GOP Arizona debate: 3 things we learned

How did the Republican candidates fare in the final debate before Super Tuesday?

The Republican candidates met in Mesa, Arizona last night for another debate ahead of the state primary on 28 February. This was the 20th televised meet of the GOP Presidential hopefuls, and arguably the most vital debate yet. As Rebecca Lloyd noted yesterday, wins in Arizona and Michigan would cement Mitt Romney's place as frontrunner; victories for Rick Santorum -- behind in delegate votes but ahead in the polls -- would mean Romney has lost more states than he has won, demonstrating his serious disconnect with the conservative right.

1) Newt's now a non-starter

Newt Gingrich has slipped well behind in the polls (his delegate count, too, is lagging), and whilst his performance last night will have done little to change this, Ginger Gibson at Policito felt the former House Speaker actually won the debate. "Staying above the fray, avoiding attacks and focusing on the issues" may have been made for a successful performance, but as this one word answer shows (equal parts puerile and unbelievable), Gingrich's days of domineering in the race are done.

 

2) Santorum couldn't pull it off

Last night was the sweater-vest-wearing former Senator's chance to build on his momentum gathered over recent weeks, and in this he decisively failed. "Take a look in the mirror!" was just one of Romney's successful chastisements of his rival -- even though, in strangely convoluted terms, he was holding Santorum wholly responsible for Obamacare having once voted for a pro-choice senator.

3) Close seats made for uncomfortable viewing

What happened to the podiums? Bunched-together seating on the CNN stage had the four candidates within shoulder-patting distance of one another, and this proxomity made all the more obvious their mutual dislike.

Santorum bared an all-American smile on screen whilst Ron Paul, to his immediate right, slammed him as "a fake". And the body language (arms flying and fingers pointing) during a clash over earmarks demonstrated just how divided the Republican party these days appears to be.

 

 

Alice Gribbin is a Teaching-Writing Fellow at the Iowa Writers' Workshop. She was formerly the editorial assistant at 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.