few counter-arguments to this position, largely surrounding the idea that the jubilee events were a privilege to be involved in and young people agreed to participate to get experience. So let us consider some of these arguments.

1. "They agreed to it"
One of the counter-claims is the young people agreed to the unpaid work. Whether they have agreed to it or not is a moot point - nobody should be made to feel they should work for nothing for a chance in life. Some knew they were not being paid, but felt they had to go along with it or maybe lose their welfare benefits. Others were allegedly bribed with the promise of work at the Olympics. None of them expected to be treated like peasants, dumped under a soggy bridge and left to sample Cardboard City life from the Thatcherite 1980s.

2. "They are paid state benefit, so in theory had been paid"
Anyone who has been on state benefit knows the income it provides does little more than buy food and pay the bills. It is not a means to live an active and sociable life. The conditions of state benefit include actively seeking work and demonstrating a willingness to do this, so it is not a payment without conditions in its first instance. The purpose of benefits is to help counter the effects of poverty. Welfare payments should not be a means to justify blackmail. This kind of blackmail potentially affects millions of people out of work at present. Despite the void of millions of jobs needed, this blame culture continues, with the poor being ordered to get on their bikes to find work - or in this case, a coach.

3. "Others were camping out just to get a good position to enjoy the event"
Well good for them. How very deferential. If anyone was camping out to be there, I hope they had taken the necessary safety precautions, and I hope they enjoyed their day. The slaves were never going to enjoy the day in quite the same way. They were on duty. They had to work. They had to deal with any problems that arose. They had to deal with colleagues, and take instructions. And they should have been able to do this without the stress of having arrived at 3am and left to fend for themselves. As a side note, it is also worth mentioning that if it was a mere "logistics error" (as the manager of the private firm responsible for the security colourfully described it), what else was not done properly? Were those unemployed people plucked to provide security (of all things) sufficiently security-checked themselves? Would we have known if they were terrorists?

Those who think the centre-left, led by Lord Prescott, are being typically difficult about workers' rights and blowing this issue up out of all proportion, here is some food for thought. It is just as well that the debate is "merely" about the employment rights of young people. If someone had been seriously injured or killed as a result of negligence, the debate would have been far more critical, and the jubilee weekend would have been wrecked thanks to this inept government and their rotten employment policies.

This incident is typical of the problems we face in 2012 under a callous government. Although our society's problems cannot be compared to those in Syria, it is difficult to wonder how we can consider setting anyone else free when sections of our society are not free. A minimum wage should mean a minimum wage for all. That means no more unpaid internships, and a termination of the workfare policy.

Would it really cause great hardship to companies to pay all workers who wish to learn their trade with them? There are enough mechanisms for employers to rid themselves of staff who struggle to grasp the work thanks to our lightweight employment laws. They could take a chance on these young people and pay them what they deserve. Their own lack of economic consciousness mean that many companies are unaware of the fact that they also need paid staff for the economy they rely on to function, An economy that provides liquidity to the poorest is in the interests of all but the very wealthiest of companies. Staff who are unpaid for their labour cannot be consumers. Until the consumers are given the resources to participate in economic life, the economy will continue to stagnate. Sadly nothing will change unless this government changes course, or a sensible government is elected to replace it.

Cameron taking us all for fools - We must all fight him harder

"You're taking everyone for fools" - that was one of David Cameron's regular digs at Gordon Brown back in the days before the Condem coalition. If that was true, then not enough people were taken in to offer Brown another term in office. David Cameron however has had no difficulty taking people for fools.

This week, in Questions to the Prime Minister, Cameron explained how reforms to the welfare system were necessary in order to manage Britain's economic deficit.

His government's menu of ideas include tinkering with the NHS, pricing young people out of education, taking child tax credits out of the homes of those young people who depend on it, and making young people go and work for wealthy corporations for free. It's like we are going back to the future - and the future is 1812 rather than 2012.

At the same time, there are suggestions that the 50p tax rate for high earners may be on the way out at the next budget. On that note, I am not sure how that helps the nation's books, but I am confident it will not lead to an increase in revenue. Maybe there are a few more pounds left to shake out of the pockets of our young. The one thing he will not be able to do is take is their school milk - his mentor already plundered that a generation ago.

How can all this eternal assault on the nation's children be explained? It is quite simple. One one hand, wealthy business people donate to the Tories; on the other hand. many young people do not vote. The young and the poor have been battered by the Tories throughout history, but somehow the party's vote continues to hold up.

The Liberal wing of the Condem axis have paid the greatest price in terms of lost votes. This is understandable as they promoted a worthless manifesto in 2010 which tricked many people into voting for them. Their worthless campaign involved lying to students on university campuses about changing university fees. When I say 'changing', I refer to their promise to eliminate them. I wonder what happened to that one.

The Lib Dems have argued that they did not win the election and can only negotiate concessions in the Tory-led decision-making processes. This may be true, but I am not sure I have ever witnessed more of a spurned opportunity in the history of British politics. They have leverage to be far more disruptive than they are currently being. Rather than just waving policy through, how about scuppering a few Commons votes, just to let the Tories know that this Condem coalition lark is not going to be all easy?

Not only have the Lib Dems spurned the chance to show the power their casting vote gives them, they have also spurned the chance to set a more contrary convention for coalition governments. Where was it written in the rules that coalitions have to be so collegiate? A bit of antagonism would not suddenly bring down the coalition government, so they should give it a go.

At the moment the Lib Dems are being taken for fools. Then again, at the moment the whole electorate are being taken for fools.

Con-Dem government sell Northern Rock at a loss

The incompetent Tory-led government have sold Northern Rock - the bank rescued by their predecessors during the credit crisis. The price at just £747 million is almost half the £1.4 billion invested by the taxpayer, though there is the possibility of a further £280 million. Angry? You should be.

Over thirty years, the Tories have repeatedly shown they have failed to learn from history and are doomed to repeat their own mistakes. In the same way they handed over Britain's utilities for the financial equivalent of peanuts in the 1980s and 1990s (those utilities that now change hands for billions, and charge their customers extortionate fees), they handed over the bank, almost at the first opportunity.

If a director of your company paid to acquire a struggling company, steadied the ship, then sold it for less than paid for it, would you have confidence in that director? No you would not. And I do not have faith in this government.

Where has all the money gone? (Part Two)

Almost a month has passed since I pondered the causes of all the seemingly missing money in the world. Apart from the reminding ourselves countries have run out of cash, that banks are not flush with cash and the general public certainly have little in their pockets, nothing is clearer. As a self-certified non-economist, the best I can do is produce crude theories. Here is one such theory.

I see the world as a massive game of poker. And it follows logically that there are only so many chips on the table. We all know that governments try to avoid printing money because it makes bad things happen, such as hyperinflation. So there is always a limited number of chips.

Eventually one person ends up with all the chips in the game of poker. As far as I can make out, something remarkably similar has happened to the world financial fluidity. Of course this game of global poker is so large no individual ends up with all the chips as they would in poker, but some definitely end up with greater piles than others. Worse than that, just as with poker, when someone has a big pile of chips, it becomes easier for them to take a great deal more chips from others.

It is enough to convince me that the theory of economic success is in fact a fallacy. A successful company is based on a flawed notion that those industries and companies (who, in poker analogy, have most of the chips) must keep increasing their income year-on-year. For example, company X may make a £275m profit on the year, but this is considered failure because the previous year they made £300m. What happens when all this money is lying around static in corporations? What happens when someone retires as a Chief Executive with more money than he or she will ever be able to spend?

The answer is we end up with money that is fenced out of the system and leads to a constraining of future economic success, as well as the limitation of the economic capability of those who have to share the rest of the shrinking pot between ourselves.

What does everyone else think? Have I got it completely wide of the mark - as Tories with economic qualifications will take great delight in saying I have? I may not be an economist but I do not think so. More to follow on this no doubt....

Where has all the money gone? (Part One)

It seems as though the world has been consumed by a vacuum, which has taken all our money from us. The UK is struggling to make ends meet. The USA legislatures have spent the week scrambling around to increase the country's credit limit. Greece, Portugal and Ireland are among a group of countries that have teetered on the brink of going under because of their debts. Who is owed all this money and where has all the money gone?

Are the debts owed to other countries? If so, which ones? If the USA cannot pay its bills, then I doubt many countries are doing any better. Or maybe these countries have borrowed from the banking sector? That cannot be the case either, as governments had to bail them out for their incompetence.

The problem is I am no economist, so I do not have the answer. It seems as though dollar bills and pound notes have just vanished off the face of the earth. Maybe an economist has an explanation for this. Is it possible for money to just vanish? More reflections to follow later in the week or at the weekend.