No significant shift away from Lib Dems, poll shows

There has been no mass defection of voters to Labour from the Liberal Democrats.

New Statesman - Polls Guide_1274778313293

Latest poll (ICM/Guardian): Conservatives 25 seats short of a majority.

After a record number of polls during the election campaign it all went quiet for a while. But with a few now published, some revealing trends are beginning to emerge.

The first ICM/Guardian poll since the election has been released, and shows the Conservatives on 39 per cent (+1), Labour on 32 per cent (-1) and the Liberal Democrats unchanged on 21 per cent, figures identical to those in the most recent YouGov poll.

Lib Dem support is down 3 points since the election, but that's in line with past trends and suggests no significant shift against Nick Clegg's party.

I have always been sceptical of claims that the Lib Dems' decision to enter government with the Tories would prompt a wave of defections to Labour. So it's worth noting that most voters say the coalition agreement has made no difference to their decision to support the Lib Dems and that a quarter say it will make them more likely to vote for the party.

Fifty-nine per cent of voters approve of the coalition agreement, almost exactly the joint share of voters who support the Tories and the Lib Dems, with 32 per cent opposed.

New Statesman Poll of Polls

New Statesman - Polls Guide_1274778333401

Hung parliament; Conservatives 25 seats short.

Most encouraging, as the coalition prepares to announce plans for a referendum on the Alternative Vote, is the strong public support for electoral reform, giving the lie to the canard that this is an elite interest. Fifty-six per cent of voters are in favour of a more proportional system, with 38 per cent opposed.

There is even a significant minority of Conservatives -- 45 per cent -- in favour of reform, with 49 per cent supporting retention of first-past-the-post.

I'm not expecting to see a Tories for Electoral Reform group start up any time soon, but it is heartening to know that David Cameron's claim that reform would hand more power to the "political elites" has been ignored by at least some of his own voters.

Special offer: get 12 issues of the New Statesman for just £5.99 plus a free copy of "Liberty in the Age of Terror" by A C Grayling.

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.