Meaningless words
"Reform" is one of the most devalued words in politics. It should go into lexographical dustbin along with "radical" and "change".
Consider the issue of welfare "reform". Alarmed by the Tories unveiling of "radical" welfare "reforms", Gordon Brown is today highlighting his own "radical reforms". He and his new welfare secretary, James Purnell, will pledge to introduce proposals recommended by the ex City banker David Freud. This is just, you may recall, what the Tories did a few weeks ago. Freud called for the provision of job search, placement and preparation to be privatised and incentivisised so that voluntary organisations and private companies are rewarded for how successful they are both in getting the unemployed back into work and ensuring that they stay there. Both parties now say they'd do what he called for.
That is not to suggest that there are no differences on welfare policy. Brown's emphasis is on the acquisition of skills. Today, fresh from his sightseeing in India and China, he will talk of a "skills race" replacing the "arms race" as the problem facing modern politicians. He is fond of repeating the claim that Britain has 5 million unskilled workers but will soon only need half a million. Hence, his solutions focus on extending the effective school leaving age, extending the number of apprenticeships and compelling the unemployed to develop their skills.
The Conservatives are, naturally enough, sceptical of some of these grand state interventions and have focussed more on simply getting the unemployed back into any form of work. Hence their proposal for New York style workfare for the persistently unemployed. Although, I note, that they shied away from "radical" (in the true sense of the word) welfare "reforms" like those in Wisconsin which time-limited the payment of benefits.
I well recall Margaret Thatcher's ministers talking of "radical" shake-ups of the welfare state and Tony Blair's promise to "think the unthinkable" on "welfare reform". My conclusion. I'll believe it when I see it.
I'm 
Comments
How long have we been waiting for reform of the House of Lords? Last Saturday, Plaid elected its first official representatives of this Second Chamber, using hustings and STV. We will not be using any titles within the party and will also be expecting them to do a job of work.
Believe it when you see it.
The rhetoric from Brown is unbelievable considering he has just effectively given business a further 拢700 million tax rise.
What needs to happen is to free business up to thrive rather than throttle it with a really heavy tax burden - and give incentives to train and keep staff. Cut the bureaucracy that businesses face, but unfortunately this initiative will probably be forced on business with more red tape to go with it. With the economy teetering on recession, the least of our fears will be the skills race.
Thanks, Nick - I'm not sure I'll be holding my breath either.
I've lived for a few years in a couple of places where there is virtually no state support for the long-term unemployed - South Africa, and the Deep South of the US.
When you don't have a direct safety net, employed taxpayers still end up paying to deal with the problems of unemployment - either by contributing to charity (food banks, housing projects, churches and the like), or through less pleasant and more direct intervention (increased costs of emergency services, insurance, private security). Poor, unemployed people are a drain on society, welfare state or no.
But someone somewhere must be looking at the numbers - where can I go to find out how much a person on long term unemployment benefit costs the country, as opposed to how much it costs to cut someone loose and pick up the tab for consequences?
Or is this all driven by dogma, not data?
Developing skill and opportunity is key to success. This requires people to develop themselves and for events to put a chance to succeed under their nose. By enabling people to achieve and encouraging business to invest, success will naturally flow without effort. The Conservative plan of forcing people into slavery doesn't work in the long-run.
Every scientific, spiritual, and business fundamental screams that the government is pursuing the right path. Meanwhile, the Conservatives are merely projecting their own self-inflicted hell onto everyone else. The unemployed don't have a problem but the Conservatives do. It would be better if they kept their mouths shut and fixed themselves first.
I'm mindful of Broken Britain and the state of its economy and society. The narrow, inflexible, and impatient approach is poor strategy. The master strategist needs to be tolerant, flexible, and patient. Instead of giving in to the fruitless and depressing they remain resilient and persistent. The government's reform is an auspicious change of focus.
All hail Blessed Leader!
It annoys me that someone that knows more about making millions from privatisation then most of us, does a 'report' into the Benefits system and comes to the conclusion, Privatisation is the best way forward.
Was it the best way forward for water, when Thames wasted 984m Litres a day, was handed record fines and forced to make investment from profit, while putting adverts on the radio to stop us wasting water. Making 320m in profit, then promptly selling themselves to a foreign company that sees just how profitible the gullible British public is.
No clearly that did us no favours at all. Water prices have gone up, little has been done to curtail the waste and trebles all round at the shareholders meetings.
When Government stops trying to create a profit out of essential services, then we might actually see an improvement in those services.
Might I add 'choice' to the list? Being able to choose an NHS dentist doesn't make any more of them available. Nor does it improve my local schools.
Mr Robinson and the Conservative Party should add, consistencey, to the list of meaningless words.
So its a 'grand state intervention' when the government proposes a policy which uses voluntary organisations and private companies, but not so when the same policy is advocated by the opposition.
As usual it's all just words. The only thing that should be 're-formed' is this dithering government run by that strange man in Downing Street.
Nick is right to be sceptical.
Convention political parties are too boxed in by their dogma to be truly 'radical'.
Even when asked to 'think the unthinkable', a proposal which to the ordinary person might seem quite reasonable, no, that is a step too far for the politicians.
English people must start to think for themselves and start electing some 'free spirits', the collective output of which, should produce better outcomes than we get under the present broken system.
Your last line says it all"I'll believe it when I see it."
But have you not come to the conclusion that,that line could be applied to any part of Government policy.You are working and living in the spin culture,Mr.Robinson,I and many others have realised this long ago..
Also 'modernise': used for any initiative to make its detractors look like Luddites or "behind the times" or just 'untrendy'.
As the great American criminoligist Norval Morris once said: "Don't talk to me about reforms; things are bad enough as it is."
Perhaps we should re-define some other words that can no longer be applied in a sentance to do with politicians:
Consultation - We are here to tell you what we have decided, and see how unhappy you are. It won't change anything.
Promise - we had our fingers crossed when we promised, it doesn't apply.
Everyone - that means you, not us.
Improve - cost up, standards down.
Green - raise taxes.
Climate - raise taxes.
Inflation - everything is going up at a vast rate, but according to us it hardly changing.
Lessons learned - nobody to blame, we think we know what happened, will have to wait until it happens again.
Responsibility - nothing to do with me, I am only in charge of the department, somebody else did it.
Decision - this is what we are doing today.
Manifesto - this is what we promise to do if we are elected. Note the definition of promise above !!
Another word which becomes meaningless in the mouths of politicians is "invest".
It's another of those irregular verbs so beloved by politicians:
We "invest"
Our opponents "spend"
Europe "wastes"
"reform" along with many otherwise plolitically abused words now joins the most abused which has to be "consultation". Consultation walked out the door when Blair walked into No 10 and his successor continues to undersatnd its real meaning.
Plato suggested that democracy decays into anarchic tyranny. The puzzle we face is finding a word for it.
I don't suppose you have much experience of your local job centre and benefits office Nick. If privatising them would help people back into work in a more efficient and successful manner then so be it.
However, I would be concerned if the incentives mentioned led to individuals being pushed into unsuitable occupations just so the advisor could get his bonus. Stringent and robust checks and balances must be put in place to protect against this possible culture developing.
Blimey Nick, you've been hanging around Westminster a bit long to start worrying *now* that politicians are devaluing language!
I've also been complaining on my own blog about the use of the word "reform" for some time.
When the British government talks about "reform" what they actually mean is take something that works, break it and then blame under-investment by the Tories 150 years ago.
Let's see:
*Labour want to help the unemployed and underprivelaged in our society by helping them gain skills so they have a secure job and a bright future.
*The Tories couldn't care less about developing young people, just so long as they get jobs. They are quite happy to see millions of young people spend the rest of their lives cleaning THEIR toilets.
Hmm... I'll think I'll go for Labour being as I'm not greedy and selfish like the Tories. Money! Money! Money! That's all the Tories are interested in.
Welfare reform will not create jobs and only waged work will take people off benefits. Political parties do not seem able to understand that tail-end punitive welfare reforms get people chasing jobs but won't get people jobs because the jobs are simply not there. It is dishonest for politicians to claim they can find work for over a million jobless when at most there are only 600,000 vacancies. If Labour adopt the David Freud proposals they will soon find that they do not work and then perhaps Chris Grayling may think twice about implementing a similar dead-end programme.
As Nick reports, Browns emphasis (to close the skills gap) is to address everything except the one thing which is the root cause - the awful 'comprehensive' education system - which, as his own collegue David Blunkett said ... tends to produce equality of outcome.
This is what I mean when I say that these politicians are boxed in by their own dogma.
England will really struggle until the people start electing some independent people.
Supporters of New Labour had better pray that the Conservatives and Lib-Dems come up with some good policies for their Great Leader to nick. Otherwise they'll be left with nothing much at all - the intellectual (and moral) larder is bare.
Reform! Yes, lets start by putting all serving politicians and their partners through boot camp to train them how to live on a minimum wage whilst being tortured by life style advertising.
As Nick reports, Browns emphasis (to close the skills gap) is to address everything except the one thing which is the root cause - the awful 'comprehensive' education system - which, as his own collegue David Blunkett said ... tends to produce equality of outcome.
This is what I mean when I say that these politicians are boxed in by their own dogma.
England will really struggle until the people start electing some independent people.
Call me cynical if you like, but if a significant proportion of 16 year olds now have low literacy and numeracy levels at the end of their present compulsory education, how will they be able to cope with two more years of higher skills training. Anyway it takes them off the unemployment figures for two more years.
Indeed. I remember when 'reform' had at least some vague meaning akin to 'make things better', as in 'The 1832 Reform Act' or the 'Reforming 1945 Labour Government'. Now it seems to mean some combination of cuts, privatisation and rip-offs so that private business can reap more profits at the public's expense.
Neil
Aye Nick,
Believe it when I see it too. The current prime minister in his previous job cost me an apprentice. Put the NI up 10% cost us a worker. I see the same strategy rearing its head again, PM wants more business support for our workforce so what does he do hike the tax on them. Daft as a brush that man.
there is no reformong agenda...there's a 'stay in power' agenda which has left us saddled with a toothless, idea free government claiming they have a 'vision' they'd like to present. Broken banks, lost documents, unpaid police, police in strike, stolen policies from th eTories, cancelled elections...it's a damning legacy and has more to do with staying in power than 'reform based agendas'
All hail blessed ditherer!
How can the no 2 architect of the current mess seriously expect to be taken seriously when he shouts 鈥渞eform鈥. What was he doing for the last 10 years?
Nick - can I add the phrase: 'I've done nothing wrong'...
Helping the unemployed to develop skills is all well and good but if they aren't the right skills, the skills the economy needs, its a useless exercise.
Just ask the countless university graduates out there doing jobs they didn't need a degree for.
Is a benevolent bureaucracy possible? Context is everything. Tony reformed old Labour. Returning to Keynesianism would be revisionist. So labour is stuck with Philips curve high unemployment, the off-balance sheet "sick" of over 2 million. There is little trust in current welfare reform benevolence because "jobsworth" post-holders (e.g DSS/council staff) revel in applying the letter of the law. Proud to spend 拢1.50 to recoup 拢1! Under a Tory government, the "jobsworths" tend to side with claimants and be less judgemental. Unfortunately reform program designers tend to forget that the long-term unemployed have virtually no savings. So the word is out that any jobsworth only offers a carrot so to observe and count the gold fillings. Reforms needs to restrict the human or computer element. Worst as it now is, jobsworths with armies of computers to manage things. Keep your carrots because your days are numbered.
This blog starts off well: we are seeing the epitome of the empty promises that politicians are wont to tout in the US Presidential Election. Change my foot: status quo ante more like.
Then you cheapen the blog, Mr Robinson, by dismissing the Prime Minister's recent visits to China and India as sightseeing trips. Tongue in cheek? Or just a cheap snipe that ill becomes someone in your position? After all, if the PM has achieved what we saw on the news, he will have opened up a lot, a huge number, of opportunties for British businesses and people. What did you bring back from that trip, Mr Robinson?
Duncan
And quite right you are Nick!
Same goes to those who think that they know better then the majority in our society!
For example, which side of (the majority in a parliamentary democracy rules), does Wheeler not understand?
Since when does a Tory require the help of the EU to try and get his own way?
The only way to end lumpen-unemployment is to create work. The service-sector cannot provide enough jobs for a population of our size and only the return of a large manufacturing base can produce the million plus jobs we need. In the long-term That will require a different economic strategy combining exports and supplying our domestic market, it may also require a targeted policy of protectionism.
In the short-term government could be proactive in this matter by creating 'waged' public works programmes for the unemployed. Such prorgammes could be a mixture of real training and work. This would cost, but a person trained to be a plumber, a painter, a driver, a hairdresser would have the skills and work experience to take them off benefit. It would therefore be an investment by government in training the unskilled workforce.
However, unless the overall economic strategy is changed and shifted towards the creation of a large privately-owned manufacturing base then there will always be a core unemployment level of around one million.
'Reform' is not a synonym for 'change', although it's often used as one. To reform actually means to improve. Policians aren't the only ones to not realise this.
Constitution has to be a meaningless word - it is only a constitution if it won't be put to the people because of events beyond the control of this government. Once that safety net is removed...
This is actually quite radical: The centre of government policy is education, and excellence for all is actually a philosophical statement: people can be made better through giving them greater understanding, and so systems based on finding the best natural skill partially miss the point. The government are not interested in finding the supermen and letting them do everything, they want to make everyone as good as the best. This is actually a very radical position! It's come out time and time again in the PMs speaches, that everyone has talents, and the job of governement is to insure that as much use is made of them as possible, etc etc. If you think that this position is wrong then you will never agree with the government, and that is a classic sign of radicalism.