Cameron's political isolation on Syria grows

Labour, the Lib Dems, two-thirds of Tory MPs and, now, Boris Johnson are all opposed to arming the rebels. This is an argument Cameron cannot win.

William Hague made it clear on the Today programme this morning that he and David Cameron are determined not to rule out the option of arming the Syrian rebels. He challenged those who warn that the UK would have no way of preventing Sunni jihadists from seizing or buying the weapons by pointing out that there was "no evidence" that the non-lethal equipment supplied by the west had "fallen into the wrong hands" and cautioned against "falling into the trap of thinking that everybody on every side is an extremist". He also insisted that while the opposition had suffered "important setbacks", "this does not mean this conflict is over". 

"The debate about arms is about how to make sure a democratic, legitimate opposition is not exterminated," he said. The clear suggestion was that supplying the rebels with weapons could still tilt the balance in their favour, both against the extremists on the opposition side and against the Assad regime. 

But such is David Cameron's political isolation that it is increasingly imposible to see how the UK could take this step. Labour, the Liberal Democrats and around two-thirds of Tory MPs are all opposed to arming the rebels, and Boris Johnson uses his Telegraph column today to join them. He writes: "This is not the moment to send more arms. This is the moment for a total ceasefire, an end to the madness. It is time for the US, Russia, the EU, Turkey, Iran, Saudi and all the players to convene an intergovernmental conference to try to halt the carnage."

Last night on Twitter, Tory MPs Mark Reckless and Sarah Wollaston suggested that they knew of no Conservative backbenchers in favour of arming the rebels. After the adventurism of the neoconservatives, the Tories' realist tendency is reasserting itself. If Cameron is unable to even win this argument within his own party, it is hard to see him persuading anyone else of the case for action. 

David Cameron arrives to attend the Enniskillen G8 summit in Belfast. Photograph: Getty Images.

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.