Syria: the Labour rebels who voted against Miliband

Six Labour MPs voted against the party's amendment on the grounds that it failed to rule out military action. How many shadow ministers would have resigned?

Though largely unnoticed after the government's extraordinary defeat last night (as I noted earlier, no prime minister has been defeated on a matter of peace and war since 1782), Ed Miliband suffered his own rebellion over Syria. 

There were six Labour MPs who voted against Miliband's amendment on the grounds that it failed to rule out military action. They were: Ronnie Campbell, Jim Fitzpatrick, Stephen Hepburn, Siân C. James, Grahame M. Morris and Graham Stringer. 

A few hours before the vote, Fitzpatrick resigned from his position as shadow transport minister. During the debate he had warned that he had "problems" with the government motion and Labour's amendment since neither ruled out military action and was "opposed to military intervention in Syria, full stop."

An interesting hypothetical is how many would have followed him if Miliband had eventually supported military intervention. One party source told me earlier that around five were prepared to do so. But fortunately for Miliband, Cameron's decision to immediately take military action off the table (he could have offered to work with Labour to secure a majority for Miliband's amendment) means he'll never have to find out. 

Stop the War protesters demonstrate outside Parliament during yesterday's debate on military action against Syria. 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.