The man who would be kingmaker

Which way would Clegg turn in a hung parliament?

After Sunday's fascinating Observer poll, all the talk today is of how the main parties would fare in a hung parliament. Nick Clegg's interview with Andrew Marr has been deconstructed by the press in an attempt to discover the Lib Dem leader's true intentions.

Clegg told Marr:

I start from a very simple first principle. It is not Gordon Brown or David Cameron or Nick Clegg who are kingmakers in British politics, it's the British people. The votes of the British people are what should determine what happens. Whichever party has the strongest mandate from the British people, it seems to me obvious in a democracy they have the first right to seek to try and govern, either on their own or with others.

I agree with the Guardian's Allegra Stratton, who concludes: "Clegg's comments show he regards the number of votes won rather than the number of seats to be paramount." (We should expect nothing less from an electoral reformer.)

Under this interpretation, Clegg would be open to the possibility of a deal with the Tories, who remain on track to win the largest number of votes. He's likely to face intense pressure from a largely conservative press to explore the option, at least, of an alliance with Cameron.

But could Clegg really do a deal with the anti-PR, Eurosceptic Cameron? The Lib Dems pride themselves on being the most democratic of the main parties and Clegg would run into fierce grass-roots opposition, notably from former members of the SDP.

It is also worth remembering that, by convention, Gordon Brown has the constitutional right to form a government, even with fewer MPs than Cameron.

As Jackie Ashley notes in her column today: "[T]he precedent of the general election in February 1974 reminds us that Cameron, even with more MPs, would not have an automatic right to make the first move. Constitutionally he would still be leader of the opposition, as Harold Wilson was, despite Labour winning four more seats than the Conservatives."

Still, Clegg would be deeply reluctant to act as the life-support machine for a Labour government that had been rejected by most voters.

The most likely outcome may be a minority Conservative administration that goes to the country again before the end of 2010 in search of a working majority.

In order to prevent this outcome, Brown must prepare to offer the Lib Dems a referendum on proportional representation. The old tribalist will be forced to become a born-again pluralist.

 

Sign up to the New Statesman newsletter and receive weekly updates from the team

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

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.