Statistics cast doubt on coalition's '500,000 new jobs' claim

Labour accuses government of 'fiddling figures' after ONS data shows 105,000 of total on mostly unpaid back-to-work schemes

• Shiv Malik and James Ball
• The Guardian, Tuesday 15 January 2013 15.55 GMT

'105,000 of claimed new jobs turn out to be just schemes - this explains why employment seems to have risen,' said Stephen Timms, the shadow employment minister. Photograph: Graham Turner for the Guardian

 

Government claims to have created an additional 500,000 jobs in the past year have been called into question after it was revealed that one in five of the people involved are on government work schemes, including tens of thousands still claiming unemployment benefits.

In the last few months the government has trumpeted "record high" employment and the net creation of half a million jobs over the past year.

But figures obtained by the Guardian from the Office for National Statistics show that just over 20% of this total (105,000) involves those on largely unpaid government back-to-work schemes, the majority of whom are still claiming jobseeker's allowance.

They include unpaid workers doing voluntary and mandatory work experience in supermarkets and charity shops.

Many more tens of thousands with no jobs, training or pay, who simply attend regular job hunt workshops as part of the work programme run by the Department for Work and Pensions, are also being counted as employed.

The ONS, which is responsible for employment figures, says it is following guidelines set out by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and counts people as employed if they are adding to the nation's economic output, regardless of whether or not they are paid.

But Labour accused the government of "fiddling the figures" by continuing to highlight them.
Ministers said that they were aware of the "quirk" in the system and had asked the ONS to alter its methods but still insisted that it made little difference to the overall picture.

Figures released in November showed that in the year from September 2011 510,000 net jobs had been created in the UK.

In December's autumn statement, the chancellor, George Osborne, highlighted these statistics, saying employment was "at a record high" and that it was forecast to continue to rise, adding that Britain now had "a greater proportion of its people in work than either the eurozone or the US".
But of those "employed", 105,000 were in back-to-work schemes. While people on such schemes have been counted within the employment figures for years, last year there was a dramatic increase in their number. This growth was partly down to new ONS 2012 counting criteria, under which the statisticians stopped tracking people on Labour's back-to-work schemes as the programmes were being wound down, and started tracking those on the new schemes of the coalition.
Though some of the people on government schemes were doing paid work while being helped as part of the work programme's support service, data from the Labour Force Survey, upon which employment figures are calculated, shows that at least 26,305 of these were doing voluntary unpaid work experience.

Overall a substantial majority of the 105,000 were likely to be subsisting on unemployment benefits – given that several DWP schemes are entirely unpaid – and only a minority of people on the work programme would have been in paid work placements.

Paul Bivand, from the research organisation Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion, said: "People who are unemployed should be counted as unemployed, whether or not they are on government schemes.

"The ONS should recognise that people who are not in a paid job, and are required to look for work to get their benefit, are unemployed. Whether they are getting job search help from Jobcentre Plus or work programme providers is immaterial."

A parliamentary answer from the ONS director general, Glen Watson, given in October last year, confirms that even if people were claiming jobseeker's allowance, they could still be counted as employed.

He said: "Those participants [in government schemes] whose activity comprises any form of work, work experience, or work-related training, are classified as in employment. This is regardless of whether the individual is paid or not."

Shortly after taking office in the last reshuffle in the autumn, the employment minister, Mark Hoban, wrote to the ONS director general seeking a change in the organisation's methods, saying he was "surprised to discover that a number of people on government programmes are classed as in employment".

Hoban wrote: "Many people struggle with the idea that someone in work-based training or a period of work experience can be categorised [as employed]."

The DWP dismissed as ridiculous any suggestion that it was creating back-to-work schemes involving work experience to boost overall job figures, saying its record of trying to deliver transparent figures spoke for itself.

Hoban said: "The fact is that there are 700,000 extra people in work compared to 2010 and unemployment has been falling since last spring. Any quirk in the way a small number of people on our schemes are counted makes little difference.

"These figures are independent of government and were collected in the same way under the previous administration, but I want them to be absolutely transparent which is why I've already raised this issue with the ONS last year."

The shadow employment minister, Stephen Timms, said that the government had been caught "fiddling employment figures".

He said: "105,000 of the claimed new jobs turn out to be just schemes. This helps to explain why employment seems to have risen when there has been no growth.

"Ever since the election ministers have accused the last government of fiddling employment figures – now they have been caught red-handed themselves."

Asked whether it was appropriate to count those on the jobseeker's allowance as employed, an ONS spokesperson said: "The classification of people as either employed, unemployed or economically inactive is based on an internationally agreed set of guidelines.

"This approach has been applied as consistently as possible to our labour market statistics for over 20 years, despite many changes to government training programmes and work-related benefits.
"The criteria are reviewed on a regular basis although no fundamental changes are expected in the foreseeable future."

George Osborne's 'Austerity begins at home' example

George Osborne raises standard in first-class train row

Treasury account of chancellor's aide finding ticket inspector to pay for upgrade on Virgin train contradicts reporter's version

• Robert Booth, Lizzy Davies and Rajeev Syal
• The Guardian, Friday 19 October 2012 20.36 BST

George Osborne is accused of 'great train snobbery' after journalist says aide told ticket inspector the chancellor 'could not possibly' sit in standard class but could not pay any extra.

George Osborne's face was fixed in a thin grin as he was jostled across platform two at Euston last night, but inside he must have known that a political bomblet had just gone off. Shortly after 5.17pm, as the chancellor alighted from the busy Virgin Pendolino train from Wilmslow, Cheshire, in his Tatton constituency, the reality of what had already been labelled Plebgate 2 became clear.

As Osborne's train rattled through the countryside an hour and a half earlier, a tale of apparent fare dodging by the chancellor – estimated to have a personal wealth of £4m – had emerged through Twitter.

Rachel Townsend, a correspondent for ITV's Granada Reports programme, had been travelling on the same train and tweeted: "Very interesting train journey to Euston. Chancellor George Osborne just got on at Wilmslow with a standard ticket and he has sat in first. His aide tells ticket collector he cannot possibly move and sit with the likes of us in standard class and requests he is allowed to remain in First Class. Ticket collector refuses."

Was it true? Had Osborne, moments before the Tory chief whip, Andrew Mitchell, was forced to resign for reportedly calling a policeman a pleb, really refused to sit in standard, triggering a story that was quickly labelled The Great Train Snobbery?

Virgin, which in August had to swallow the government's decision to remove its franchise for the west coast mainline, which Osborne had just used, confirmed that he had travelled in first class on a standard class ticket, initially at least.

"The chancellor, who was travelling in first class accommodation, held a standard class ticket," a spokesman for Virgin said. "As soon as the train left Wilmslow, an aide went to find the train manager to explain the situation and arrange to pay for an upgrade. It was agreed that the chancellor would remain in first class and an amount of £189.50 was paid by the aide to cover the upgrade for Mr Osborne and his PA. The situation was dealt with amicably between the train manager and George Osborne's aide. At no time was there a disagreement or a refusal to pay for the upgrade. Nor was there any discussion between the train manager and Mr Osborne."

It chimed with the Treasury's account. "The chancellor got a different train than planned due to diary change following a series of meetings in his constituency," a spokesman said. "As he had no seat reservation on the new train, which was crowded, he decided to upgrade – and obviously intended and was happy to pay. An aide sought out the train manager and paid the ticket upgrade."

But that clashed with what Townsend said. She told ITV: "Then his aide approached the ticket collector right next to me. He said he is travelling with George and he has a standard ticket but can he remain in first class? The guard said no. The aide said Osborne couldn't possibly sit in standard class. The guard replied saying if he wants to stay it's £160. The aide said he couldn't pay and he couldn't really sit in standard. The guard refused to budge. The guard went on gathering tickets and later told me Osborne had agreed to cough up the £160."

Fellow passengers were unimpressed with the reports. "Fair's fair. He should be saving the taxpayer money but definitely he shouldn't be sitting in first," said Justin Bateman, 34, a civil servant from Manchester. Keith Young, 60, a doctor from London, agreed. "Standard was busy and the chancellor would not have been able to sit alongside his aides, but he would have been able to occupy a single seat alongside the other passengers." He added: "It's one rule for them and one rule for us. He had no right to make a stand against paying an upgrade."

But even as the facts were still settling, Labour seized on the tale.

"Another day, another demonstration of how out of touch this government is," said Michael Dugher, the shadow Cabinet Office minister. "Just like Andrew Mitchell, George Osborne obviously thinks that it is one rule for him and another for the plebs he is so keen to sit apart from. So much for 'we are all in it together'."

As with Mitchell's rant at the Downing Street police, the spirit of Boris Johnson loomed. In Mitchell's case it was quickly pointed out that the mayor of London had once called for people who swear at police to be jailed. Now memories turned to the Tory darling's scathing attack last year on what he called the "parasitic scourge" of fare dodgers in London.

At a teeming rush-hour Euston, as Osborne's train was due to arrive in London, a feverish posse including Labour activists, the president and vice-president of the National Union of Students and assorted press were waiting to pounce. Officers from the Metropolitan police's specialist response unit pored over train timetables to try to work out which service the chancellor was on to make sure he was spirited away in safety.

"Are you embarrassed Mr Osborne?" shouted an anti-government activist who had rushed to the station after hearing the rumour about the chancellor.

As he was ushered across the platform by aides and security, the chancellor had very little to say. "I'm sure it will be, um …" was all he could tell the Guardian as he was shepherded through a security gate and past the bins towards a waiting government car.

This Cruel Austerity Experiment has Failed

The facts are clear. This cruel austerity experiment has failed

While the human cost of economic stupidity is all too visible, the world's leaders are paralysed by their dogma

• 
• • Will Hutton
  • guardian.co.uk, Saturday 2 June 2012 21.00 BST

A woman receives a free meal from a soup kitchen organised by a Greek humanitarian group in Athens’ main Syntagma Square. Photograph: Kostas Tsironis/AP

Last week was an awesome warning of where go-it-alone austerity can lead. It produced some brutal evidence of where we end up when we place finance above economy and society. The markets are now betting not just on the break-up of the euro but on the arrival of a new economic dark age. The world economy is edging nearer to the abyss, and policymakers, none more than in Britain, are paralysed by the stupidities of their home-spun economics. Yanis Varoufakis, ex-speechwriter for former Greek prime minister George Papandreou and now an economics professor in the US, said last week: "There is precisely zero chance of austerity working. It is the same as thinking you can escape from gravity by waving your arms up and down."

It could hardly be more sobering. Money has flooded out of Spain, Greece and the peripheral European economies. Signs of the crisis range from Athen's soup kitchens to Spain's crowds of indignados protesting in the streets against austerity and a broken capitalism. Youth unemployment is sky-high. Less visible is the avalanche of money flowing into hoped-for safe havens in the US, Germany and even Britain. The last time the British government could sell government bonds at interest rates as low as today's was in the early 1700s.

George Osborne and his acolytes proclaim this as a triumph of the government's economic policies. They are gravely mistaken. Rather it portends fears that the international economic order may collapse because if so many countries are simultaneously pursuing austerity, where's growth to come from?

Virtually everywhere you look there are signs of a weakening world economy. At home, manufacturing suffered its biggest plunge for three years, and this in an economy already suffering its longest depression since the 19th century. American jobs growth is petering out. Unemployment in Europe averages 11%. Even China witnessed a sharp fall away in factory activity in May.

Yet none of this should be a surprise. We live in the aftermath of one of the biggest financial and intellectual mistakes ever made. For a generation the world, with the London/New York financial axis at its heart, surrendered to the specious theory that lending and financial contracts could grow many times faster than the underlying economy. There was a blind belief that in a free market banks could not make mistakes. Free markets didn't make mistakes – only clumsy bureaucratic states made economic mistakes. Or so they said. Financial alchemists, guided by the maxims of free market fundamentalism, could make no such errors.

Except that they did. The result was the financial crisis of 2008. Had governments not underwritten their overstretched banks with trillions of dollars, euros and pounds, an even worse global slump would have ensued. But while the banks could continue trading, the hundreds of trillions of loans and financial contracts they had made did not go away.

And because governments had guaranteed their deposits, as in Ireland, or had to inject capital into them as Spain has been doing all last week, this private bank debt has steadily become public debt. Here is a classic case where all the gains were privatised, and all the losses were socialised. It was the much-maligned state that had to step in and clear up the mess left behind by the private sector. The free market wasn't so free after all – in fact it proved astonishingly expensive for the public purse. People across Europe still pay the price.

This is no solution. Overstretched banks have become more cautious about lending new cash; and even strong banks are caught up in the backwash because if they step into the breach they could fall into a vortex of falling property prices and declining economic activity, becoming weak in turn. So as banks stand aside from their crucial function of generating credit, governments and central banks must step in to generate the demand that has now disappeared.

But they have not done so to a sufficient degree. Part of the problem is that the more bank debt that governments guarantee, the less room for manoeuvre they feel they have – especially as their stagnating economies forces up welfare spending and depresses tax revenues.

But the larger problem is intellectual. The dominant ideology of the day – from the same roots that delivered the crisis – forbids it. A consensus stretching from US Republicans through to Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats via George Osborne's Treasury continues to claim that the state is the source of economic bad. The state threatens enterprise, invites damaging taxation, and is the root cause of spreading inflation. The state must balance the books just as the private sector must.

This is not just an economic but a moral necessity, they argue. Living within one's means rather than "maxing" out on debt appeals to American, British and German individualistic Protestantism. Inflation is even more a sign of moral degradation: it means reneging on promises, rewarding spendthrifts and penalising savers. We had the good years. Now we must take our medicine. The public and private sectors must retrench simultaneously worldwide. Enterprise and free markets will do the rest. The "march of the makers" will step in to fill the void left by public austerity measures.

This is a first-order moral and economic mistake. Human beings need each other for mutual support. In economic terms this means that no individual, either as a person or a company, can manage existential risk by themselves. That risk needs to be shared and mitigated otherwise the risk is not accepted. There would be no enterprise or innovation – the risks of failure too great. That is why there is a role for both private and public sectors. It is governments who provide the means through which we express our social obligations and pool our risks.

This is the heart of Keynesian economics – a different set of moral and economic propositions than those which prevail. Today we can see an almost laboratory experiment on a global scale of why Keynes was right and his detractors wrong. There is no doubt what Keynes would advocate now: a government-sponsored increase in demand co-ordinated across as many countries as possible and an acceptance of a temporary but closely managed increase in inflation to reduce the real value of debt.
The enormous legacy of private debt – whether in Britain, Germany, Spain, the US or Greece – and the fiendishly complicated way so many of the loans have been organised and distributed around the world financial system cannot be easily unwound. Sir Philip Hampton, chair of RBS, warned this week it might take a generation for RBS investors to recover their money.

The choice is thus stark. To commit to decades of economic stagnation, the break-up of the eurozone, the risk of trade protection and autarchic economic policies, the dismantling of the west's social contracts, the imposition of high unemployment and the political fallout that will follow.

Or to change course.

The technical means are relatively simple. Governments must replace targets for inflation with targets for the growth of prices and growth of output combined. Central banks should inject money into their financial systems by offering to buy new bank loans made to support new investment, new innovation or new infrastructure – helped by partial government guarantees.

Governments also need to increase demand. They can do this directly – with targeted and time-limited tax cuts or spending increases. They can also move indirectly, taxing the rich more aggressively and re-allocating the proceeds in tax cuts to those on middle incomes and lower who tend to spend more – along the lines that both presidents Obama and Hollande have proposed. There is also a case for a financial transactions tax – both to raise crucial revenue and to cap the growth and frenetic speed of financial transactions. Finance has become too powerful. It needs constraining.

Will any of this happen? The west is at a cross-roads, and although such proposals will be fiercely opposed by the British, German and American right they need to be beaten back. After all, it is their ideas that have brought us to this pass. It is not too fanciful to argue that the future of western capitalism depends upon how this argument plays out – and how quickly, if at all, there is a change of course.

A Eurosceptic hero alongside sainted Maggie? It's got to be Gordon Brown

The judgments for which Gordon Brown was mocked look rather different now we've seen David Cameron in action

• 
• • Jonathan Freedland
  • guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 8 November 2011 21.00 GMT
  • larger | smaller


Gordon Brown and his wife Sarah say farewell to the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, at a meeting at No 10 on the eve of the 2009 G20 summit. Photograph: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

Few arguments are more unfashionable than the one I am about to make: the case for Gordon Brown. Unfashionable because, 18 months after he left office having led Labour to its second worst result since 1918, Brown still arouses intense loathing. At the Conservative party conference I saw otherwise calm Tories foam with anger at the mention of the former prime minister, furiously tearing away at his every trait, personal and political. That hatred is outdone in some corners of the Labour forest by diehard Blairites still seething at the memory of how Brown thwarted their hero in Downing Street before chasing him out of it.
Illustration by Belle Mellor
With enemies on both sides, that leaves few defenders in the press, a fact compounded by the ex-PM's near-total invisibility, his appearances in the Commons rare. The torrent of memoirs from colleagues, Alistair Darling's the latest, have only damaged his reputation still further.

Not many would attempt to push aside the mountain of anecdotes detailing Brown's impossible behaviour as both colleague and boss. Even his most ardent admirers now accept that Gordon Brown was temperamentally unsuited to the job of prime minister.

And yet posterity's judgment of leaders does not rest solely in their hands. The conduct of their successors matters too: Clinton looked better after George W. History may yet have similar second thoughts about Brown, reviewing his record in the light of what has followed.

Take last week's fiasco of a G20 meeting in Cannes, which did little to solve the crises in Greece and Italy, and whose most enduring legacy may prove to be off-mic comments made by the host, Nicolas Sarkozy. Contrast that with the meeting of the same group chaired by Brown in London in April 2009, which agreed a $5tn stimulus to the world economy and was duly hailed for preventing a global recession tipping over into a global depression. A year later the highly respected Brookings Institution predicted "that in coming years, the London G20 summit will be seen as the most successful summit in history".

Part of that was good fortune on Brown's part: in 2009 the US and Germany were in broad agreement on what needed to be done. But much of it was down to Brown's own actions as chair. The very attributes that infuriated his domestic colleagues were put to their best use: he worked around the clock preparing for that summit, hectoring, manoeuvring and bullying his fellow world leaders until they had buckled to his will. These were the same behind-the-scenes methods he had used a decade earlier as he pushed fellow finance ministers to relieve developing countries' debts. It wasn't pretty, it wasn't telegenic, but it was effective.

How very different it is today. It was ironic to hear George Osborne castigate his European counterparts for simply "waiting on developments", since that's exactly what he and David Cameron do at these international powwows. One veteran of the summit circuit says that the two Brits regularly turn up with no agenda of their own, so unlike Brown and, to be fair, Tony Blair, who almost always arrived with a plan, ensuring, in the tired phrase, that Britain punched above its weight. (I'm told that, rather poignantly, Brown is still the man with a plan: he was ready with detailed proposals on jobs and global finance had Osborne not blocked him for the top post at the IMF.)

What is even harder for the Tories to stomach is that it was Brown who delivered what they themselves long insisted was the critical policy goal of the past two decades: keeping Britain out of the euro. It was Brown and his legendary five, impossible-to-meet tests that restrained the gung-ho Blair and ensured Britain stayed out of the single currency. Absurdly, Osborne has tried to give the credit for that to William Hague and his save the pound campaign, which rather forgets that both Hague and his campaign were crushed in 2001. If Eurosceptics want to have a hero whose picture they can put on the wall alongside the sainted Margaret, I'm afraid that it's got to be Gordon. That they can't is testament to a visceral hatred not only of Brown but of his chief lieutenant at the time, whose opposition to the euro was total and decisive: Ed Balls.

Least fashionable of all is the case that Brown was right on the deficit. The coalition's entire programme is predicated on the notion that Brown was incontinent with the nation's money, running up colossal debts. But the rise in borrowing from some £40bn to £170bn was not the result of a crazed spending spree. It was the consequence of the crash of 2008 and the subsequent collapse in economic activity, consisting mostly of increased welfare payments – including the dole for those thrown out of work – and declining tax revenues caused by fewer people earning wages. This was a deficit created by crisis, not by profligacy.

If Brown was not the source of the disease, what about his remedy? His preferred approach – over which he fought with, and lost to, Darling among others – was to secure the recovery first, get the economy ticking over nicely, and only then start attacking the deficit. If the economy were growing, shrinking the deficit would be less painful; tackling it too early risked sucking out demand, choking off the recovery and so, paradoxically, increasing the deficit.

Well, guess who called it right. The last quarter with Brown in charge saw growth of just over 1.1%, surpassing all expectations, with unemployment coming down. The economy appeared to be getting back on its feet. But then the deficit fetishists of the coalition took over and the economy stalled, with more growth in that last Brown quarter than in the next four Cameron quarters combined. Suddenly Brown's insistence that growth had to come first looks prescient and wise.

Indeed, there are judgments big and small for which Brown was mocked at the time but which look rather different now. As PM, he overruled Darling, preferring to increase national insurance rather than VAT. Now, thanks to Osborne, we've seen the calamitous impact of a VAT rise on both inflation and demand. More crucially, Brown realised at the start that the economy had to be central, refusing to be diverted to other projects, however worthy, including promised constitutional reform. Barack Obama may well wish he had made the same call, putting healthcare to one side and focusing exclusively on jobs.

Of course, there was much that Brown got badly wrong. Hailing the end of boom and bust was absurd; relying on City and house price bubbles to raise cash was fatal; failing to run a surplus during the good times foolhardy.

But what's intriguing is that these were mistakes made as chancellor, on which Brown's standing remains high. Perhaps a revision is in order, downgrading his record in No 11 but upgrading his performance in No 10. The Conservatives won't ever undertake such an act of revision, the historians might not do it for decades to come. But Labour, whose future prospects partly depend on knowing what to say about its recent past, should do it much sooner.

Osborne, cut these items to reduce deficit

Bins, roads, unwinnable wars: this is a chancellor with money to burn

While the poor struggle to survive the crisis, George Osborne is happy to run a welfare state for corporations and billionaires

• 
• • George Monbiot
  • guardian.co.uk, Monday 3 October 2011 20.30 BST
  • larger | smaller

Illustration by Daniel Pudles

Crisis, what crisis? There must be one: George Osborne, chancellor of the exchequer, said so 12 times in Monday's speech. But if it really is as bad as he says, why is he squandering what remains of our money like an aristocratic gambler in a Russian novel?

This column is about the cuts the government has failed to make. It's about the profligate, pointless spending that has not been slashed, and the money Osborne could have raised but has instead decided to fritter away. For the sake of argument it accepts his estimate of the amount that will need to be saved. But it will show that over half of it could be found with much less pain.
Let us begin with the easiest cut of all: one that would hurt no one except a few grasping corporations.
By cancelling its planned re-organisation of the National Health Service, the government would save £2bn. That would allow it to drop three-quarters of the cuts to the NHS's capital spending budget planned for the next four years.

To show how reasonable I mean to be, I won't adopt Simon Jenkins's arresting proposal that we cut the entire armed forces' budget. I'll suggest we drop only the military projects of such withering pointlessness that even the government can't decide what they are for.

The strategic purpose of the war in Afghanistan changes by the week. Its prospects of achieving any of its fluctuating aims recede by the day. Pulling out would save us £4.5bn a year. That's equivalent to the entire cut in the government grant to local authorities, plus the entire cut to the housing budget, which will raise social rents to impossible levels. So here's the choice: Sure Start centres, libraries, Citizens Advice bureaux, affordable housing, all the other services that give the poor a chance of a decent life; or an unwinnable war likely to sow further conflict.

Whatever else the Ministry of Defence gets wrong, however, you can't fault it for innovation. It's spending £6.2bn on a pair of aircraft carriers with a unique feature: they won't carry any aircraft. The jets they were to have supported won't be ready in time, or perhaps at all. They will drift around the oceans like the Flying Dutchman, the embodied ghosts of our imperial pretensions. Because of the commitments already made, cancelling them now would save only £1.2bn. But that's enough to avert all but £200m of the government's cuts to early intervention programmes for families that might otherwise run into trouble.

While we're on the subject of pointless foreign intervention, could someone in government please explain the survival of the export credit guarantee department? Its purpose is to subsidise multinational companies by underwriting their business in other countries: such as drilling for oil in fragile environments or selling weapons to dodgy regimes. It costs the government £20m a year. This money could have saved the Sustainable Development Commission and the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution four times over.

The road schemes the government wants to fund would have been pointless and destructive in the boom years. In a time of crisis and contraction, they are a refined form of madness. A report by the Campaign for Better Transport analyses the local authority transport schemes listed as the "best and final bids" for new money by the government, which will decide in December. You have until 14 October to respond.

Though it generates the least employment, does the greatest damage to the environment and creates the fewest social benefits, road building is in line for the greatest share of the new transport spending: £897m. Some of the schemes being proposed, such as the £86m Bexhill to Hastings link road (all of 6km) or the £108m Kingskerswell bypass (also 6km) have been fought by local people for years. Like the useless new roads the last Tory government built, they will simply bump the traffic problem along to the next bottleneck. The same money would have kept the education maintenance allowance afloat for 18 months – or, as we're talking about transport, provided mobility for disabled people in residential care (one of the cruellest of the proposed cuts) for 300 years.

The Beast of Brentwood, known to his mother as Eric Pickles, has insisted – on the expert advice of the leader writers of the Daily Mail – that councils reinstate weekly bin collections, at a cost of £250m. This spending, unlike some of the examples I'm listing, will do no harm. But a government that believes it's a higher priority than, say, legal aid for people with no representation (now cut by £300m a year) is a government that's lost all sense of proportion.

Such sums are trifling by comparison with the money the government has selflessly foregone. Wherever it has spotted a relatively painless means of plugging the spending gap, it has hurried away to find an excruciating alternative. It continues to hold out against a Robin Hood tax on financial transactions. Levied at just 0.05%, this would raise around £20bn a year from the people who brought us the crisis. That's equivalent to one quarter of all the cuts the government is making.
When he slapped new charges on the North Sea companies making tanker-loads of money from a mineral resource that belongs to the nation, Osborne could have banked the £2bn he raised. He could have used the oil revenues to cancel almost all the cuts to disability living allowance. Instead he gave it, as a tax rebate, to a group some way from the top of the priority list: motorists. When he struck a deal with Switzerland, and British tax evaders stashing their ill-gotten gains in its banks, Osborne could have held out for £25bn. Instead he settled for £5bn, all malfeasance forgotten. He threw away the equivalent of another quarter of this year's cuts.

Then there are the straight giveaways: acts of profligacy at any time, of Bullingdonian debauchery today. The government's cuts to corporation tax will cost us £1bn a year by 2014. Changes to controlled foreign company rules, capital gains tax, capital allowances, inheritance tax and similar levies (all of which reward only corporations or the ultra-rich) will deprive the exchequer of a further £1.5bn a year by 2015 – almost enough to reverse the fiscally destructive cuts to the tax collection service: a net £2.3bn. The freezing of air passenger duty, excise duty for lorries and the aggregates levy – which in all cases, like the spending on new roads, damages the environment as much as they damage the economy – will cost us another £175m.

Far from running out of funds, this looks like a government with money to burn. While the poor and middle struggle to survive the crisis that George Osborne bewails, he's giving away our money to those who need it least. So let's support him when he calls for cuts, but demand that he directs them at the welfare state he's running for corporations and billionaires, which is turning this crisis into a calamity.