Labour MPs divide over whether to boycott the Thatcher tribute or hijack it

Former minister John Healey says "this will not be the occasion or opportunity" to criticise Thatcher's record but David Winnick says it would be "absolutely hypocritical" not to.

Ahead of today's special Parliamentary tribute to Margaret Thatcher, Ed Miliband has been encouraging Labour MPs to return from their constituencies in order to ensure the party is well represented at the occasion. There is, however, no formal requirement for backbenchers to attend and several have publicly announced that they intend to stay away.

In an article for PoliticsHome, former minister John Healey writes that David Cameron is "wrong to recall Parliament" and that Thatcher's death "could and should have been marked when the Commons returns next week." Healey, like other Labour MPs, is angered at the attempt by Thatcher's supporters to present her as a figure above and beyond party politics. He notes that Parliament has only been recalled 25 times since the Second World War and only once to pay tribute "to a truly national figure, the Queen Mother". Thatcher's legacy, he writes, is "too bitter" to merit such treatement. "I will play no part and I will stay away, with other things to do at home in the constituency."

Other Labour MPs who intend to remain on holiday or in their constituencies, include Ronnie Campbell, a former miner and MP for Blyth Valley, and John Mann, who has said he doesn't understand why "taxpayers' money" should be wasted on an additional session when it could be "properly done on Monday". Campbell said: "I have got better things to do in the office here, looking after the interests of the people of Blyth Valley than listening to people singing her praises. Some MPs might think it is their duty to be there — I certainly do not. Her legacy here was the destruction of thousands of jobs."

But while the Labour leadership wants as many as MPs as possible to attend (the site of empty opposition benches would be uncomfortable for Miliband) , it has made it clear that it would rather they stay away than use the occasion to attack Thatcher's time in office. As Healey rightly notes in his piece, the event is officially described as a "special session in which tributes will be paid"; it is not a debate on her record.  He adds: 

This will not be the occasion or opportunity to debate the closure of the coal industry, the squandering of North Sea oil revenues to cover the cost of tax cuts, the ‘big bang’ deregulation of banking, the £17 billion privatisation of public housing or the deep social divisions as a legacy of her period as Prime Minister.

For the same reason, George Galloway, who tweeted "may she burn in the hellfires" following the news of Thatcher's death, will boycott the occasion. Asked if he would be attending, Galloway said: "I understand it is not a debate, so no. If it were a debate about the legacy of Margaret Thatcher I would be first in the queue for prayers. It is a state-organised eulogy."

However, at least one Labour MP has announced that, if called by the Speaker, he will criticise Thatcher's record. David Winnick told the Guardian: "It would be absolutely hypocritical if those of us who were opposed at the time to what occurred – the mass unemployment, the poverty – were to remain silent when the house is debating her life. This will be an opportunity to speak frankly." Miliband, who is wary of Labour being seen to attack Thatcher just 48 hours after the news of her death, will hope that few choose to follow his lead. 

Margaret Thatcher attends the State Opening of Parliament in 2010. 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.