Employee ownership finally gets the backing of the Government

After the "shares for rights" false start, will the Government get it right this time?

The current profile and success of employee ownership is unprecedented. Employee ownership is now being embraced as the most prominent alternative to the over-dominant PLC model.

Employee owned businesses are largely or fully owned by their workforces either through direct employee share holdings or shares held in Trust on behalf of and for the benefit of employees. Their workforces are very actively engaged in the management and development of their businesses. And economic competitiveness and high performance are a central part of the DNA of employee owned companies. The compelling success stories of employee owned businesses such as Clansman, Unipart and Arup demonstrate the very special nature of employee ownership.

More and more politicians, businesses and service commissioners are realising the contribution that employee ownership is making and can make to the growth agenda and to the delivery of world class public services. It is a realisation that employee owned organisations tend to achieve higher productivity, greater levels of innovation, better resilience to economic turbulence and have more fulfilled workers who are less stressed than colleagues in conventionally owned organisations. It is also a recognition that employee ownership works financially as over the last decade and more, investments in shares in employee owned businesses have considerably outperformed those in conventionally owned businesses.

This current interest in employee ownership has been reflected over recent weeks in two important initiatives.

Firstly the Treasury has completed its review into the taxation of employee ownership in the UK. Its conclusions, announced as part of the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement, are significant. The Autumn Statement argues that employee ownership is an important part of the UK growth agenda and explicitly confirms it as a business model that the Government supports. This is a powerful and unique endorsement of a part of the economy that contributes more than £30bn to UK GDP each year.

The Statement also undertakes to bring to the table the resources and expertise of the Treasury to work with other parts of Government to increase the number of employee owned businesses, to implement a package of simplifications to existing employee share schemes and to keep under review the possibility of introducing at the time of the next Budget further tax incentives to promote employee ownership.

Secondly, Government has accepted in full all of the recommendations for how to grow employee ownership in the UK that are contained in the recently completed Nuttall Review into the barriers to such growth.

The inaugural meeting of the group that is now accountable for the implementation of these recommendations, chaired by the relevant Minister Jo Swinson MP, has just taken place. This development brings a realistic prospect that a new future for employee ownership that many of us have been driving for will arrive. A future in which there is far greater awareness of employee ownership options, there is a simplification of those options and there is better access to finance and advice for businesses that want to implement and or fund employee ownership.

These two reviews, the Treasury and Nuttall Reviews, are ones that the Employee Ownership Association successfully pushed very hard for.

Their outcomes and the attendant commitments mark another important step along the way towards employee ownership becoming a central part of industrial policy, part of the mainstream.

Employee ownership is currently growing at an annual rate of around 10 per cent. Interest in it within business communities and amongst public service commissioners is increasing daily. The number of funders and advisors competent to engage in employee ownership is on the rise. These are exciting times.  The challenge ahead is to build on this momentum in pursuit of the big picture – 10 per cent of UK GDP delivered by employee ownership by 2020. With the right will and skill this is perfectly possible.

The Co-operative society circa 1929. Photograph: Getty Images

Iain Hasdell is the chief executive of the Employee Ownership Association the voice of employee owned businesses in the UK and a member of the Mutuals Task Force.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

As long as Jeremy Corbyn's Labour opponents are divided, he will rule

The leader's foes have yet to agree on when and how a challenge should take place.

Labour MPs began plotting to remove Jeremy Corbyn as leader before he even held the position. They have not stopped since. From the outset, most regarded him as electorally and morally defective. Nothing has caused them to relinquish this view.

A week before the first major elections of this parliament, Labour found itself conducting a debate normally confined to far-right internet forums: was Hitler a Zionist? For some MPs, the distress lay in how unsurprised they were by all this. Since Corbyn’s election last September, the party has become a mainstream venue for hitherto fringe discussions.

Many MPs believe that Labour will be incapable of rebuilding its standing among the Jewish community as long as Corbyn remains leader. In the 1930s, Jewish support for the party was as high as 80 per cent. “They handed you your . . . membership just after your circumcision,” quipped the father in the 1976 television play Bar Mitzvah Boy. By the time of the last general election, a poll found that support had fallen to a mere 22 per cent. It now stands at just 8.5 per cent.

Corbyn’s critics cite his rejection of anti-Semitism and "all forms of racism" (as if unable to condemn the former in isolation), his defence of a tweet sent by his brother, Piers (“Zionists can’t cope with anyone supporting rights for Palestine”), and his description of Hamas and Hezbollah as “friends”. The Lab­our leader dismissed the latter remark as a diplomatic nicety but such courtesy was not displayed when he addressed Labour Friends of Israel and failed to mention the country’s name. When challenged on his record of combating anti-Semitism, Corbyn frequently invokes his parents’ presence at the Battle of Cable Street, a reference that does not provide the reassurance intended. The Jewish community does not doubt that Labour has stood with it in the past. It questions whether it is prepared to stand with it in the present.

MPs say that Labour’s inept response to anti-Semitism has strengthened the moral case for challenging Corbyn. One shadow cabinet minister spoke of how the fear of “enormous reputational damage” had pushed him to the brink of resignation. As the New Statesman went to press, Corbyn’s first electoral test was looming. Every forecast showed the party on course to become the first opposition to lose council seats in a non-general-election year since 1985. Yet Corbyn appeared to insist on 3 May that this would not happen, gifting his opponents a benchmark by which to judge him.

Sadiq Khan was projected to become the party’s first successful London mayoral candidate since 2004. But having distanced himself from Corbyn throughout the race, he intends to deny him any credit if he wins. Regardless of the results on 5 May, there will be no challenge to the Labour leader before the EU referendum on 23 June. Many of the party’s most Corbyn-phobic MPs are also among its most Europhile. No cause, they stress, should distract from the defence of the UK’s 43-year EU membership.

Whether Corbyn should be challenged in the four weeks between the referendum and the summer recess is a matter of dispute among even his most committed opponents. Some contend that MPs have nothing to lose from trying and should be prepared to “grind him down” through multiple attempts, if necessary. Others fear that he would be empowered by winning a larger mandate than he did last September and argue that he must be given “longer to fail”. Still more hope that Corbyn will instigate a midterm handover to the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, his closest ally, whom they regard as a beatable opponent.

Those who are familiar with members’ thinking describe many as “anxious” and in need of “reassurance” but determined that Corbyn receives adequate time to “set out his stall”. One shadow cabinet minister spoke of being “caught between Scylla and Charybdis” – that is, “a Labour Party membership which is ardently Corbynista and a British electorate which is ardently anti-Corbynista”. In their most pessimistic moments, some MPs gloomily wonder which group will deselect them first. The possibility that a new Conservative leader could trigger an early general election is cited by some as cause for haste and by others as the only means by which Corbynism can be definitively discredited.

The enduring debate over whether the Labour leader would automatically make the ballot if challenged (the party’s rules are ambiguous) is dismissed by most as irrelevant. Shadow cabinet members believe that Corbyn would achieve the requisite nominations. Momentum, the Labour leader’s praetorian guard, has privately instructed its members to be prepared to lobby MPs for this purpose.

There is no agreement on who should face Corbyn if his removal is attempted. The veteran MP Margaret Hodge has been touted as a “stalking horse” to lead the charge before making way for a figure such as the former paratrooper Dan Jarvis or the shadow business secretary, Angela Eagle. But in the view of a large number of shadow cabinet members, no challenge will materialise. They cite the high bar for putative leaders – the endorsement of 20 per cent of Labour MPs and MEPs – and the likelihood of failure. Many have long regarded mass front-bench resignations and trade union support as ­essential preconditions for a successful challenge, conditions they believe will not be met less than a year after Corbyn’s victory.

When Tony Blair resigned as Labour leader in 2007, he had already agreed not to fight the next general election and faced a pre-eminent rival in Gordon Brown. Neither situation exists today. The last Labour leader to be constitutionally deposed was J R Clynes in 1922 – when MPs, not members, were sovereign. Politics past and present militate against Corbyn’s opponents. There is but one man who can remove the leader: himself.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 06 April 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The longest hatred