Harman blasts Cameron over “secret” unemployment projections

Prime Minister ducks question as Clegg nods him on.

By James Macintyre Published 30 June 2010 13:51

One miniature prologue on today's Prime Minister's Questions: John Bercow, the Speaker, called as the second questioner Nadine Dorries, the MP who has devoted much of her time to leading a failed coup attempt against him from the Tory back benches, about which you can read here. It shows that Bercow is in fact a very big man, and not a "stupid, sanctimonious little dwarf", as the Tory health minister Simon Burns outrageously called him in the Commons yesterday (see Michael White's piece on this, here).

Anyway, the session came alive when Harriet Harman, the acting Labour leader, demanded to know why David Cameron had not published what she called the "secret" Treasury figures predicting 1.3 million job losses as a result of the Budget, on which I blogged earlier.

Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, looked a little more stony-faced than usual, though he still nodded mildly to Cameron's answers (Clegg must face a dilemma on how much to nod every time he sits with Cameron). George Osborne, meanwhile, had a strange kind of vacant, bemused, open-mouthed look on his face, as if to ask: "Who does this woman think she is?"

Cameron attempted to turn the tables on Harman, raising laughs when he read out details of spending in her former office on something called "peace pods" for relaxation. Harman shook her head and denied it, but Cameron cleverly pulled it out of the bag in his final answer, so she could not respond.

Overall, Cameron sailed through again. But he has a style problem: he is still adopting the hectoring, slightly breathless tone that he did when he was leader of the opposition.

His front-benchers, too -- especially Osborne -- might be well advised to stop smirking when such issues as unemployment are being discussed. Clegg did better, and looked more serious, though he did appear to mutter a repeat of Cameron's joke about "peace pods" when the Prime Minister sat down.

For more about Clegg and Cameron's relationship, including the former's mouthed comments to the latter in the Commons, look out for my politics column in this week's magazine, out tomorrow.

More from James Macintyre

14 comments

Mon, 2010-07-05 12:19 — ROBERT TAGGART (not verified)

re: Nicky. Take a breath !
Regarding the negative portrayal of lone parents, methinks you will find politicos of all colours have indulged in that, most especially NuLiebour ones !
To return to the original piece... hidden unemployment figures... methinks the 'official' figures have never dropped below 1.5 million since circa 1980 ? The unofficial figures have always been roughly double that ! So ? So unemployment be a fact of life in the good and the bad economic times. What is all the fuss about ? !

Thu, 2010-07-01 19:48 — ROBERT TAGGART (not verified)

re: Ehtch Tee.
"To be lectured by him is like teaching old grannies to suck eggs" !
For the record... one has five years on him. EEK !

Wed, 2010-06-30 14:09 — Lou (not verified)

I'm going to have to start listening to PMQs rather than watching it, Osborne's smirking and open mouthed vacant stare which is evident at every encounter enrages me. You just want to slap that smug face back into reality.
Harriet did very well, Cameron saved his put down til his last point to score a point or two but it doesn't disguise the fact that he totally refused to answer the question and resorted to the old it's all your fault anyway adage. I don't want to listen to such deflections, I want answers to questions asked. Cameron's incessant pounding of the despatch box is going to see the poor thing consigned to the display cabinet along with the budget box at this rate of abuse. Can we not do the same with him?

Sat, 2010-07-03 11:00 — Nick (not verified)

And yes Bobby, I do think parenthood was/is a worthwhile job. I have concerns that the new emphasis on reducing payouts to single parents will encourage the existence of latch key kids. Many of my clients are single parents with very young children (often just the one, not the 10 kids all with supporting ASBO's portrayed by the media!).

When they ask me what to put in the 'occupation' box I say....'you're a mother or father, that's what occupies you isn't it?'.

The media has it that all single parents are lording it up in plush Council Houses, on benefits and doing very nicely. The reality from those I see is that many work very hard to make ends meet, rely heavily on tax credits and either struggle to maintain their own homes or pay expensive private rents. Their children are usually an absolute credit to them; far from the 'dysfunctional' family portrayed by mainly Cameron.

Thu, 2010-07-01 23:02 — Nick9

Bobby! Hmmm, Uhmmm.

It's a nice idea; but it will never be. Labour reduced the number of claimant categories far more than the Tories ever did. The Tory track record has always been to increase the number of individual claimant groups.

Labour did some good work on Tax Credits with the HMRC (a system which now works quite well after all the initial overpayment related problems)and chanelling all pension claims over to the Pension Service. Labour also abolished benefit claim periods which simplified matters greatly for Local Councils, they were well on track for further workable solutions. The biggest area of improvment is to use IT technology for Departments to talk to one another. At the moment a claimant has to report everything to so many departments, the confusion this creates could be avoided.

It's amazing how these otherwise 'disconnected' Departments talk to one another when they are conducting a fraud enquiry!

The coalition is reversing all that has been achieved over the last 13 years, they are doing it for the sake of it. They should be working on constructive change not destructive reform.

Labour introduced......

Social Security Act 1998
Abolition of Benefit Periods 2004
Tax Credit Act 2002
Pension Credits 2002
Various Welfare Reform Acts
Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007
Employment Support Allowance 2008

To name but a few, shall I go on?

The vast maze of complexity can be found bound up in law books all related to the Tories 18 year reign of terror!

Wed, 2010-06-30 22:32 — ROBERT TAGGART (not verified)

Blast the lot of 'em !
Why can we not have a clean, fair, simple benefits system ?
Eight million people of working age be out of work and living (?!) off benefits (including moi). So ? So cut the crap and introduce a single benefit (income benefit ?) for all such claimants. The rates will vary depending on circumstances and prospects. This way it would save money !... many less 'apparatchiks' needed to process the bureaucracy. The resultant statistics would carry more credibility.

Thu, 2010-07-01 00:20 — Nick (not verified)

Robert, you 'simply' cannot simplify our benefits system in the way that is being suggested. There are too many factors such as whether entitlement is income based, or contribution based or non-means tested.

You have to build in a verification framework and ascertain a claimant's resources as well as entitlement status. There are too many different paying authorities; none of whom talk to each other; if only they would.

The biggest problem is the legislation because every time something new is introduced, existing claimants have to be 'transitionally protected' because they have a right to have the law applied as it was at the time they claimed. Any attempt to simplify the system (ideal though that would be) will end up complicating matters far more than you can imagine. It would involve re-writing statute after statute and would take years to implement. Benefits are paid for so many different purposes and cannot be neatly rolled up into a universal 'one for all'; the coalition are being absurd and unrealistic in their belief that benefits can magically be simplified; they can't.

The fault lies with no particular party; they are all to blame for complicating it over the years. Every time we get a new government they think they can radically reform the system, it just doesn't work in that way. Umpteen law lords will agree; a fairly basic dispute over one particular regulation can escalate into endless legal battles.

The coalition need to understand the practicalities before promising they can find solutions; they will just create total mayhem.

Every time they've tried to simplify the system before it's ended in umpteen laws, guidance, amendments and statutory instruments having to be passed to clarify exactly what it is that is being made more 'simple'; the result is total confusion.

Thu, 2010-07-01 01:11 — Nick (not verified)

It makes me laugh how the Liberals, on the one hand, seem to be right behind their new found Tory chums on the issue of cuts which will crucify many people.

Ironically it was David 'Laws' (remember the one that diddled us all out of £40,000) who masterminded the 'cut' programme. Seems he's not so forthcoming on his more local protestations over the cutting of millions to farm estates in Somerset (wouldn't pay to upset all those wealthy farmers eh David?).

Here's what the 'honourable' Mr Laws said on the 21st June:

David Laws MP said:

“This is an act of rural vandalism from the Conservative controlled county council in Somerset. They should not even be thinking of selling off our core estate of county farms.

“The present county farm estate produces a good return for Somerset, and it allows new farmers to come into the industry in Somerset – without this first step on the ladder, it would be almost impossible for new entrants to come into the farming sector, given the huge size and cost of farms today.

“The Conservatives seem determined to flog these farms off for short term advantage, ignoring the long term asset which they represent for Somerset. It looks as if the County Council plans to sell some of the land for re-development, in spite of the fact that most of it is in prime rural countryside.

“The county farm estate offers tenancies to many people who want to farm, but who simply don’t have the money to fork out for their own estates of hundreds of acres. These new entrants are desperately needed, but for many farming will soon become an impossible dream, if these plans are passed.

“I know that there will be huge numbers of people in Somerset from all parties who will be very angry about these plans, and I hope that there will now be a strong campaign to force the County Council to change its mind.”

Slightly hypocritical I'd say!

Fri, 2010-07-02 14:58 — Nick9

Bobby, You do also have to consider, whenever the 8 million non-working figure is bandied about, that there are a number of different variables that apply to today's job market. In no way am I being sexist but there are many more wore women in the job market these days. The days of one breadwinner per family are no more, it's common for both partners to work. Equally there is a change in benefit entitlement where parents are now expected to work and can no longer say they have child care responsibilities; they are therefore classified as being in the work market, as are carers and people with a disability. The working age itself has also changed, we'll all probably be expected to work until we are in our late 90's before long! Part time and job sharing is much more commonplace. The job market is much more transient with people rarely staying in one job all their life; they go from one to another, do we say they are unemployed between jobs? It's inherently unreliable to use these 'non-working' statistics as dictating how many are truly unemployed.

Thu, 2010-07-01 11:20 — ROBERT TAGGART (not verified)

re: Nicky. Hm, Um, Mm... !
As one said, a single benefit would have varying rates to take account of differing circumstances and prospects. Previous contributions to the system being but one such consideration. But, the need for so many 'single issue' benefits (housing, disability, worklessness...) with all their attendant (and duplicate) bureaucracy should be tackled. This nightmare situation has come about by default over the last 60+ years. Yes, it will probably take much time and effort in parliament, but, sources tell us it would do them a favour, and, by default, the tax payer too.
We are where we are (grrr !), but we have to do better... we cannot afford not to.
NEWS ALERT !... 8 million people of working age unemployed. OK, so it may not be 'news' but it be the case despite politicos on all sides trying to cover it up.

Fri, 2010-07-02 15:31 — ROBERT TAGGART (not verified)

re: Nicky. Agreed. But, years ago most such people would not have felt compelled to look for work... parenthood (more particularly motherhood) was considered a worthwhile job in itself. Now ?
Hopefully there will be mass redundancies in the public ('civil' service most of all !) sector. Then perhaps the politicos will just accept that to be the new reality and give us malingerers a rest !
For the record...
As one of the systems new 'victims' (income support claimant for the last six years, deemed fit to work by an Atos Origin 'quack' then failed by the appeal panel) this be all to close for comfort ! Now claiming Jobseekers allowance again (our JS adviser six years ago advised us to try for incapacity benefit - IS granted instead) so it be back to the grind... looking for work one does not want !
Hay Hoe !

Fri, 2010-07-02 18:25 — Nick9

Thing is, Bobby, that so many people have taken on so many commitments (the 'must have' culture) that it's no longer a question of the social ideal; by which I mean one parent looking after the children (and that's either sex) and the breadwinner bringing in the bacon. Now both have to go out to work to keep up with all those payments and the high cost of living.

Long term benefit dependency was encouraged by Governments of yesterday because it was better to say people were incapacitated than it was to say they were unemployed.

In many ways the long term benefit dependant claimant is the victim (even if some say 'malingerer') of the system. They've been left in the wilderness for too many years and consequently have lost drive, lack confidence, motivation and assertiveness and grown cynical of their contribution to society; they are all attributes which make them less unemployable. Long gaps in a CV are a huge problem for the long term out of work. Labour did a lot of work on this more recently but they left people out in the wilderness for too long. The Tories can't claim any fame, because they put them there in the first place in many cases!

You can look for work for so long but it's a fruitless search if you are not appealing to an employer who can be choosy in this day and age. The inescapable fact is there just aren't the jobs and it will get worse.

You'll probably end up one day on the other side of the desk working for A4E or Pluss or one of the many private sector job brokers contracted by the DWP to advise claimant's on how to find work!