The Tories' EU poll bounce is over already - but it's no surprise

Tory MPs need to remember that just six per cent of voters name the EU as one of the most "important issues" facing Britain.

It looks the Tory poll bounce that followed David Cameron's EU referendum pledge was of the "dead cat" variety. The weekend polls showed Labour's lead had fallen to just six as the Conservatives' vote share rose to 35 per cent but by the middle of the week it was back at nine. Today's YouGov poll has the Labour lead at 12, back at the level seen before Cameron's speech. 

This will come as a surprise to some, but it shouldn't. As I noted on the day of Cameron's speech, while voters share the Tories' euroscepticism, they do not share their obsession with the subject. Polling by Ipsos MORI (see below) shows that just six per cent of voters regard the EU as one of the most "important issues" facing Britain. As Lord Ashcroft writes in a typically astute analysis on ConservativeHome, Cameron's pledge has "made Tories feel better about being Tories" but it has not "changed anybody's mind". 

How important is the EU to voters? Not very

This isn't to say that Cameron was wrong to make his pledge. It has undoubtedly won some votes back from Ukip and shored up eurosceptic Conservative support. Rather, it is to say that Tory MPs need to remember that the outcome of the next election will be determined by growth, jobs and public services - the issues that matter to most voters. So long as growth remains non-existent and wages remain below inflation, the Tories will struggle to advance. 

With Labour back in front, Ed Miliband is in a stronger position to argue that his decision not to match Cameron's referendum pledge was the right one. While the Tories bang on about Europe, he wants to bang on about growth. Morever, as Raf noted in a prescient post, Miliband doesn't want the early years of a Labour government to be dominated by an EU referendum.

Conventional wisdom suggested that Miliband's referendum stance would prove disastrous for Labour - and, once again, he was right to reject conventional wisdom. 

David Cameron delivers his speech on the UK's relationship with the EU at Bloomberg's headquarters in London. Photograph: Getty Images.

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.