Things (including Food) Are Hotting Up...

It's election time again.

The emerging issue in Levenshulme appears to be that of takeaway food outlets. The incumbent councillor, James Henningan (LibDem), has launched a Facebook campaign, "Say No to Levenshulme's Takeaway Mile", asking people to sign a petition with the preamble:

"Stockport Road has changed beyond recognition and everytime one of our independent shops close - it seems to be replaced by another fast food outlet."

Now, it's a catchy petition title, and taps into local concerns about the main Stockport Road (A6), Levenshulme's "shop window" to the rest of the city (and the country - it's the main route out to Stockport and Cheshire, which is presumably why UKIP tried placing billboards on the southbound carriageway last year). His assertion is that we already have 'enough' takeaways (currently about 12% of the total commercial properties in the area).

Let's leave aside the negative tone of Councillor Hennigan's campaign - telling us what we don't want rather than asking us what we do (he's also a bit reluctant to engage with people who disagree with him on this), and the spin that the local Labour council is somehow encouraging takeaways to come to Levenshulme to bring its 'quota' of them up to the citywide limit of 20%, and consider whether the campaign has any real merit beyond it being something he can get in the papers with. He can't point to LibDem success in dissuading the Tories from the worst excesses of national policy, and the alleged economic recovery certainly isn't being felt this far north of Westminster....

Judging by the comments his campaign has attracted, it seems as if it's the general appearance of the area which people feels lets us down, rather than the alleged preponderance of hot food outlets. Now, I'm a naturally curious person and have lived in Leve for over 25 years. I know that a number of independent shops have closed in that time, and we no longer have, for example, the shoe shop, Poysers motor shop, Grace Fabrics (?) curtain and haberdashery, and at least two greengrocers and three more butchers that were here when I moved in. Not to mention the pubs that have closed - The Railway, The Pack Horse, The Church Inn, all of which are either empty or gone completely.

But in a previous life I analysed statistical data for a living, and every "fact" I see on a topic like this makes me say, "Ah, but...." and go looking for an explanation, confirmation or refutation.

With this in mind, I spent a happy evening last weekend doing a virtual trawl of the A6 on Google maps, making a note of each of the premises in the ward. I even included a small section on the east side that falls within our neighbouring ward (itself a bone of contention - why is half of Levenshulme in Gorton South ward? Ask the Electoral Commission!). I wanted to see if we really are overrun with takeaways (especially, the 'chicken shops' which seem to get cited on local discussion threads). 

As a result of this, I found that we currently have, as Councillor Hennigan suggests, about 12% takeaways (this goes up slightly to around 14% if you include those in the Gorton South ward).

In today's Manchester Evening News is an article on the subject which states that Takeaway Owners Back Crusade to Tackle Levenhulme's Fast Food Mile in James Hennigan states that "it's getting to the stage where there are just too many." and that "many have their shutters down during the day, hampering efforts to revitalise the high street."

In support of his case, two local takeaway owners are quoted. One says that he is "now struggling as rival outfits have begun to pop up at an alarming pace" and another that "It has been over the last two years. Before that everything was running right, but everybody is just surviving now."

This piqued my interest even more. The Google images I had scoured were all taken in 2012.  Maybe things had really changed over the last two years. So I decided to walk the whole of the A6 from one ward boundary to the other. I deliberately excluded premises away from the A6 - after all, it's a positive thing if residential areas are served by local takeaways rather than everyone having to pile on to the A6 for them, and because it was the impact on the A6 'high street' that I wanted to assess (not least because referring to a 'Takeaway Mile' suggests the long - nearly 2 miles - main route from border to border).

I found some interesting things:

There have been some changes of business, but in the main fast food outlets aren't chief among them. Most new businesses since 2012 have been health and beauty or solicitors/accountants. Some food outlets have changed hands but have remained selling the same or similar products. Several of the takeaways from 2012 have now ceased to be fast food outlets.

A major fast food restaurant right in the centre of the high street  had its shutters open at mid-day today, whereas many of the hairdressers and barbers did not (it being Monday, a traditional day off for them), and including one of the takeaways mentioned in the article.

Notably, we only have three national chain takeaways - McDonalds and KFC at the southern end of the ward, and the ubiquitous Subway. Many of the other takeaways and restaurants are independently-run family businesses providing livelihoods for local families, which is somewhat different to Councillor Hennigan's assertion that they "bring nothing to the area."

So whether we have "too many" takeaways already, or whether we can't/shouldn't absorb any more,  it's clearly not the case that there has been a massive expansion over the last two years. I would argue that if we want a more varied high street, we have to be positive about the businesses that are already there and actively encourage others to join them, which is undermined by headlines about "crusades" to deter certain businesses - if I were a potential investor in the area, I would think twice if I thought I would get a hostile reception. Levenshulme is by no means unique in having a 'challenged' high street - it happens all over the country, but the problem goes far wider than any one kind of business, and the solutions are more complex. Whatever commercial pressures local businesses are subject to, competition from an increasing number of rivals wouldn't appear to be the whole story.

And while I hear some of you saying "Well, she would say that. Just another Labour activist toe-ing the party line and point-scoring at election time" this is not one of my political blog posts. I am quite capable of holding opinions of my own and - occasionally - disagreeing with the Labour Party! I would be interested to hear a a detailed explanation of the rationale behind the 20% takeaway limit; how it was arrived at and the reasoning behind it. Then I can decide how many is "too many" without reference to Councillor Hennigan.


ALL OPINIONS IN THIS POST ARE MY OWN AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THOSE OF LEVENSHULME LABOUR PARTY

A Modern Nation

I've been watching with some alarm at the pernicious fundamentalism creeping into public life in this country. The increasingly hardline pronouncements from former moderates, the assertion that we should all share certain values and follow a religious philosophy which discriminates against sections of society, the demonising of dissenting voices, the promotion of a 'state' based on religion. No, I really don't like David Cameron's new-found 'evangelical' brand of Christianity.

Let's  put aside for a minute that new-found piety, along with patriotism, is the last refuge of the scoundrel. We know that this is vote-seeking, UKIP-neutralising hypocrisy. Let's just consider what (if he was genuine, which he isn't), Cameron thinks our nation should look like in the 21st century.

So what does Christianity "bring to Britain"?

"All over the UK, every day, there are countless acts of kindness carried out by those who believe in and follow Christ"

None of these acts, it has to be said, from the current government, whose most notable self-declared Christian (IDS) has been responsible for driving the sick and disabled to suicide (still a sin in the Catholic church to which he belongs).

"The heart of Christianity is to ‘love thy neighbour’ and millions do really live that out."

Although a fair number of Cameron's party voted against equal marriage and support 'Christians' who refuse to allow gay couples to stay in their bed and breakfast establishments, portraying them as "persecuted."

"And we saw that same spirit during the terrible storms that struck Britain earlier this year. From Somerset to Surrey, from Oxford to Devon, churches became refuges, offering shelter and food, congregations raised funds and rallied together, parish priests even canoed through their villages to rescue residents. They proved, yet again, that people’s faith motivates them to do good deeds."

And common humanity and decency motivated people with no faith to do the same!


The fundamental problem with ascribing all good deeds to faith is that it simply ignores the fact that all over the country people of no faith live their lives according to decent principles and strive to make life better for their fellow citizens. He does concedes that "many non believers have a moral code" (big of him!), but clearly considers this inferior to one underpinned by Christianity. He states that "some atheists and agnostics [do] not understand that faith could be a 'guide or helpful prod in the right direction' towards morality." Aside from this being patronising tosh, he doesn't for a moment seem to consider that it's not a lack of understanding but a lack of demonstrable evidence that faith necessarily leads to morality that makes atheists and agnostics doubtful of its worth.

We should, apparently, be "more confident about our status as a Christian country." Except that we aren't a Christian country in the way that we were up until the 20th century - today we should aspire to  be a modern, multi-ethnic, culturally-diverse country where people of all faiths and none are treated with equal respect and tolerance, and we have a way to go on that one.

I'll happily declare myself as an atheist who has been advocating the separation of church and state for as long as I can remember. I don't "have a problem" with faith (although I do have one with organised religion as a tool of social control), but it is a very personal thing and should not be entwined with the offices of state. Equally, I'm not in favour of the kind of rigorous legislative secularism which is found in France, for example. Just as intolerant in its own way.

I have many friends who are people of faith for whom I have great respect and admiration, but I don't feel the lack of such faith in my life, and the true people of faith respect that about me (even if they don't understand it). Equally, there are some atheists that I find very tiresome; Richard Dawkins has become a parody of himself, knee-jerk reactions replacing reasoned thought. And being an atheist doesn't excuse Ricky Gervais being a spiteful bully.

Significantly, though, it is not people of faith but politicians who think that religion should play a part in politics. I have always been deeply suspicious of politicians who feel the need to tell you how much their faith informs what they do (especially as it so often involves some very nasty stuff!), and I'm very much in the Alastair Campbell camp on the matter of whether we should "do God" in politics. Whatever your personal faith, you do not have the right to impose it on others. 

Cameron is right in one respect, though. Christians are now a minority. Yesterday's news carried a piece about garden centres being prohibited from opening on Easter Sunday. This, according to the garden centre managers, means a loss of income (very much part of the Easter message!). No consideration of allowing shop staff a rare day with their families to celebrate the Christian church's most important day, just loss of profit. The customers who were vox-popped all seemed to think that Easter is about the ability to buy bedding plants! 

What Christians in this country aren't, though, is a "persecuted minority". Refusing to comply with your employer's dress code and being disciplined for it is not persecution. Being prevented from exhibiting bigotry in contravention of the law of the land is not persecution. I'm staggered by quite how little respect this attitude affords Christians in parts of the world where they are still murdered on the basis of their faith. 

I am quite happy to live my life without a god, but happy for others to do otherwise if they wish. It should, though, be a very personal matter, and the state should not be co-opting religion. When I am afforded the same respect and tolerance for my lack of faith that I afford others I shall be more than happy, but we are a long, long way from that in modern Britain. So, Mr Cameron, enough with your false piety and 'morality'. I don't like your 'faith' any more than I like your politics (and the same goes for Blue Labour!).

In the words of Dave Allen:

"Goodnight, and may your god go with you."

Community, Dissent and Cupcakes

I wasn't going to post this blog, but it's becoming increasingly obvious that keeping my thoughts to myself isn't the way to do things these days. I dislike being talked about (indirectly) on social media, by people who don't know me or anything about my political philosophy, without a proper right to reply (short of getting involved in one of the very ugly pile-ins that happen on Facebook or Twitter. There appears to be a lot of misinformation out there and the loudest voices aren't always accurate or representative, so this is my take on what's going on locally.

It's odd how 'community' is defined.

When you grow up in the largely monocultural provinces, inner city suburbs can be a breath of fresh air. Ours certainly was. Constantly heralded as the next  up and coming neighborhood over the course of the twenty plus years we've lived here, it never quite did 'up-come' and as a consequence retained the slightly bohemian quality which drew us here as students in the late '80s.

The area has seen a lot of initiatives to reinvigorate it recently, but that's not to say that it's not still without its problems (the highest incidence of obesity in the under 5's in the country, for example). It's a very mixed area in terms of demographics, socio-economic groups and ethnicity. The locals, possibly understandably, are a little wary of incomers (I've been described as a Guardian-reading Southerner by someone who probably wasn't born when I moved here!), but thankfully we don't have some of the ethnic tensions experienced elsewhere. In fact, we were recently highlighted as an area that had coped pretty well with its influx of Roma families.  It's not, though, an affluent area. 

A few weeks ago I came across a typically splenetic piece in The Guardian by Ian Martin, in which he addressed the issue of gentrification. He was pretty strident, as ever (he's one of the writers for The Thick of It and Veep, neither of which are known for sparing feelings), but it did strike a chord. 'Urban Vibrancy' can sometimes be a little on the exclusive side and, yes, established communities can get supplanted. I retweeted the piece and commented (to Ian) that I recognised some of what he'd said and referred, lightheartedly I thought, to a 'Cupcake Tendency.'

(It's just me, but I don't find the whole cupcakes/Cath Kidston/GBBO scene my kind of thing, but others enjoy them so hey, I'm fine with that). 

Later that day, I noticed a tweet to our local Labour Party branch Twitter account, stating that the tweeter had always thought the party was supportive of local initiatives and was upset that our branch chair (me) and vice chair (a friend) had been posting "nasty tweets" about a local venture. I was a little perplexed, as I hadn't voiced any opinion on said venture. As it didn't specify how I was supposed to have been nasty, I was at a bit of a loss, and then I remembered that Ian Martin's original tweet. Checking back on the Guardian website and Twitter, it appears he hit a nerve, and a number of related groups in the country piled in to 'correct' him. Now it made more sense.

Now my Twitter rule is "Never Knowingly Offend", so I was concerned a) that I had offended and b) that my role within a political party was being conflated with my views as an individual. A subsequent tweet (not addressed to me) described me as a 'friendly neighbourhood troll', which now appears to mean 'anyone who holds a contrary view.' I've not sought to engage with the tweeter (pretty much the modus operandi for trolls), so the extent of my 'trolling' seems to be tweeting/retweeting something that a third party (who doesn't follow me and who I don't follow) doesn't like. (My friend had simply seen the piece and retweeted it without comment, which doesn't seem especially nasty).

For the record, the local party does support local initiatives from all sections of the community. One can support local initiatives, though, without necessarily wanting to take part in them. I fully support women's participation in sport, for example, while struggling to comprehend how anyone over the age of 16 has any desire to play netball! That's just my personal taste (borne of a school PE career which has left deep scars) and I wouldn't want to stop anyone else playing.

It's perfectly possible as a party official to admire and support the drive and determination that has converted a disused church into a thriving community venture while personally still having concerns about the lack of secular community space in the area. Equally, while we welcome all the new local initiatives, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't consider the views of those who can't or don't want to access them. There are many people in the area for whom a community market isn't a priority when they're struggling to pay their rent and utility bills. That's not to say that it shouldn't be there; it's very successful and brings welcome 'inward investment' to the area. It's simply that one person (or group)'s ideal community may not suit everybody. And as long as people recognise that, we can all rub along together quite happily.

Much as Manchester's corporate drive to become a world class city has lost us some of what made the city unique, so a little of the old Leve will undoubtedly disappear. Some of it won't be mourned, but I hope it never becomes just Hoxton on the A6. It's beginning to appear,though, that one is not allowed to express a view that contravenes the view that 'everything is lovely in Levenshulme'.  It seems very odd that people who extol the virtues of the Leve 'community' seem averse to any alternative views of how that community should develop, and see perfectly innocuous comments as criticism. 

I'm far from being the only person locally who's felt the wrath of 'the community'. Facebook groups dealing with local issues have become so poisonous that some people have abandoned them altogether; alternative groups have been set up, others have had changes of Admins (not always for the better), people have found themselves repeatedly, inexplicably blocked from groups; others have been found 'guilty' by kangaroo courts. One of Leve's strengths is also one of its weaknesses. There is a small band of 'spoilers' locally, members of minor parties who like nothing better than dividing the community, especially if they can undermine local politicians (Labour and Lib Dem) at the same time. So what should be proper grass roots community campaigns get hijacked. I've spoken to a number of people who happily marched to save the baths/library, but who dropped out of campaigns as they felt there was too much point-scoring and bog-standard (in every sense of the term!) nastiness going on.

In the interests of full disclosure, I'm going to mention here that I am one of the Admins of the Levenshulme Labour Party Facebook page [BOGEYPERSON ALERT!!]. There has been an ongoing discussion on there over the past week which has led to criticism of the local Labour Party on other groups and pages, with accusations of censorship and arrogance. For the record, there was a comment on there which, with the benefit of hindsight, we agreed wasn't entirely appropriate. It was discussed between all four Page Admins and it was agreed that it should be withdrawn. An apology, and an offer to meet and discuss in person with the recipient of the comment, was issued. 

Now, I make no apology for being a Labour Party member and activist. Should that mean I'm barred from having personal opinions on local matters? No. (I disagree with some national Labour policy, too). As I mentioned earlier, I never set out to cause offence, and am willing to apologise if I do. That goes for my personal social media accounts and when I'm representing the Labour Party. The anonymity of being a Page Admin, though, has meant that I've had to see myself smeared by people who've never met me and know nothing of my politics, without being able to respond. "Disgusting", "troll", "moron" are just some of the choice descriptions I've seen of myself online, but I've not risen to the bait because I didn't want to do anything to bring the Labour Party into disrepute.

Do I care about my community? Yes. All parts of it.

Do I dislike the 'new' Leve? No, it's just not all to my taste.

Do I wish our local councillors could do more to help local residents? Yes, but given coalition cuts, the help they can give is under severe pressure.

Is the Labour Party perfect? No, far from it, but it's still the only hope of stopping the vindictiveness of the Tories and the duplicity of the LibDems.

I like to think that the hard work I've put in to the LLP page has raised the profile of the party locally, and shared information and articles on local and national matters that will inform people. If anything I've done has genuinely brought Levenshulme Labour into disrepute, I will happily step down. Then, perhaps, I can have my opinions back.

Middle Aged Woman Seeks Employment

Having failed to secure an interview for a job I would have been really interested in, I'm back to scouring the job ads.

I've been out of the workplace for four years now. My voluntary severance in 2009 coincided with M's transition to high school, something we knew was going to be hard for her, so my being at home for a year was actually really useful. It was never my intention to become a full-time carer; that just happened as her needs became greater and her ability to cope with education diminished. That one year turned into two, three......

Now, though, we are a no-income family, eking out the OH's redundancy pay and permanently at the mercy of IDS, the Witchfinder General of the Coalition, and his latest bout of cruelty. One of us has to find work pretty soon, and the other will have to carry on in the carer role. So far, I've been looking at jobs that I know I can do, in fields where I think my strengths lie - school admin, and public/third sector.

I'm not being greedy or unrealistic. I appreciate that in today's jobs market, my absence from the workplace, together with my advancing years (!), mean I shouldn't expect to go back in at the level I'd reached after 20 years, so I've been looking at jobs I think I have a realistic chance of getting. 

I've had a couple of interviews, both of which have been fairly positive, but worryingly the feedback suggests that I am possibly overqualified/experienced - one comment was "You have a great deal of relevant experience, but much of it at the corporate level." In other words, "You were a manager. Why on earth are you applying for jobs on half your previous salary?". 

What's a woman to do? One politician tells you that you're a Job Snob for not accepting a minimum wage job  you could have done with your eyes shut when you were 18, while another simultaneously tells you that your problem is a lack of entrepreneurial spirit and ambition.

Well, I'm not 'entrepreneurial'. An entrepreneur is that exceptional person with an original idea and the the ability/confidence to risk all to bring it to fruition so we cannot, by definition, all be entrepreneurs. Even if I had an idea for a business/product, try building a business when you're caring for an autistic teenager. To enable her to have the independence she wants in adult life, we have to hover permanently in the background, supporting, advocating, protecting (from a distance). Just about the poorest business model I can think of for a new venture.

What I was, and could be again, was a diligent and conscientious worker; not wildly ambitious (at least not in terms of salary), but happy to do a good job for a decent employer. That seems to be out of fashion, though, especially the 'decent employer' bit. I'd be a great PA - I'm organised, can act on my own initiative, am personable and approachable. I have lots of transferable skills and can turn my hand to most things.

What I can't do, though, because of my particular home circumstances, is devote my every living breath to my employer and sacrifice the needs of my family to my job, which appears to be the subtext to most person specs which specify "flexibility." Regular routine is important to M's wellbeing, which means not having to work odd shifts, weekends, etc, at short notice. My previous career with a local authority allowed for this. A 35 hour week, without overtime or weekend working, with reasonable pay and annual leave entitlement. True, I could probably have earned more in the private sector, but I was happy to settle for less in return for the routine. 

So, it's going to be a challenge. Discrimination legislation notwithstanding, I know my age is against me (although annoyingly, the older I get the further away successive governments move the retirement goalposts). There are plenty of bright young graduates with seemingly worthless degrees fighting for the same jobs, and it feels unfair to be denying them a future when I've already had one crack at the career whip. The saddest thing to come to terms with is that I have peaked - I'm unlikely ever to reach the same salary or position that I worked so hard to achieve in my first 20 years of work. Social mobility has gone rapidly into reverse.

So, if anyone is looking for a diligent, if disillusioned, new employee I'll happily provide you with a CV. Maybe I should take out an ad....?



Educated and articulate woman seeks meaningful employment. Over 20 years' varied experience in public administration, but no experience at all in flogging stuff no-one wants or needs over the phone. Hard worker, but resistant to exploitation, and with challenging home circumstances which may result in regular physical and mental exhaustion.  Used to dealing with challenging situations, so unlikely to be fazed by some 19 year old 'Area Manager' who feels like throwing his weight around. 

Youth is Wasted on the Young.... so the Tories are Abolishing It.

In a speech that was otherwise so stultifyingly dull that the twittersphere ran out of synonyms for "piss-poor" after 15 minutes, David Cameron offered his vision of a "land of opportunity" to the young of Great Britain:

'Housing benefit and jobseeker's allowance will be denied to people under the age of 25 if the Tories win the next general election as part of a "bold" move to prepare school-leavers for a tougher economic world, David Cameron has said.' 
Guardian - http://bit.ly/16hv56z

'A Conservative source has told the BBC the manifesto will definitely contain a commitment to end the automatic entitlement to housing benefit for the under-25s, as suggested previously by Mr Cameron.'
BBC - http://bbc.in/16hvHJA

'Under-25s would not be able to claim benefits under all-Conservative government, David Cameron says.'
Telegraph - http://bit.ly/1buZUp3

(H/T to the 'Nobody Likes A Tory' Facebook Page for pulling out the salient points)  


I don't know about you, but to me this doesn't scream "Land of Opportunity"

Get a job, work hard; be made redundant at 23 and be denied any financial help (even though you'll have been paying tax/national insurance).

Work hard at school, pass your exams, go to university; then be unable to move in order to take a job because you won't be eligible for help with any housing costs, even if those jobs are in expensive housing areas.

Oh, and if you HAVE worked hard and passed your exams and gone to university you will, of course, have been saddled with a lifetime's debt before you even start to look for a roof over your head.

And if your parents live in social housing, they'll probably have been evicted from the home in which they actually had a room for you, courtesy of the Bedroom Tax

And god forbid you're unfortunate enough to NOT have a loving and supportive family who are prepared to stick with you through thick and thin; or you have an abusive parent who resents you being a drain on already stretched household finances. You're stuck with 'em, whether it's safe or not. 

You'll note that the financial responsibility for the nation's young adults will now fall on their parents - since we're clearly infantilising the next generation, I'm eagerly awaiting the extension of Child Benefit to all children from 0-25.

Conservatives hate the Nanny State, apparently, but seem happy to inhibit the life chances of anyone not born to privilege, and dictate how adults should live their lives well into their twenties.

Of course, it's the usual  back-of-fag-packet policy making which doesn't bear any examination before its obvious flaws emerge, but that doesn't mean they won't press ahead with it if elected in 2015. 

To any young person who says "I won't bother to vote; I don't understand it/they're all the same/politics is boring", etc. THIS is what is being planned for you by the Conservative Party. No matter how disillusioned you are with mainstream politics, it is vital that you vote - it's a crappy system, but the only one we have. Direct Action is great, but doesn't actually gain seats in parliament and whatever the SWP tell you, there will not be a socialist utopia by next Tuesday, no matter how many copies of Socialist Worker you buy, so it's really a question of 'get out and vote.' 

I strongly suggest you vote in 2015. And not for these scum-sucking excuses for human beings.

Failing to Learn From History.....

All the whispering about the new Universal Credit software system leaves me with a distinct sense of deja vu. The same warnings about government IT projects not having a good track record, the insistence from on high that things are "on time and on target," the same assumption that melding several disparate IT systems into one seamless entity is a fairly simple task.

Back in the early days of the Labour government, the piloting of the new Education Maintenance Allowance was carried out by a number of local authorities, using a range of assessment and delivery methods, including vouchers, bus passes, etc and a cash payment system. My local authority opted for the latter and developed software which utilised a system which is widely used in schools to create an integrated assessment and payment module. 

A couple of years later, the government decided to pilot another new payment for learners as part of the Skills Strategy (remember when governments actually had strategies?). The Adult Learning Grant, which was intended to help those over the age of 19 who wanted to return to full time education to improve their qualifications and thus their employability, and the DfE* again asked my local authority to run the pilot using similar software to that which had worked for EMA. Creating a new ALG module was a fairly simple addition to the system and required only minor tweaking to take account of the different eligibility rules for new new scheme. A team was set up to run the pilot in a few areas across the country (not locally) to determine whether a central assessment and payment body could process applications from differing geographical locations. The first year, very small in scale, worked well and the following year it was extended to take in more regions.

When the time came to roll the EMA programme out nationally the new provider (a well-known government outsourcing specialist) developed its own software system to process applications. There were the inevitable teething troubles, with students failing to be paid, or their applications not showing up on the system, etc, and we gloated slightly as we watched the private sector tripping itself up through its refusal to listen to what it had been told might be pitfalls before they started. Eventually, things calmed down and students started getting paid on time.

In the meantime, we had also undertaken a couple more pilot schemes, all of which had different entitlements and eligibility criteria. Again, new modules were created within the main software suite, but all were free-standing and custom-built to serve a specific purpose. Year on year (and you'll note, re: UC, not just a few months of piloting) these schemes were developed and implemented, trying things out, keeping what worked and abandoning what didn't (online application was one of the elements abandoned) until the government could be sure that everything was working well.

And then came  the 'big idea'.......

"Let's roll out all these grants and EMA nationally, through one contract and one central computerised system." they said. Of course, this meant that only the big players could tender for the work, as EMA was a huge deal. Thus, the local authority which had a proven track record on development and delivery was effectively prevented from tendering to run the 'small' schemes as a contract separate from EMA.

The national 'learner support' contract was unexpectedly awarded not to the company that had already been running EMA for 3 years but to another BPO company, so the computer system they had devised and improved on was now also surplus to requirements and a new, integrated system had to be built (another outsourcing giant had already dropped out at the bidding phase when they realised they would have to build their own software rather than inherit an existing one). 

Those of use who had been brought across (against our will) to the new private contractor were told that we were "the experts" and they would need our expertise to get the new system right. It won't come as much of a surprise to learn that our warnings that certain things wouldn't work (based on having tried and rejected them at the pilot stage) were largely ignored and that this, coupled with a few genuine technical problems, resulted in a disastrous first year, with backlogs and missed payments, (rightly) unhappy students and a call centre overwhelmed with enquiries and complaints. The new integrated system was so bug-gy that eventually, ALG was returned to its old system for processing and payment.

As a result of this debacle, the initial national contractor lost the contract and the former EMA contractor was brought in to rescue it. We were all TUPE'd again (although the original BPO's senior management all left shortly thereafter) and another attempt was made to build an integrated assessment and payments system. 

"Close, but no cigar", as the saying goes. It was better, possibly because the 'new' contractor did at least have some prior knowledge of what could go wrong, but the integration of all schemes never did come off in the time I was there. All the schemes had different eligibility criteria, so the algorithms required for determining entitlement were fiendishly complicated. Some were paid weekly in arrears, others were paid termly, or part-termly, in advance, some were dependent on weekly attendance being confirmed, others weren't. The attempts to bring across historical data (vital for fraud prevention) proved almost impossible. And none of this involved real-time data!

When I left, by mutual agreement (we agreed that they didn't want a manager who knew a scheme inside out and backwards), the problems still weren't fully resolved. And I'm not sure they ever really were, right up until the time the coalition pulled the plug on EMA and ALG as being 'unaffordable.' 

I don't think I've compromised any commercial confidentiality here. Anyone who knows about education will know who was who, and there's nothing here that hasn't already been covered in the media. I just worry that if one of the country's biggest (and least incompetent) outsourcing 'big guns' struggled to create an integrated system for something as relatively straightforward as student finance, how on earth (given the alarm bells already ringing) is UC going to be introduced without causing mayhem for millions of Britons on the lowest incomes and the most precarious financial situations?



*I've used 'DfE' here for simplicity's sake - the department underwent several name changes during this period and I can't remember what it was at this point.

Thoughts on the Bedroom Tax

All this talk of spare bedrooms - sorry, under-occupancy - reminds me of a press article a couple of years ago about the MP for Devon East, Hugo Swire. In this capacity he is my sister's MP. He was apparently disgruntled that his allowance was cut to £9,756pa, the equivalent of a one bedroom flat. It was also, coincidentally, a little more than the annual rent my sister was paying for the rather small house she was thrown out of after the initial 6 month let because the landlady saw the opportunity to make a bit of money with a cash sale! 

This is in addition to his main £1m family home in London. Apparently, if 'forced' to give up his Devon home, a rather splendid - and large - farmhouse near Sidmouth, he would be unable to bring his family down at weekends and his constituents would see less of him. Of course, he could move the family to Devon (it's not like he's going to lose his seat any time soon) and keep a flat in London - Devon has a load of independent schools they could attend, and even one state grammar school!

The story about his 'whingeing' was, of course, denied, but it got me thinking - surely his reasoning that he needed somewhere for his children to come and stay at weekends is exactly the same as all those social housing tenants whose children/grandchildren visit them on a regular basis, but who are now being told that this is no excuse and that they should just put their family up on a sofabed? 

While it's undoubtedly true that MPs are in a unique situation where they are 'dual-sited', one can't help feel that some are still taking the piss somewhat. 1) Decide where your family home is (constituency or London) and keep your family there and 2) have a one bedroom apartment at the other 'site.' If your family want to visit, just make sure you have a sofabed handy!