The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Syndicate contentRSS

The Battle of Beecroft ... to be continued?

Tories suspect consultation is a Lib Dem ploy to shelve plans to scrap some employment protection.

Is the government going to press ahead with plans to allow small businesses to "fire at will" or not? It was the most controversial recommendation in the Beecroft review - a Tory-commissioned report into reforms to employment law - and one that was fiercely resisted by the Liberal Democrats. They argued that a measure likely to make people feel insecure in their jobs would dampen confidence and discourage spending, slowing the economy down further. (They also recognised that it might just make the government look mean.) The Tories are generally persuaded that firms are reluctant to hire if they can't then easily sack under-performing staff. Earlier this week Business Secretary Vince Cable announced that a number of measures to loosen employment protection might indeed be implemented.

This has been reported as a humiliating defeat for the Lib Dems.

In fact the story is more complicated. Cable and Ed Davey, his fellow Lib Dem minister in the Business department, have always been quite sympathetic to the "supply side" case for labour market liberalisation. But the Lib Dem leadership thought "no fault dismissal" was going too far. There has been some pretty ferocious briefing against Beecroft's plan, which aides to Nick Clegg have been quietly denouncing as a shoddy piece of work, commissioned as a favour to a Tory donor (venture capitalist Adrian Beecroft) and, politically speaking, a bit nuts. Have they lost this argument in the "quad" - the foursome of top ministers that runs the coalition? On closer inspection, the Beecroft proposals are mostly being put out for wider consultation. Cable has agreed to "look at the evidence". Some Tories are suspicious that this is a Lib Dem ruse to kick Beecroft into the long grass. David Cameron is known to have a short attention span and the suspicion is that, once the Autumn Statement on the economy is out of the way and some other big events have come along to distract the prime minister - as is inevitable - the fire-at-will idea can be quietly shelved. This, some Tories mutter, is a classic Lib Dem tactic in the coalition. They cite as evidence the way Cameron's tough rhetoric after the summer riots was talked down by Lib Dems and eventually came to nothing. Rightwing Tories accuse the Lib Dems of using the endless demands on the PM's time and his tendency not to concentrate on one thing for long to filibuster ideas off Downing Street's agenda. So the Battle of Beecroft goes on.

2 comments

frances smith's picture

there is something quite nasty about this. the only plausible theory i can come up with, is that narcissitic personalities tend to project, so that rather than accepting aspects of their own personality that they don't like they project them onto others, and hate in others that which they cannot accept in themselves.

so rather than cameron admitting to himself he is no good at his job he is now claiming that the rest of us are no good at ours, and should be sacked

best explanation i can come up with.

Eddy S's picture

bottom line is that this is a minor (even timid) re-balance we are not going back to Victorian ways.

flexible markets actually increase employment and growth.

in the new internet age where ideas and products are tested before release or proof of concept projects initiated before bigger commitments are made are increasingly using business services from countries like India which are rapidly going up the value chain or China which is equally going up the tech value chain - you can literally Google it and employ teams ready to do it for you at the same time small businesses need lighter flexible markets (this does not mean hire and fire but the re-balance is required and will help increase employment - believe it or not !).

Latest tweets