“Farewell, fair cruelty” – The Age of anti-welfare

The “Safety Net”

Ian Duncan-Smith has introduced a new system of welfare payments in the UK that seeks to better link payments to the sick, disabled and those out of work to their ability to find work and get paid for work. His (and his government’s stance) is that since the introduction of welfare payments (brought in by the post-WWII Labour government following the Beveridge Report in 1942), the world has changed and welfare has become a “right”  that needs to be changed.

Churchill had previously voiced his view that a safety net be provided to all those in society who fell on hard times. In 2006, Greg Clark  (now Financial Secretary to the Treasury) urged the Tories not to be caught up in Churchillian rhetoric as: “The traditional Conservative vision of welfare as a safety net encompasses another outdated Tory nostrum – that poverty is absolute, not relative. Churchill’s safety net is at the bottom: holding people at subsistence level, just above the abyss of hunger and homelessness.”

Mr Duncan-Smith, according to Peter Oborn, writing in the Daily Telegraph “is animated by a profoundly Christian vision of free will, redemption, and what it means to be human in a fallen and imperfect world.” It is this vision that hearkens back to Churchill and pushes this coalition government in the direction of the 19th Century.

Individual vs. State

The balance in any modern, developed State is to balance the interests of individuals and State (and also at least think through the requirements and abilities of the third sector / civil society). While, as Oborn writes, Margaret Thatcher ignored the welfare system and the NHS by refusing to substantively alter them, and while Blair and most obviously Brown made them more a political football, Duncan-Smith has taken a view that individuals must be given the incentive to work and stand on their feet.

This fits well in a society still in a state of shock following the banking crisis of 2007/8 and where our sovereign debt position is a massive risk for our future.

It fits with Tory doctrine of the 19th Century (although not with the post-WWII consensus that MacMillan and succeeding Tories espoused).

It fits partially with the Liberals (although not necessarily the Social Democrat wing in the Liberal Democrats) in that the balance between individuals and the State should always veer toward the former – although Liberals will usually point to freedoms and open society issues rather than the “incentives” that Duncan-Smith talks about.

Welfare Stands Alone

The problem is that while it is possible that Duncan-Smith has a mission and feels genuinely that welfare needs to be changed, the world is not just about welfare. It is also about economics and opportunity. Attempting to change welfare benefits (which will naturally come down hardest on the weakest sections of society) without successfully managing up the fortunes of the wider economy and critical areas such as education (a crucial force for change and a massive “enabler” in ensuring people have the skills and capabilities that allow them to stand on their feet) cannot work.

Even Samuel Smiles (the 19th Century author of Self-Help) said: “I would not have any one here think that, because I have mentioned individuals who have raised themselves by self-education from poverty to social eminence, and even wealth, these are the chief marks to be aimed at. That would be a great fallacy. Knowledge is of itself one of the highest enjoyments. The ignorant man passes through the world dead to all pleasures, save those of the senses… Every human being has a great mission to perform, noble faculties to cultivate, a vast destiny to accomplish. He should have the means of education, and of exerting freely all the powers of his godlike nature.” (my underlining).

Government is split into different areas of control and it is a real dilemma. If David Cameron really wishes to go back to the 19th Century and bring in welfare reforms that attempt to force people to work or lose benefits, then the same Government has, at least, to generate the capabilities that will allow them to do so.

This means that George Osborne and his Ministers have to attack our substantial problems of growth (or the lack of it) while we seem to be entering a Japanese-style lost decade.

This means that Michael Gove (himself on a mission) has to ensure that those areas of greatest need in education (which are the areas most adversely impacted by Duncan-Smith’s welfare reforms) receive the resources (investment and brainpower) that they need. This could, for example, mean forcing top quality schools (from private and public sectors) to link up with worst performing schools in the country much as Lord Adonis tried to do voluntarily as he describes in his recent book “Education, Education, Education: Reforming England’s Schools”.

Of course, this means jointly pursuing policies as a Government rather than addressing individual issues one at a time because individual Ministers want to make a name for themselves.

Of course, this is the job of a Prime Minister (and in a Coalition, the Deputy Prime Minister) to see that the key decisions of each Ministry complement each other. They have failed to see how disjointed it all is and failed to understand the changes that have been put in place since the 19th Century that repels the drive to go back in time.

Back to the Poor Laws

There is a real danger that the failure to articulate a vision by our politicians, allied to an economic position that is perilous is leading the UK (or at least England) back to the Poor laws as articulated in 1834. This was the age of the workhouse as described so well by Charles Dickens. The 19th Century zeal, which Duncan-Smith is bringing to bear, is allied to monetarism and austerity together with an education philosophy which focuses on individual schools (Academies) without much understanding of how to best ensure the worst ones thrive.

This means that a “perfect storm” is likely to erupt: an economy of austerity, a goodbye to welfare and a lack of educational opportunity where it is needed. This may be seen in the future as a Government that forgot the riots of 2011 much like the riots against the Poor Laws in the 1830’s.

Modern times deserve modern remedies and better leadership

The challenge for any Government in a post-2007 world is to sufficiently understand the role it places in providing the underpinning for a thriving society. This is not the old Tory rule from the top – where the top 3% get the resources and everyone hopes for a trickle down effect. The class system in the UK – no longer just three – may have been dispersed but the political class may not have yet picked up on their duties.

Whether or not many welfare recipients have pro-actively taken themselves out of the work markets and work ethics, Government’s job is to enable them to come back into the market. This means motivating and educating at the same time as gradually changing the rewards structure.

Tell a workforce that they are pathetic and they will become so. Tell people that they are work-shy scroungers and they will not co-operate. Cameron and Osborne (and Gove) understand little about leadership. They want to show leadership by forcing issues not by motivation (or nudging – I understand they read that book – shame they never read any on good leadership) in the same way that the Upper Classes ruled in the 19th Century.

Modern times need a government that motivates and has a vision that is constant throughout – not a bunch of managers with no sense of leadership.

This should mean that rhetoric changes to encouragement not estrangement in a way that Miliband’s desire for “One Nation” (Disraeli) is meant to work. Within that rhetoric (maybe the start of some vision), the economic policies of sustainable growth have to be applied not just hope that austerity will somehow work and shift us to private economy growth; within that rhetoric, an education system that drives the worst schools to function along with the connectivity with local people (including parents); within that rhetoric, a welfare system that rewards such involvement in the community – not just salaried work.

The latter means that people should be able in a modern society to be able to work in a variety of areas – within civil society – rather than for a pittance in a salaried job. This also means spending time with kids where the worst performing schools are victims of poverty and estrangement of parents and local leadership.

This is joined up Government where each part of government takes fully into account what is happening in other sectors of society. It is not what we have now.

Farewell, fair cruelty was said by Viola in Twelfth Night – Viola was trying it on – a woman pretending to be a man.

Duncan-Smith is worried about welfare beneficiaries who shouldn’t be getting welfare – people who are not what they say they are.

This government is pretending to be showing leadership – it isn’t. It is merely repeating the mistakes of their forebears from 200 years ago.

Farewell welfare, indeed. We run the risk of becoming an anti-welfare society that alienates huge sections of it while the rest of government stands aside. Time for some vision and leadership and for this government to understand the impact one part has on another – Duncan-Smith needs Osborne and Gove to help him succeed.  Malvolio’s experiences in Twelfth Night may also be educational for Ian Duncan-Smith – he was also a man more sinned against than sinning.

Advertisements

“Everyone should be allowed to bribe”

I had an interesting discussion the other day at a Fundraising event. Sitting opposite me was a businessman who also does a tremendous amount of work for charity. We got into a discussion on corruption – specifically, bribery. The discussion centred on how “the Bribery Act was causing business a lot of trouble” and that the UK “as always” was taking it seriously whereas other countries would not. We would therefore be undermined and lose business.

I argued differently. Working for Global Witness since 2007 (I left in late 2011), I had played a small part in working to get the Bill into law, then to ensure the guidelines made sense and have since worked with organizations like the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA) to provide guidance (I wrote their guidance on the Act) and chaired their Bribery Act conference at St Paul’s Cathedral in 2011.

The businessman, actually a very interesting, successful and intelligent individual, suggested that, to make it fair, “everyone should be allowed to bribe” as much as they liked.

It was a Fundraising event, so not the time for a row – nevertheless, it reminded me sharply about how the world works and how it is split between those who understand the chaos that endemic bribery causes and those that see only the micro-economy (through the eyes of individual businesses) rather than the macro-economic chaos and individual misery that bribery causes.

We live in a disjointed world

I have recently been involved in the filming of a documentary on corruption that will go out later this year. So, although I have left Global Witness (which campaigns against natural resource-related corruption and conflict), I have stayed in touch with the issue.

It is easy when involved within an NGO to forget how business folk (as I counted myself for many years) can disassociate themselves from wider issues. I spent most of my career in business and those who are very successful are completely focused – like an athlete focused on winning a gold medal at the Olympics. The best are relentlessly single-minded in the pursuit of gold – the best business people are similar. This means that they are completely focused on what benefits their business.

This is why the US Chambers of Commerce have been waging a war on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) for some time. The USA has, since the FCPA was brought into being in 1977, been way ahead of the field in anti-bribery law. This has heated up recently as the US authorities have piled into those who are believed to have breached the Act and, mainly through out of court settlements, have gained hundreds of millions of $ in fines and caused real change in US companies and how they operate outside the US especially.

But, the Chambers of Commerce believe that this puts the US at a disadvantage as other countries don’t have similar laws, they believe, or flout them.

Of course, this is no longer the case in many parts of the world. The OECD Anti-Bribery Convention was signed up to by 39 countries and the Convention is a tough one. As a result, the UK was eventually shamed into all-party support for anti-bribery legislation and the Bribery Act was the outcome – which came into law in July, 2011. It is actually a tougher law than the FCPA – making facilitation payments illegal, for example, and making the bribery of anyone (including government officials) a criminal act if it affects a decision. However, if a company has good processes and trains its staff well (Adequate Procedures), Directors of the company are unlikely to be prosecuted. Let’s face it, the funding of prosecutions is also likely to mitigate against major cases being developed.

However, the Act has led to a large industry being developed in training and in new processes. I was on the working group in the UK that brought in guidance for the not-for-profits (charities and NGO’s) in the UK (under the auspices of Transparency International and Mango) so saw very clearly how every organization (business or not-for-profit) could be affected by the Act.

This new anti-bribery industry has seen a number of lawyers move from the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) to private industry – confirmation if needed for business people that the whole thing is a cash generator for law firms and those in them and nothing more.

The equivalent of the “revolving door” that has been denigrated for years when politicians or civil servants enact laws or make project decisions and then move to senior positions in companies, is now taken as a serious concern by business people who see the same situation used against them! There is an irony there somewhere.

Corruption hurts

Business people see anti-bribery legislation as a problem. It makes business (in their opinion) more difficult in the same way that early 20th Century business people saw health and safety legislation as a problem. I am sure that many business people in the 19th Century saw government money being used to build the sewer system in London as a huge drain on their wealth and a public use of funds that proved that their wealth creation was being used against them – even if for the public good.

So, it must be galling to see anti-bribery legislation (which is international in concept and which is aimed at benefitting the poor in the poorest countries) put into force. In the USA, business is working to erode the law that has been in place successfully for 35 years – a law that has led the world. In the UK, there is irritation (maybe mounting anger) at the Bribery Act. And its implementation costs.

Business folk (and I was one for many years) see the short term and their bottom line. They find it hard to associate themselves with the wider questions about how corruption transfers wealth from the mass of people to a few – as, say, in Angola; how it ensures that money is spent on items that are not needed – very expensive air traffic control systems  in Tanzania, for example; how it adds to the price that poor nations pay; how nations like Nigeria are completely beholden to corruption as was England in the 18th Century – a nation where every job, every hospital appointment, every legal decision is likely to be subject to payment / bribes. Look at Greece and its current malaise – not paying tax is a symptom of a society corrupted – so much of the economy is bribery-induced – the black market is a corrupt market and leads to short-term benefits and long-term disaster.

Values are not for sale

The Bribery Act is now in place in the UK; the FCPA has been tried and tested in the USA for 35 years; 39 countries have signed up to the OECD convention. Yet, we probably face a bigger problem. The growth of nations such as China, India and Russia face us with enormous challenges as each nation is, in its own way, a centre of corruption.

China has adopted a Confucian posture – hit hard at home to rid itself of the endemic corruption that is at the centre of its totalitarian heart while allowing corruption to exist where it trades – such as in Africa. The Confucian spirit allows it to leave alone the nations with which it does business at the same time as Western nations attempt to apply governance to aid budgets. This is a time of real challenge and western countries should be working more than ever to instill values not just trying to compete for short-term gains. It used to be “if we don’t bribe, the French will”;  now the same phrase is directed at China, Russia and India (the home of www.Ipaidabribe.com).

We should not allow our values to be for sale for short-term benefits even in times of economic stress.

Is Bribery good for Business?

There are examples of businesses that have high values and most do not engage in bribery. Usually, those with the highest values are large businesses that know their CSR will be shaken by reputational problems. It makes business sense not to take the risk – bribery is bad for business.

Medium to small businesses, where the main opportunity for employment growth exists in most countries, are less concerned with CSR – which most think of as meaningless nonsense. Societal issues are way down the list of priorities – international issues are nowhere.

Hemmed in (in their view) by unjust legislation on all sides that seeks to choke off the spirit of enterprise, small businesses fight to survive daily. To them, bribery may be a necessary part of life. So what if people overseas suffer as a result – jobs are created for British firms and if we don’t do it, someone else (like the Chinese) will.

Globalisation in this context means nothing but cheap supply chains, cheap overseas labour and opportunities for exports. Globalisation does not mean we should take account of international problems.

Like 19th mill owners who fought sanitation bills as bad for business, who (in the main) were not interested in the health of their workers, who were only constrained by legal changes, many business people will only react to changes in the law because they are focused on their business and anything that adversely affects that business is bad – by its very nature. Bribery may allow business to take place – if a British company is not allowed to do it, business may well be lost.

Is bribery good for business? Of course not – just like the death of a worker because of shoddy safety systems, just like the gradual reduction in bullying at work because most acknowledge it is not needed – we inherently know that bribery (the corruption of people to make decisions go our way) is abhorrent. The impact is grotesque and cannot be justified even for a few extra short-term jobs.

Relentlessly focused business leaders know that bribery is wrong (at least most do) and, apart from the most extreme libertarians, understand that globalization means that the rules of business engagement are going to be made international. We cannot for long assume that developing countries will, for long, expect to be treated as the working class of 19th Century England. The class structure of international business will, over time, lessen just as we have made changes to our own class structure in Europe and North America and elsewhere.

Good business cannot “allow everyone to be bribed”. It is not just an ethical position, but a business one. Business should be undertaken on a level playing field where no-one bribes – we should be striving to ensure that bribery is minimized not allowed everywhere. Rules or norms are basic for societies to function. In a global society, the norms need to be widely applied. Bribery is bad – we all know it. Business leaders, here and in the USA, should be leading the fight – not over-reacting and running in the opposite direction.

Brave New World of Education II – Aspiration, aspiration, aspiration

A couple of days ago, Dr Mary Bousted, The Association of Teachers and Lecturers head, voiced the view that schools were segregated along class lines. Back in January, I wrote in:

https://jeffkaye.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/the-complexity-of-education-politics-and-economics-brave-new-world/

how education, like politics and economics, is mired in the 19th Century. The picture is of a three-tier system of private education (independent schools), middle tiers (mainly converter academies in the secondary sector) and the rest. From my blog of 22 January, 2012:

Three sectors – remnants of 19th Century decision-making and 19th Century thinking.

Yet, we operate in the 21st Century. Education has to achieve many things yet does something different in each of the three areas.

In the first (the alpha sector), it provides a broad education and the ability to move into society at the highest-level possible. This is through networks (with universities, companies, politics) and through the provision of relevant education – through learning that equips pupils to reach for higher standards to learning that enables pupils to attain the next step (e.g. university).

In the second (the beta sector), network management is usually missing entirely and virtually dispensed with because it is deemed wrong. But, we live with 19th Century norms and this required networking. Education is primarily Government dictated through the curriculum, which is all about exams. The three aspects of learning above are ill considered by most schools even in this sector. However, some break through and many achieve better exam results – although most result in the attainment of tertiary education into the beta sector of universities.

In the Third (Epsilon), many schools (not all, this can be changed) keep kids off the streets (to greater or lesser effect) and provide an entry path into the wider world or working. Networks and networking are non-existent except in the local area. Chances of reaching out and attaining higher levels are poor even though funding is substantial (and higher per head than in the Beta sector).

I am fortunate enough to be Chair of Governors of a converter academy with aspirations to be alpha and pretty close to that aspiration. It is now quite likely that pupils educated at the school will be able to step into the right universities (Russell Group or other top level) and move through society’s obstacles. It is a school where parents have high aspirations for their kids and where the school reflects that and leads that aspiration. Motivation is high and there is now a virtuous circle of expectation. This is the Big Society in practice – we all (staff, students, governors, families, local community) share in the benefits and successes of the school.

But, the stratification of society is cemented into position by the school structure. This is not quite what it used to be – there is now an aspirational middle tier that is forcing the pace of education and aspiration. It is a constant problem, though, that schools get placed in locations that they have to serve. Schools can’t (in the main) relocate to improve their intake. They are literally stuck and location means that a school has to accept its intake (whether at primary or secondary level) and do its best.

Aspirations, aspirations, aspirations

What Government is doing is to shake the education bottle – so-called competition for schools, a variety of types of school, new Ofsted leadership and criteria, an end to modular exams at GCSE, more focus on English and maths and the baccalaureate subjects.

Some of this is good, some neutral, and some harmful – but it is all focused on the schools. It is the education, education, education mantra allied with the change, change, change reality that schools are hit with by every government of every complexion.

What is it apart from this that will change the whole nature of education and also deal with the issues that Dr Bousted raises (as I raised three months ago)?

It is all about aspiration.

The aspirations of the kids are directly the result of the aspirations for them of their parents / guardians. In areas where low aspiration parents can send their kids to a high aspiration  school, then the kids can (possibly) raise their targets to compete.

But, where the whole school is in an area of low aspiration (mainly those in inner cities and low income areas), then low aspirations of the parents will transfer to low aspirations of their kids. Staff may fight this but they are limited by the level of life expectation of their “raw material”.

Attempts to change this through investment in the earlier type of Academies have been well meant, expensive and occasionally successful. Education groups (companies and organisations taking over failing schools) can bring some sort of attainment to their students and raise the bar. These are too few to be meaningful and the high funding levels have been curtailed as we enter a prolonged period of austerity. If this is not to be a pervasive system (and it won’t be), are free schools or equivalent an answer?

The contract between state, education and families

No education system will produce 100% scientists, doctors, mathematicians or similar and nor should they. We are all different and society needs a mixture. What we don’t need is the mixture that Huxley’s Brave New World’s dystopian future predicted. We need to evolve our education to meet the needs of society and individuals now – no three tier society from birth but an aspirational society where success is based on capability and merit.

Continued development of the education of our children is crucial to this but it is not sufficient. Dr Bousted’s fears are justified unless we can provide an aspiration amongst our kids and their parents / wider families.

It is no longer sufficient to take pupils into a system and try to modify their minds when, for most of their time they are facing outside pressures from families and peer groups that ridicule the aspirational notions that a good school may try to employ.

It is no longer enough for schools to be expected on their own to persuade parents that they have to inspire as much as the schools try; that kids should, from whatever their background, raise their aspirations to maximize their opportunities – just as wave after wave of immigrant families have done in the UK for generation after generation.

There is a contract signed between parents / guardians and their schools. The contract fails in a key respect (apart of its complete lack of enforceability, of course) – it fails because the focus is only on the pupil. The contract needs to be one where the family provides the environment in which a child can use the opportunities that a good school can provide. The contract needs to be able to ensure that the wider community (which is mainly the family but may be the local community especially in areas of intense peer pressure and gang cultures) ensures that the child is provided with a culture of aspiration.

Changing family aspirations – alpha-oriented

Vast numbers of changes to our education system (to our schools especially) happen every year. At the same time, society seems to be going backwards. Movement between class structures has been stymied and income differences in the UK are growing as the economy shudders to a halt (factory production is still 9% below the all-time high from 5 years ago).

Schools have to continuously improve but it is not enough. The need for every school to be a very good one, offering the best for our children is crucial but an unreal expectation as the reality of society impedes it. Dr Bousted is right in that class infects schools through their location. However, bussing kids around will not work – what may work is a focus of the local community aided by government on the families.

Changing aspirations within family groups is the key to improving education within the toughest and most deprived areas. Kids can change on their own, but only in isolated pockets – where some incredible teacher exists, for example. Anecdotes that show that it can happen are not enough. We should not see the exceptions as the rule. The rule should be extended to where families and local communities demand and work hard for aspirations to be extended; where maybe a middle class tenacity to succeed and take advantage of the opportunities presented exist everywhere.

To do this, pilot schemes should be started alongside the school programmes in areas of greatest challenge. Here funds should be provided and contracts entered into to maximise parental involvement (and local community groups, too, where this is needed) and where research should be carried out where it works so success can be shared. Where needed, this should encourage education opportunities for parents and families so that education is seen as the norm – not something to be shunned as soon as possible. Local government and local companies should be more than one week a lifetime work studies – there should be a continuous involvement.

Where it works already, this must be copied and studied again and again.

Local communities often see the school as the community hub. But, this has been in the absence of anything else and the community uses the school as a place to hold events. Now, we should see the school as a real community hub – the focus of families and our children to address themselves to the real contract – raising the aspirational levels of all our kids so that families are educated together. Education should be seen as the huge opportunity is really is.

We talk about “joined-up thinking” but society needs to be joined up, too, in the way it works. The 21st Century has provided the opportunity for us to join on-line and it is a benefit. The real benefit would be a localism that is based on the school (nursery, primary and secondary) and links those schools with the families for joint education. Schooling should genuinely be life-long so that birth should not dictate your future and a real availability of opportunity should be our aspiration.