Show Hide image

Laurie Penny on Nadine Dorries, abortion and newspeak on the right

Dorries's propaganda reveals ugly truths about the coalition's version of "choice".

On the Guardian's Comment Is Free today, Nadine Dorries attempts to justify proposals she is spearheading to restrict women's access to legal abortion and deny proper sex education to young girls.

I have already written about the venal, illiberal campaign in Westmister to force women who wish to terminate pregnancies to go through counselling with an "independent provider" -- likely, in practice, to mean "biased and illiberal" religious counsellors, according to a spokesperson for Abortion Rights UK.

I have also written about how Dorries and some lobbyists are seeking to force these changes through without a vote,and the further hurdles that this will place on the already demeaning and unecessary process of accessing legal abortion in this country. However, one sentence in particular jumps out in Dorries' article, which we will assume was written by Dorries herself and not drafted on her behalf by Christian lobbyists:

At present, the only place a woman can receive pre- or post-abortion counselling paid for by the state is from an abortion provider - who has a clear financial interest in the ultimate decision the woman makes.

Two thoughts immediately occur:

1. If profit is an unacceptable vested interest when private companies are involved in abortion provision, why is it acceptable when it comes to the provision of any other healthcare service?

2. Why does it never, ever occur to Conservatives and other free-market fundamentalists that doctors and other public servants might have other reasons for offering the services they provide besides financial gain? In fact, of all the private companies who currently offer healthcare services in this country, abortion providers are perhaps the most necessary and humane, as their independence offers a crucial lifeline for women too desperate or traumatised by an NHS service in which doctors are allowed to withhold treatment for "moral" reasons.

The government's determination to increase competition in public services automatically assumes that profit is the overriding motive for anyone who works in healthcare, social care or education. It assumes that human beings are naturally selfish, and must be threatened and goaded into doing their jobs properly. That is no way to run a country.

In her article, Dorries speaks of "increasing choice" for women -- by giving them no choice but to go through counselling if they need an abortion. This, too, points to something really venal in coalition newspeak that should worry all of us, whether or not we support a woman's right to safe, legal abortion.

Whether they are discussing cutting public services or obstructing abortion access, the language of "choice" is always employed when confiscating people's most basic rights. We're not restricting access to higher education -- we're letting you choose whether you want to pay £8,000 or £18,000 a year!

The left, too, is guilty of equivocating, of parroting the neo-liberal language of "choice" when we really mean to speak of "rights".

The language of rights and freedoms has corroded over the past three decades, in part because centre-left governments have been quick to adopt managerial rhetoric, to speak of "outcomes" and "choices" whenever it seemed that social justice and human dignity might not play well to the Murdoch press. (Adam Curtis' excellent documentary The Trap is a great explanation of the history and ideology behind this managerial discourse of 'choice'.)

The "pro-choice" campaign is as good a flashpoint as any. Speaking of protecting women's "choices" is a mitigated way, toothless way of discussing what's really at stake -- every woman's right to have control over what happens to her body, every woman's right not to be forced to undergo pregnancy and labour against her will when there are medical alternatives.

Speaking of the "right to choose" is a reasonable and decent compromise, but a compromise nonetheless.

Across the left, we must not allow ourselves to capitulate to the managerial language of the right, because they will always be better at it than us, by virtue of really meaning it. We need to stop talking about choice, and start talking about rights -- whether that's the right to healthcare, housing and a decent standard of living, or the right to access abortion services without being forced to undergo counselling, as if we were unable to cope with the responsibility of freedom.

Laurie Penny is a contributing editor to the New Statesman. She is the author of five books, most recently Unspeakable Things.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The changing world of work

As is always the case with challenges such as this, it falls to Labour to make the political case for action. Because inevitably the Tories will revert back to their time honoured answer - people are on their own and can sink or swim accordingly. 

“There is no point knocking doors here.  There won’t be many people at home.  Let’s just deliver leaflets.”  It was a Monday morning in April 2015, and I was keen to meet as many voters as possible, so I ignored the advice.  I’m glad I did.  For that morning I met a number of people, working from home, self-employed, trying to use every hour productively. 

That I met so many is unsurprising.  The reality is we are seeing an unprecedented boom in self-employment in this country. 

According to the ONS, between 2010 and 2014, the number of self-employed people increased by 663,000.  Indeed, in 2014, 15 per cent of the workforce was self-employed, some 4.6 million people.  This isn’t just a major spike in our history, it also gives us the highest rates of self-employment in the G7. 

This extraordinary rise shows little sign of reversing.  Which throws up a huge number of policy questions if we want to ensure that this rapidly changing employment market doesn't leave millions of workers precariously standing alone at the mercy of market forces. 

As is always the case with challenges such as this, it falls to Labour to make the political case for action. Because inevitably the Tories will revert back to their time honoured answer - people are on their own and can sink or swim accordingly. 

As the party that wants to ensure people from every background have a platform to make the most of their talents, Labour understand that for many people self-employment offers a number of attractions, not least independence. 

Many of the self-employed people I speak to tell me that they enjoy being their own boss, or having the flexibility to work their hours around the other things that are important in their lives, like child care or studying.  Before my election last May, I was self-employed, so I know the advantages it can sometimes bring. 

However, it’s also clear that existing systems have been too slow to catch up with a rapidly changing economy.  So for too many people the flexibility, comes at the price of a lack of security. 

As it stands, self-employed people have no entitlement to statutory sick pay. Self-employed mothers are only entitled to maternity allowance instead of full maternity pay. This is particularly significant, because whilst the majority of the self-employed are still men, the number of self-employed women is growing fastest.  With around half of additional jobs taken up by women between 2008 and 2015 being self-employed.    

The New Policy Institute-Citizens’ Advice report, “Who are the self-employed?” found that, in 2015, only 17 per cent of the self-employed were in a pension scheme, compared to 52 per cent of employees, with that latter figure likely to rise even further with the  continued rollout of pensions auto-enrolment.  Neither are all self-employed people high earners.  In fact, the median income from self-employment in 2013-14 was £209 per week.

There's also the problem that in some areas the status of self-employment is being used as a convenient label, to deny workers their rights.   

The Citizens’ Advice report, “Neither one thing nor the other” highlighted the problem of bogus self-employment: “People who are in bogus self-employment can have their hours, the nature of their work and even the amount that they are paid changed at a moment’s notice.”  Sadly, this kind of treatment is all too common.  The report concluded: “We suspect that one in ten of the people that we surveyed are bogusly self-employed.  If scaled up, this could translate into as many as 460,000 people nationwide.” 

Since it can be advantageous for employers to categorise workers as self-employed for national insurance purposes, the report estimated that government could be losing as much as £314 million per year from the coffers. 

The construction union UCATT have run effective campaigns exposing this kind of malpractice by some umbrella companies.  Yet more needs to be done to uncover and stamp out such exploitation. 

Bogus self-employment isn't only an issue for the self-employed themselves. In many sectors of the economy it can also result in a race to the bottom of conditions, driving down standards for all workers. 

These are just some of the factors that combine to create a complex challenge. New technology and ways of working have the potential to give millions of people the chance to enjoy far greater freedom. However, there's also a risk that growing atomisation of people will see many of the workplace protections that previous generations struggled to secure wiped away. 

As a Labour historian, I know that such challenges have faced our movement in every generation.  We have always risen to the task. Now we must do so again to show that Labour has the answers for the workplace in 2020 and beyond. 

I'm proud that as shadow employment minister I have a chance to play my part in that vital work.

Nick Thomas-Symonds is Labour MP for Torfaen and biographer of Clement Attlee and Nye Bevan.