Nadine Dorries's readmission shows Cameron is running scared of UKIP

The timing of the move is a political gift to Ed Miliband.

Six months after the Conservative whip was suspended from Nadine Dorries following her stint on I’m a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here!, it has finally been reinstated. It's undoubtedly the right decision, but the timing of the move is awkward for Cameron. Only after rumours that the MP for Bedfordshire was considering defecting to UKIP (now confirmed by Dorries) was she brought back into the Conservative fold. As I reported last week, the Tory whips have been pushing for her readmission for months but George Osborne, who was still furious about Dorries's "arrogant posh boys" barb, was unwilling to back down. Now, with Nigel Farage threatening to secure her services, he has curiously had a change of heart. As the Spectator's Isabel Hardman (who broke the story) points out, it says little about the leadership's principles that the decision was entirely motivated by political considerations, rather than out of concern for Dorries. 

The timing of the move is also a gift to Ed Miliband, who mocked the Tories for running scared of UKIP in his response to the Queen's Speech. After Peter Bone and Jacob Rees-Mogg called for a pact or coalition with Farage's party, Miliband quipped: "They used to call them clowns. Now they want to join the circus." He went on: "The whole point of the Prime Minister’s Europe speech in January was to ‘head off UKIP’. Tory MPs were crowing that the UKIP fox had been shot. It was job done. Mission accomplished. Only it wasn’t. The lesson for the Prime Minister is you can’t out-Farage Farage."

The Dorries move allows Miliband to claim that, in addition to determining the Conservative Party's EU policy, the UKIP leader now also dictates who can and can't be a Tory MP. Farage may not yet be in office, but he is most certainly in power. 

Nadine Dorries was suspended from the Conservative Party after appearing on ITV's I’m A Celebrity... Get Me Out Of Here!

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

How tribunal fees silenced low-paid workers: “it was more than I earned in a month”

The government was forced to scrap them after losing a Supreme Court case.

How much of a barrier were employment tribunal fees to low-paid workers? Ask Elaine Janes. “Bringing up six children, I didn’t have £20 spare. Every penny was spent on my children – £250 to me would have been a lot of money. My priorities would have been keeping a roof over my head.”

That fee – £250 – is what the government has been charging a woman who wants to challenge their employer, as Janes did, to pay them the same as men of a similar skills category. As for the £950 to pay for the actual hearing? “That’s probably more than I earned a month.”

Janes did go to a tribunal, but only because she was supported by Unison, her trade union. She has won her claim, although the final compensation is still being worked out. But it’s not just about the money. “It’s about justice, really,” she says. “I think everybody should be paid equally. I don’t see why a man who is doing the equivalent job to what I was doing should earn two to three times more than I was.” She believes that by setting a fee of £950, the government “wouldn’t have even begun to understand” how much it disempowered low-paid workers.

She has a point. The Taylor Review on working practices noted the sharp decline in tribunal cases after fees were introduced in 2013, and that the claimant could pay £1,200 upfront in fees, only to have their case dismissed on a technical point of their employment status. “We believe that this is unfair,” the report said. It added: "There can be no doubt that the introduction of fees has resulted in a significant reduction in the number of cases brought."

Now, the government has been forced to concede. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Unison’s argument that the government acted unlawfully in introducing the fees. The judges said fees were set so high, they had “a deterrent effect upon discrimination claims” and put off more genuine cases than the flimsy claims the government was trying to deter.

Shortly after the judgement, the Ministry of Justice said it would stop charging employment tribunal fees immediately and refund those who had paid. This bill could amount to £27m, according to Unison estimates. 

As for Janes, she hopes low-paid workers will feel more confident to challenge unfair work practices. “For people in the future it is good news,” she says. “It gives everybody the chance to make that claim.” 

Julia Rampen is the digital news editor of the New Statesman (previously editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog). She has also been deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.