The Lib Dem leadership contest has begun

Tim Farron joins Vince Cable in declaring that he's prepared to stand for leader.

First it was Vince Cable, now Tim Farron has joined the Business Secretary in declaring that he's prepared to stand for the Lib Dem leadership if Nick Clegg is removed. Asked whether he wanted to be leader, the party president told The House magazine: "I certainly wouldn't rule it out" (Cable told the FT: "I don’t exclude it – who knows what might happen in the future"). Farron's answer is significant because when asked this question, a politician traditionally replies: "We've already got a leader and he's doing an excellent job" (or words to that effect). His decision to fuel speculation about his intentions is a sign of just how weak Clegg's position is. As Richard Reeves, the Lib Dem leader's former strategy director, wrote in this week's issue, "For four days and nights the question in the sea air will be: Clegg or no Clegg?"

While it's unlikely that the Lib Dems will seek to force Clegg out in the next year, if the polls continue to show that they'd perform better under Cable, I expect them to remove him before the election. A recent ComRes poll showed that with Cable as leader, support for the Lib Dems would rise to 18%, compared to 14% under Clegg. On a uniform swing, that would leave the party with 39 of its 57 seats, compared with 23 under Clegg. The chance to save 15-20 MPs is likely to prove too good to resist. For the Lib Dems, it represents the difference between a bad result and a terrible one.

Now, in the form of Farron, Cable has an open challenger. The ballots may not have been sent out but, in every other respect, the Lib Dem leadership contest has already begun.

Asked whether he wanted to be leader, Lib Dem president Tim Farron said: "I certainly wouldn't rule it out".

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.