My favourite Labour supporting blogger, Sunny Hundal (left), has decided to join the Labour Party for a number of reasons that, I’m sure, make perfect sense to him in his own head. If you’re interested, his profoundly unmoving post on the subject is here.

This appears to have tickled my interest: Why would anyone want to join a political party?

I left the Liberal Democrats at the beginning of this year and all I really appear to have lost is the ability to not win Lib Dem Voice’s Blog of the Year award, or feature in Iain Dale’s list of Lib Dem blogs… boo hoo! Party membership (well, of Labour or the Conservatives) does have advantages for political bloggers who want attention. Perhaps Sunny can expect more appearances on the BBC as the representative of Labour’s Grassroots, which isn’t bad work if he can get it.

After all, the official job of the political blogosphere is for people to dress up in party colours and throw their own turds at each other until they each die of old age, but not before teaching this important and critically useful skill to the next generation. People want to see what the real nutters and crazies are like when they’re not media trained and not watching what they say. Every post is a mini, magical car crash and we’re all ghoulishly waiting for the next one.

Sunny can now join this wonderful game. Good for him.

But the biggest scam people fall for when they join a party is this idea that they can ‘change it from the inside’ which is a very cute idea but is essentially very much like buying a lottery ticket in order to stimulate the economy with the millions you’ll win.

Take the Liberal Democrats, for example. Here’s a party in which members are actually able to vote on stuff and set the party policy… but wait! First you need to be a voting rep, which is a gift from the local party. If you’re one of the lucky chosen few then you’re still just one vote. Power? It’s nothing of the sort.

That, however, is the most democratic of the main parties. Labour? You don’t even get that.

The only real power anyone in Labour or affiliate organisations really has is the power to give it money, then shut up while their betters use that money to ignore them and their crazy ideas and do exactly what the marketing people tell them.

Q: At which point does the opinion of the chumps who bankroll the whole business come into “how to reach A, B and C in the most cost effective way possible?”

A: Ha. Haha. You’re funny.

No, what you’re really buying with your hard earned/easily sponged money is the ability to change from saying, “they” to “we” and suddenly have your opinion discounted by the ‘not we’ as party political nonsense that isn’t worth a damn.

Joy!

But, all joking and cynicism aside… gosh darn it, knowing all the good that the Party will accomplish with that £10 you paid to join brings a warm fuzzy glow to your heart, doesn’t it?

So I got directed to a post on Left Foot Forward, which describes itself as “Evidence Based Blogging” to much hilarity from many commentators. The first thing I saw grabbed my attention:

Cuts of £290 million from the Future Jobs Fund, which provides paid employment for unemployed young people. The cut will mean a loss of 94,000 jobs for 18-24 year olds facing long-term unemployment.

I decided to go look at what the FJF was all about. Turns out the Government pays organisations minimum wage for apprentices (£95 a week) so that people who’ve been unemployed for 12 months who are between 18-25 years old can get a temporary job. Organisations that want a ‘free’ employee have to ‘bid’ to the Government. They don’t offer cash. Instead they make a promise about how great it’ll be for the people they take on.

The Government has decided to cut this program, describing it as ‘ineffective’. Existing commitments will be honoured but no further ‘bids’ will be taken. Left Foot Forward describes this as ‘cutting 94,000′ jobs.

I looked at who’d been winning the bids and mostly they’re quangos, charities, councils and other NGOs. In other words, it’s proven to be a very effective way for the public sector to boost their numbers without requiring additional funding. The private sector, by contrast, has shown little interest.

The costs associated with employing someone are not limited to just wages. There’s training, mentoring, software licences, uniforms, desks, chairs, equipment and everything else. For a private sector company with workers already sitting idle, this scheme is simply a drain on resources.

But what about for the people who get these temporary jobs? How does it work out for them?

I followed the ’94,000 jobs’ link and found this:

Evidence tells us that this type of demand-led labour market scheme is the most effective means to prevent long-term unemployment when vacancies are limited.

That’s quite a bold statement! So I followed the ‘evidence’ link to find out where it’s supported and found it linked to… well… Left Foot Forward again, where they write:

There is a strong evidence base to show that the Future Jobs Fund model is the best available to prevent long-term worklessness and unemployment setting in – participants in job guarantee schemes have a better chance of moving into future work.

Crikey. Getting pissed off now. But, finally, this link leads to a PDF, a report written by Professor Paul Gregg, who was New Labour’s Go To Professor for academic support for welfare reform. The report itself, rather than being an out and out academic support of the arguments put forward by the ‘Evidence Based Bloggers’, is actually rather nuanced.

In fact it begins by pointing out that across the world virtually every single attempt by Governments to pay organisations to take people on for the sheer hell of it are NOT effective, that they do not materially impact long term unemployment and worse still they actually cause people to remain on benefits longer and reduce or stop job seeking activities.

It continues, attempting to understand these failures and then reframes the debate in terms of ‘well, if you HAVE to have a scheme like this, what version of it might have the best chance of success, or, at least, the minimum chance of not making things worse?’

I quote the conclusion of the report:

The evidence base present here suggests that increasing the focus on employer engagement, job search and search support will improve the chances of success for this programme…. But will it out perform the Flexible New Deal, which only has job search and support elements? This is not easy to answer definitively but, as shown with intelligent design around securing the next step into work, there is a reasonable chance.

Ignoring the rather weasel worded references to ‘chance’ – in academic terms almost entirely fluffy, useless language that tells us nothing other than, “dunno. My guess is… maybe”. Not exactly the devastating ‘evidence’ that I was looking for, truth being told.
So in other words, when Left Foot Forward say,

Evidence tells us that this type of demand-led labour market scheme is the most effective means to prevent long-term unemployment when vacancies are limited.

They are being deceptive or wrong. The evidence does NOT say that. When they say,

There is a strong evidence base to show that the Future Jobs Fund model is the best available to prevent long-term worklessness and unemployment setting in

… they’re neglecting to mention that ‘best available’ is only by comparison to every other project of this type which, historically, have caused more harm and damage than they’ve solved. That, again, is somewhat deceptive. The ‘evidence’ they’ve linked to does not support their argument at all.
Then again, anyone especially surprised?

You know, we’ve all got cringeworthy photographs from our past. It seems David Cameron is no exception. The Daily Mail have the scoop: David Cameron once met the Queen looking extremely cute in a rabbit costume. Oh yes. Normally it’d be worth little more than a quick giggle, but my brain practically exploded when I read the text that went with it.

“… already looking statesman-like at ten years old”

Judge for yourself, but I’m suspecting something of a motherly bias in the mind of the Mail today. Adorable? Yes. Statesman-like? Really?

For those that missed it, the final debate will no doubt go down in history as one of the most remarkable live television broadcasts ever witnessed.

Sure, we expected a repeat of the format that’s already looking pretty tired after just two episodes of “I’m a party leader, get me out of here!” but that changed the second Wolf from Gladiator, clad in spandex, announced that Clegg, Brown and Cameron were to be put through their paces on the Eliminator at the end of the show.

I nearly fell out of my chair when I saw Clegg emerge from behind a curtain wearing a Mexican wrestler’s outfit. “I’m Mister Different” he roared, before flexing his muscles for the camera. Brown, bizarrely, chose to dress himself as a Union Flag with “I LOVE GILLIAN DUFFY” written on it. Wonder what that’s all about? “I AM THE POWER OF BRITAIN!” Brown said, blushing wildly.

Then, no word of a lie, Cameron emerges wearing a jewel encrusted thong and a bow-tie and a microphone pack… and nothing else. The crowd gasps, is silent for a few moments before launching into a rapturous applause. “I’ve changed” he shouts. “Should I change back? No! I AM THE CHANGE YOU NEED!”

Several elderly ladies on the front row pass out in shock. Cameron’s humping the air, with his hand curled into the Sign Of The Devil pose when Clegg clobbers him on the back of his head with a chair. With Cameron floored, Clegg turns to Brown who promptly cowers in a little flag-esque ball. Clegg is relentless, but Brown’s only playing possum – he leaps (pretty impressively for his age) and attempts to get Clegg in a headlock. Meanwhile Cameron has composed himself and maneuvered himself into a kneeling position behind Brown. “Do it!” he cries, and Clegg wastes no time – he shifts his body weight and Brown topples over Cameron like the great big lummox he is.

David Dimbleby announces that Clegg and Cameron, with their tag team attack, have earned themselves a five second head start on the eliminator.

At this point everything goes completely mental: Nick Griffin, dressed in a bear costume, leaps out from the audience and starts growling and snarling at the 3 leaders. What followed next defies what I know about reality, but the three men seemed to look at each other, some unheard, unspoken exchange… then they clasp their hands together and transform into a giant robot. Well, fuck me sideways I’m thinking…. I didn’t know they could do that! Pity giant robots can’t fix the economy because that’s impressive.

Griffin was dispatched in seconds, but at a heavy price – the audience is covered in Griffin chunks as the Giant Robot’s foot slammed straight down upon him. Fascism in Britain defeated, the robot returns to it’s constituent parts – Clegg, Cameron and Brown… except somehow Brown now has the word, “knobhead” written on his forehead. The audience, or at least the parts that weren’t traumatised from the Gibbing Of Griffin, burst out laughing. Cameron shrugs his shoulders, innocently.

I don’t remember the rest, to be honest, I’d done rather a lot of LSD and it stopped making sense at this point, but I think Cameron was the first to complete the Eliminator, followed closely by Clegg… not quite sure if Brown actually finished it or if he’s still trying to get up the travelator now.

Sod Tebbit. There’s only one story that’s going to dominate the next few news cycles and that’s the footage of Brown chatting to a voter then getting into his limo with his microphone still on, creating an almost pure “The Thick Of It” moment. Transcript:

Brown: That was a disaster… should never have put me with that woman.  Whose idea was that? It was Sue I think… just ridiculous (punches back of seat?). Another voice: What did she say?  Brown: Och, everything, just some awful, bigoted woman. Used to be some Labour voter… (breaks up)

What effect will this have on the election? I think you can safely predict that the Gillian Duffy herself will have the entire media bearing down on her to give her reaction, and if the Tories and Lib Dems have any sense at all they’ll simply let this one play out without getting too involved.

Another consequence might be to reignite the stories about Brown’s temper and lacklustre social skills highlighted in Rawnsley’s book, “End of the Party”. Is this bad for Labour and Brown? Well, yes. It’s absolutely terrible and sensational at the same time. I’ll take my hat off to Brown though – he’ll have finally put Labour in top billing in the news for the first time this election.

UPDATE: I hadn’t finished typing this up when Brown had already gone on the radio to apologise. Gillian Duffy is apparently, “very upset”. Sky’s Adam Boulton says, “I’d be surprised if any of this turns out to be a vote winner.”