Blair is back to give Ed a headache

Not to put too fine a point on things, Tony is pissed off.

Tony Blair is back. The Middle East is aflame, the coalition floundering. Whatever your view of Labour's polarising former premier, he hasn't lost his sense of political timing.

"Blair the 'back-seat driver' tells Ed Miliband to up his game", reported the Sunday Telegraph. "The former prime minister has told Mr Miliband he has risked cheapening his role by intervening too often on too many relatively trivial issues."

Miliband was no doubt delighted with the advice. As Nick Clegg grapples the Monster Raving Loony Party for political survival – and David Cameron strides on to the international stage with all the gravitas and judgement of Dr Strangelove – Labour's current leader needs his predecessor popping up like he needs a hole in the head.

Attempts to brush off Sunday's briefing as part of a "regular" series of conversations between the two men have fooled no one. Blair is, not to put too fine a point on things, pissed off. He's angry at Miliband's apparent junking of New Labour. He's even angrier at attempts to tarnish his legacy with what he sees as misrepresentation of his efforts to bring Muammar al-Gaddafi into the international mainstream.

And he's most angry at what he regards as an effort to use the "Arab spring" as a further stick to beat him, his Iraq policy and his broader policy of progressive interventionism.

Ed Miliband's team believe this anger is now being channelled into a co-ordinated Blairite fightback. Jack Straw, Peter Mandelson, David Miliband and Jim Murphy have all made recent high-profile interventions defending Blair and his foreign affairs record and philosophy. "We know what's going on," said one Miliband supporter. "We're not stupid."

Claims in the Telegraph article that Blair was responsible for recent improvements in Milband's performance and standing have been met with bewilderment. "It would be ludicrous to pretend this is all down to Tony – the unpopularity of the government's spending cuts obviously plays a major role – but Ed is always happy to listen to his advice," said a leadership source.

Those close to the Blairite camp see things somewhat differently. According to supporters of the former leader, Ed Miliband is becoming increasingly nervous at his failure to build a proper support base within the party. "Last time Ed spoke to Tony he wanted his help and advice in shoring up his position," one said. "It's taking much longer to bring people round than Ed anticipated."

There are also frustrations among a number of Blairite supporters with what they see as Miliband's failure to build on his recent tactical success. "The coalition keeps screwing up, and we keep hitting them. But we're not building an alternative case for why people should back Labour. Our only argument is 'at least we're not the Tories or the Lib Dems'."

Yet differing emphases over the response to the tumultuous events in the Middle East are creating the most significant tensions. Miliband's team fervently believes there is no appetite among the voters for further international adventurism. "Even if we wanted to get involved in Libya, the public won't wear it," said one source.

This sits in stark contrast to the interventionist instincts of some members of his own shadow cabinet. At a speech to the Royal United Services Institute in London on Thursday, Jim Murphy issued a veritable call to arms. "Britain can and should play an important part in shaping world events and trends, with our armed forces its heart," he urged.

That Britain should have responsibilities beyond her borders, he said, was "not, as some would have it, ideological, but, as we have seen over the last few days, a necessary response to the world in which we live. This is a challenge for the Labour Party. Opposition is about proving your preparedness to engage with the issues you would have to in government if it is to be responsible and ultimately electorally credible."

Compare that to an article Miliband wrote for the Observer four days earlier and the difference in emphasis is striking. He wrote:

The neocons were wrong to think we could impose democracy at the point of a gun. In this new era, soft power will often be a better way to achieve hard results. That is why support for civil society, the promotion of national assets such as the British Council and the BBC World Service, is so important. Our template should be the EU's response to the democratic revolutions of 1989 which helped make change in eastern Europe irreversible, with economic aid, technical assistance and institution-building.

The crisis in the Middle East has forced Miliband to sit down at the chessboard of foreign policy rather earlier in his leadership than he would have liked. Because of that, he has yet to formulate a settled policy agenda.

But he does have one simple rule: avoid getting into the mess Blair got himself into.

It's not a foreign affairs credo the former leader and his supporters are likely to warm to.

Getty
Show Hide image

There's nothing Luddite about banning zero-hours contracts

The TUC general secretary responds to the Taylor Review. 

Unions have been criticised over the past week for our lukewarm response to the Taylor Review. According to the report’s author we were wrong to expect “quick fixes”, when “gradual change” is the order of the day. “Why aren’t you celebrating the new ‘flexibility’ the gig economy has unleashed?” others have complained.

Our response to these arguments is clear. Unions are not Luddites, and we recognise that the world of work is changing. But to understand these changes, we need to recognise that we’ve seen shifts in the balance of power in the workplace that go well beyond the replacement of a paper schedule with an app.

Years of attacks on trade unions have reduced workers’ bargaining power. This is key to understanding today’s world of work. Economic theory says that the near full employment rates should enable workers to ask for higher pay – but we’re still in the middle of the longest pay squeeze for 150 years.

And while fears of mass unemployment didn’t materialise after the economic crisis, we saw working people increasingly forced to accept jobs with less security, be it zero-hours contracts, agency work, or low-paid self-employment.

The key test for us is not whether new laws respond to new technology. It’s whether they harness it to make the world of work better, and give working people the confidence they need to negotiate better rights.

Don’t get me wrong. Matthew Taylor’s review is not without merit. We support his call for the abolishment of the Swedish Derogation – a loophole that has allowed employers to get away with paying agency workers less, even when they are doing the same job as their permanent colleagues.

Guaranteeing all workers the right to sick pay would make a real difference, as would asking employers to pay a higher rate for non-contracted hours. Payment for when shifts are cancelled at the last minute, as is now increasingly the case in the United States, was a key ask in our submission to the review.

But where the report falls short is not taking power seriously. 

The proposed new "dependent contractor status" carries real risks of downgrading people’s ability to receive a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. Here new technology isn’t creating new risks – it’s exacerbating old ones that we have fought to eradicate.

It’s no surprise that we are nervous about the return of "piece rates" or payment for tasks completed, rather than hours worked. Our experience of these has been in sectors like contract cleaning and hotels, where they’re used to set unreasonable targets, and drive down pay. Forgive us for being sceptical about Uber’s record of following the letter of the law.

Taylor’s proposals on zero-hours contracts also miss the point. Those on zero hours contracts – working in low paid sectors like hospitality, caring, and retail - are dependent on their boss for the hours they need to pay their bills. A "right to request" guaranteed hours from an exploitative boss is no right at all for many workers. Those in insecure jobs are in constant fear of having their hours cut if they speak up at work. Will the "right to request" really change this?

Tilting the balance of power back towards workers is what the trade union movement exists for. But it’s also vital to delivering the better productivity and growth Britain so sorely needs.

There is plenty of evidence from across the UK and the wider world that workplaces with good terms and conditions, pay and worker voice are more productive. That’s why the OECD (hardly a left-wing mouth piece) has called for a new debate about how collective bargaining can deliver more equality, more inclusion and better jobs all round.

We know as a union movement that we have to up our game. And part of that thinking must include how trade unions can take advantage of new technologies to organise workers.

We are ready for this challenge. Our role isn’t to stop changes in technology. It’s to make sure technology is used to make working people’s lives better, and to make sure any gains are fairly shared.

Frances O'Grady is the General Secretary of the TUC.