What's behind the Adam Afriyie "stalking horse" plot?

The MP for Windsor is being touted as a challenger to David Cameron. Why him - and why now?

Adam Afriyie, the 47-year-old Tory MP for Windsor, is not a household name.

But he's made two Sunday newspaper front pages today - the Sunday Times had "Black MP is hot tip to be the next Tory leader", while the Mail on Sunday splashed on "Stalking horse plot to oust PM".

As a potential Tory leadership candidate, Afriyie has a lot to recommend him. His personal story - born to a Ghanian father and a white English mother in Peckham, made a fortune in IT, became the Tories' first black MP in 2005, refuses to claim his second home allowance - is a compelling one for those who feel that David Cameron seems too "privileged" to connect with ordinary voters and that the whole political establishment is seen as too cosy and corrupt.

But what does this plot really amount to? The MoS is keen to note that Afriyie is being lined up "should a rumoured backbench revolt force the Prime Minister to resign". It adds:

Changes in Tory Party rules mean rebels cannot use the ‘stalking horse’ tactics used to topple Margaret Thatcher by getting a backbencher to strike the first blow and trigger a full contest. Under revised rules, 46 Tory MPs must demand a vote of no confidence in the leader. 

Given that David Cameron has just enjoyed a poll bounce - and a renewed surge of affection from his Eurosceptic backbenches - by promising an EU referendum if he wins the next election, that demand seems unlikely to come in the near-future.

Indeed, Isabel Hardman reports at the Spectator that "one backbencher suggested to me last week that the EU speech wouldn’t just keep Cameron safe until 2015, it would give local parties some security over other issues, too".

The political team at the Telegraph - which did not run the story - are also downplaying the idea of a leadership challenge. Deputy Editor Ben Brogan tweeted that "these plots will come to nothing". All in all, the weekend after Cameron has made his long-delayed, backbench-appeasing Europe speech seems just about the worst time to try to stir dissent.

So what's behind the supposed Afriyie challenge? It seems that either his quoted "friends" have mishandled the whole affair, or the Sunday papers have dramatically overstated a few grumblings in the tea room.

Either way, it's unlikely to cost David Cameron too much sleep. 

Update, 16.38 The BBC reports that Afriyie says there is "no truth to any of it" and he is "100% loyal" to David Cameron. He told Sky News he nearly "choked on his cereal" when he read the papers earlier today. 

Adam Afriyie. Photo: Getty

Helen Lewis is deputy editor of the New Statesman. She has presented BBC Radio 4’s Week in Westminster and is a regular panellist on BBC1’s Sunday Politics.

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.