The Work Programme destroyed a job for every £4600 it spent

Not a paragon of efficiency.

The government is now trying to spin the Work Programme figures, as expected, by focusing on the initiative's "cost effectiveness". The BBC's Nick Robinson, for instance, writes:

Ministers claim that they are meeting their "off benefit targets" and that they are saving money too. The cost of every job secured under their Work Programme is, they say, just over £2,000 compared with a cost of almost £7,500 under Labour's [Flexible] New Deal because the contractors are only paid 60% of their fee once someone is in a sustainable job: ie for six months.

It's certainly the case that Labour's programmes were more expensive than the coalition's replacements. But what this spin demonstrates is a serious failure to control for background noise. The Work Programme is, so far, worse than nothing at ensuring "job outcomes" – that is, people in unsubsidised work six months after they leave the programme. In the first fourteen months, 3.5 per cent of participants achieved job outcomes, but for people not on the programme, 5 per cent were expected to get jobs, according to Labour's shadow minister Liam Byrne.

(The news shouldn't be hugely surprising – one very effective way to get a job is to spend all day every day applying for jobs. Any training programme has to overcome that hurdle.)

Some quick back of the envelope maths, here. The full data is simply not available, but if ministers are saying that the Work Programme cost £2000 per job, and we know that there have been 32,310 job outcomes, then presumably they are claiming a budget to date of £65m.

Given that 5 per cent background rate, we can expect that if the Work Programme had never been instituted, there would have been 46,000 jobs in the normal process: 14,000 more.

In other words, the Work Programme did not cost £2000 per job. Instead, for every £4,600 it spent, it destroyed one participant's chance of employment.

Updated: The effect of the work programme was on the 14,000 job difference, and so the effect is one job destroyed for every £4,600, not for every £1,400. 3.5 per cent is the result for the first fourteen months, not the first year. Clarified the source of the 5 per cent figure.

Men at work. Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Can non-voters win the next election for Labour?

Any Labour leader who pins their hopes on getting non-voters to the polling station will be defeated in 2020. 

Question: how can non-voters win the 2020 election for Jeremy Corbyn?

Short answer: they can’t.

This isn’t an anti-Corbyn point, by the way: they also can’t win a general election for Yvette Cooper, Andy Burnham or Liz Kendall. There is no route to a parliamentary majority for any of Labour's leadership candidates which doesn’t involve addressing the concerns of Conservative voters.  Why not?

Well, there’s the obvious point that you can’t only raise your own turnout. Take, say, Barack Obama’s successful presidential bid in 2008: yes, he increased turnout among young graduates and ethnic minorities, contributing to his victories in traditionally Republican-leaning states like North Carolina and Florida. But he also increased turnout among Republican voters, losing by a bigger margin in Tenessee, Arkansas, Louisana, Oklahoma and West Virginia than John Kerry did in 2004.

The problem for British politicians attempting to emulate the Obama strategy is that Britain is less diverse than the United States.  British constituencies are, for the most part, what sociologists call “socially crunchy” – so if you increase turnout among, say, ethnic minorities and young graduates, but turn off, say landlords and middle-managers, there are very few seats where you will feel the benefits but not the punishment. (In fact, most of the seats where this is the case Labour already hold.)

Then there’s the bigger problem. Non-voters aren’t actually all that different from voters. After the election, the Trades Union Congress commissioned Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research to find out what had gone on. Here’s why non-voters and voters didn’t opt for Ed Miliband’s Labour party here:

As you can see, there is not a vast gulf between the two groups. (“Other” by the way, includes responses like “They weren’t leftwing enough”, "They sold the gold", "Iraq" and so forth.) Even if you assume the 35 per cent of “Don’t Knows” actually mean “I was waiting for a real Labour party”,  and that a more radical Labour party  would attract all of them, look at the worries that people who went on to back Labour despite them in 2015 had:

It’s hard to see how a more “traditional” Labour approach on public spending, welfare, and so on wouldn’t also lose voters from Labour’s existing 2015 bloc. But what about, say, the Greens and the SNP?

It is just possible that the 20 per cent "Other" in the SNP is all "Labour weren't leftwing enough" but it seems likely that at least some of it is "I want to leave the United Kingdom". But even if we take all of that 20 per cent, we're still talking Labour gais in Scotland of fewer than ten seats. Now let’s look at people in social grade DE, semi-skilled and unskilled manual workers, what you might categorise as Labour’s “traditional” core:

Look familiar? Now, here’s what Ukip voters and Tory voters made of Labour in 2015:

That’s not to say that the next Labour leader shouldn’t aim to increase turnout. It’s just to say that there is no evidence at all that policy prescriptions that turn off Conservative voters will have a more natural home among people who didn’t vote – quite the reverse.  Whatever happens, if the next Labour leader wants to win the next election, they are going to have to win over people who thought "they would make it too easy for people to live on benefits", and that "they would spend too much and can't be trusted with the economy". The next Labour leader – whoever they are – is going to have to try to win over people who voted Tory in 2015. This is one of the few times in politics where there really is no alternative.

 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.