NaBloPoMo Day 26 - When does unfair become fair?

On a day when British Prime Minister, David Cameron, should have is attention firmly squared upon the Eurozone crisis, a leaked report by Conservative donor, Adrian Beecroft, suggests that the government should repeal legislation that protects workers against unfair dismissal. The report, commissioned by David Cameron, suggests that employment law is holding back economic growth and that in order to encourage business, the laws should be scrapped. In the report, Beecroft says:

"Many regulations conceived in an era of full employment are designed to make employment more attractive to potential employees, That was addressing yesterday's problem. In today's era of a lack of jobs those regulations simply exacerbate the national problem of high unemployment." (Huffingtonpost.co.uk)

I fail to see how keeping someone in a job (whether they are lazy or otherwise) contributes to a problem of high unemployment.

Unemployment law in the UK is very detailed and sometimes complex, but if it is, that is because it has been honed to achieve the best balance between the employer and the employee. Having said that, the dismissal process is relatively straightforward, particularly for unproductive workers. How difficult is it to understand and implement a policy that is as simple as verbal warning, writing warning, final writing warning, out?

In my experience, all too often, unproductive workers are the result of the mismanagement of the employer. I have witnessed first hand an employee that literally sat with his feet up on the desk and got away with it over and over because the manager failed to follow the correct procedure for dismissal. Why did this happen? It wasn't because the law was ineffective, it was because the manager didn't want to deal with the problem and, when threatened by the employee (with an employment tribunal), didn't understand the process and the law enough to be confident to proceed.

While the employee must take responsibility for their own actions (or inaction),  the employer must take responsibility for addressing those problems. Individuals must be given a fair opportunity to reverse the negative behavior and improve their performance. Existing laws ensure that all employees receive due process when being dismissed and that they have a right of appeal. Even with laws as they are now, anyone can be sacked for any reason; it's just a matter of cost!

I have also witnessed first hand someone being summarily dismissed because the manager wanted to replace them with a friend, so it's not as if unfair dismissal doesn't still happen, even with the laws in place.


If there was ever any doubt that the Tories have changed for the better, this report removes it in one fell swoop. They are the party of the rich and the party of business and they have once again demonstrated how, despite a young, fresh image, and a selection of moderate policies, the party is the same old wolf wearing the same old sheep-skin rug and hoping no-one will notice. But we have noticed.

I understand the motivation and I even understand the principles on which Conservative policies are founded - small government, less tax etc. But the problem with small government (ie. repealing laws and removing government and civil justice responsibility) is that it is always the guy at the bottom of the ladder that suffers. After all, shit falls downwards.

Beecroft goes on to say in the report that:


"The downside of the proposal is that some people would be dismissed simply because their employer did not like them," and adds "While this is sad I believe it is a price worth paying for all the benefits that would result from change." (Huffingtonpost.co.uk)


The unjust sacking of even one hard-working individual is a price that I am simply unwilling to pay. Mainly because that person could, one-day, be me. We need more job security in a recession, not less and I'm pretty sure if Beecroft or David Cameron had normal jobs, this idea would never have been thought of, never mind actually making it to consideration. .

Oldham East and Saddleworth

Politics can be frustrating, particularly as you become more directly involved. It is true in life, but particularly true in politics, that everyone has their own agenda: Your opponents want to win, the media wants to sell their product (and advertising time/space) and commentators and pundits want to be heard. This fact means that getting a message across can be a challenge at the best of times. Actions and statements are twisted, misrepresented or misinterpreted and it can be difficult to get the truth across. Add to that a lazy electorate (not everyone, of course, but enough people) who don't make an effort to cut through all the rubbish to form a fully informed opinion and you've got one hell of a frustrating melting pot.

Of course, that challenge is all part of the fun!

On Thursday, the voters of Oldham East and Saddleworth went to the polls in the first parliamentary by-election since the general election last year. The profile of this event was further increased after the winner last May, Phil Woolas, was found to have deliberately misled the electorate in his campaign literature. It was touted as everything from a test of coalition cohesion, to a measure of Ed Milliband's leadership. Some individuals and news organisations are already trying to draw sweeping conclusions for future elections based on this result but while there is an element of truth to the rhetoric, the reality is that the election is only a snap-shot of one constituency based on the very specific conditions of this election alone and therefore, what it tells us about any future election is very limited. Based purely on the outcome with no supporting canvass or polling data, even what it tells us about the views of the electorate in OES are limited!

The outcome was as follows:

Debbie Abrahams (Lab) 14,718 (42.14%, +10.27%)
Elwyn Watkins (LD) 11,160 (31.95%, +0.32%)
Kashif Ali (C) 4,481 (12.83%, -13.62%)
Paul Nuttall (UKIP) 2,029 (5.81%, +1.95%)
Derek Adams (BNP) 1,560 (4.47%, -1.25%)
Peter Allen (Green) 530 (1.52%)
The Flying Brick (Loony) 145 (0.42%)
Stephen Morris (Eng Dem) 144 (0.41%)
Loz Kaye (Pirate) 96 (0.27%)
David Bishop (Bus-Pass Elvis) 67 (0.19%)

Comparing these figures to those of the May election, Debbie Abrahams, the Labour candidate, was the only candidate to increase the actual number of votes (slightly) and also increase her vote share. Elwyn Watkins dropped almost 3,000 votes for the Liberal Democrats but increased his vote share slightly, while Conservative, Kashif Ali, dropped a substantial 7,200 votes and lost a significant share of the votes.

Some have been quick to suggest that those who voted Conservative last year, voted Labour instead. I personally find it unlikely that Conservative voters shifted directly to Labour, which makes me wonder if the reality is that Elwyn lost some of support to Labour but gained support from people who previously voted Conservative. However, I find even this possibility a stretch. Those Conservative supporters who are most likely to be disillusioned at the moment are the hard right as their party has had to take a more central position in order to compromise with the Lib Dems. It's conceivable that there was a tactical vote - that Conservative voters recognised that their best chance to have a coalition MP was to vote Lib Dem - but I doubt this factor has influenced the voters enough to cause Ali to lose over 7,000 votes.

Another common perception is that this result represents a swing from Lib Dem to Labour. This is certainly more plausible as, for some time, the Liberal Democrat party has been a protest vote for disaffected Labour and Tory supporters. However, like all political parties, Lib Dems lean left or right. Left-leaning Lib Dems, and ex-Labour supporters will surely be irate about the coalition and the tuition fees debacle has upset many voters. Having said that, I wonder how much influence these two factors have had on the result. Right-leaning Lib Dems and moderates will almost certainly be supportive of the party's achievements in government and even those who previously voted Lib Dem, having switched support from Labour, might be completely disillusioned, rather than switch support back, particularly in the light of Phil Woolas' shame.

Therefore, it is my belief that ultimately the vote in Oldham East and Saddleworth hasn't changed that much. Although I am certain that some people have voted differently to how they voted in the general election, I believe that the most significant factor that has influenced this election is the turnout. I believe Labour successfully located and mobilised their vote (picking up some ex-Lib Dem votes along the way) while a large proportion of Conservative voters stayed home. The Lib Dem vote is, unfortunately, renowned as being somewhat unstable (some might say 'fickle') and it would seem enough voters either stayed at home or shifted their vote Labour's way, to result in a Labour win.

If that's the case, what does it mean for the Council elections later this year? Is this a good result for us local Lib Dems, or a bad one? Firstly, it seems to suggest that not much has changed in real terms. Where Labour are strongest, elections might be theirs to lose and the win in OES (particularly if it is reinforced with more by-election victories) might make Labour complacent. In areas where the party takes their electorate for granted, there could be some shocks but I'm not going to hold my breath. Ed Miliband's leadership is very weak, but fortunately for the Labour party, it is easier to be in opposition than in government because you only have to tell people what they want to hear and, I fear, that's exactly what Miliband is doing. The challenge for Lib Dems everywhere will likely be twofold: one, to convince those who voted Lib Dem in the past to continue to do so, and two, to find that support and transfer it to the ballot box. But then again, hasn't that always been the case?

Regardless of what the OES result means (or not), I'd like to extend my congratulations to the Lib Dem team out there for a well-fought campaign. It is deeply disappointing that Elwyn Watkins didn't win - he deserved it after the dirty campaign Labour ran last May and, judging by his tenacity and determination to see the right thing done, he would've made a great MP. Next time, maybe.

What Hazel Did Next

Hazel: picking up the pieces of her political career. (photo credit: dailymail.co.uk)

Hazel Blears has resigned from the cabinet. Unfortunately, the residents of Salford are still stuck with her. She claims that she is 'returning to her roots' out of a desire to renew her personal committment to the people of Salford. Rubbish! She's jumped before she was pushed in the impending cabinet reshuffle. The timing of her announcement and that fact that it has come from her and not Number 10 suggests that she is playing a rather skilful political game. Allow me to elaborate.

Hazel must've realised well before now that her position on the cabinet was under threat and she must, by now, also realise that her popularity in Salford is ebbing away. In the last election in 2005, Hazel won with over 50% of the vote. However, the Lib Dems' candidate, Norman Owen, has been making up ground on her with every passing election. Now that Labour is polling lower than the Lib Dems nationally, she must anticipate that the Lib Dems will be nipping at her heels - especially in the event of a snap election! With all this in mind, I believe she has taken the decision to resign in order to distance herself from an obviously failing government with the hope that it will stall her similarly failing popularity here in Salford. She has nothing to lose and everything to gain. If Gordon Brown is deposed (as the media seems is certain will happen very soon after the European Elections) taking an anti-Brown stance now will increase her chances of being re-selected in a new Labour cabinet. Particularly if she can does manage to boost her popularity. If she is not re-selected for the cabinet, it still isn't a disaster for her: You can bet she will come out fighting to keep her parliamentary seat. She's a smooth talker and an experienced politician - she knows the words that will sooth and charm you and she'll tell you whatever you want to hear to try and sway your support to her.

Don't be fooled: this resignation is more about her political career than the people of Salford!

The fact is that Labour (and the Conservatives) and so completely out of touch with the public that they wouldn't know honesty if it crept up and gave them a big sloppy kiss! Nationally, Labour got it wrong on expenses, they got it wrong on Gurkhas, they got it wrong on fuel duty and locally they got it 110% wrong on the congestion charge, ice rink, propaganda wagon etc etc etc. The Conservatives are no better choice - they only know how to oppose and have no new ideas of their own (no good ones anyway). A vote for Labour or a vote for the Tories is a vote for the status quo. Vote Lib Dem if you want change for the better!

Take Back Power

Any regular readers might note that I have resisted the urge to weigh-in on MP's Expenses. There are a couple of reasons for this. Firstly, I'm not sure that there is anything further to add to the debate and secondly when it's all you hear on the news and read in the paper this sort of thing very quickly becomes quite boring. However, there is one point I feel really needs to be made.

Over the last few weeks it has been made clear to the public that a number of MPs have been on the make, exploiting the expenses system to work to their benefit. Some MPs have treated their allowances like a target to be reached, claiming tens of thousands of pounds of money from UK plc. The minimum that an MP will receive as an annual salary is over £64,000. They will earn even more than this if they are on a committee or if they have a seat on the cabinet. Expenses are then paid on top of all this which means that an MP can earn very much more than their basic salary while average earnings in the UK are less than £25,000. With a high proportion of people earning very much less than this it's no wonder that the public are so infuriated

However, it is also important to remember that out of 646 MPs in UK Parliament, the Telegraph have named only 169 (which includes some MPs that no longer hold a seat in Parliament). This means that there are still well over 400 MPs that have not been singled out - probably because any expenses claims that they have made are entirely appropriate and unremarkable. It is also worth remembering that of the 169 named MPs, very few have actually broken the expenses rules. I'm not saying that it's morally acceptable but I am saying that it is understandable. Don't agree? Let me put it to you like this:

You start working for a new company and are told that you can claim expenses for certain items that enable you to do your job - fuel and stationary perhaps. To begin with you claim only for those items that you purchase that are related to you carrying out your duties until... one day, chatting with a couple of your colleagues they point out all the things that you can claim for, and indeed, lots of other employees already claim for. So your choice is this: do you continue to claim only expenses relating to your job or do you start to claim everything you can? Some paper here, staples there, a bit more fuel that you actually used for work... it's not right and I'm certainly not condoning it, but it happens and thousands of people do it and get away with it.

Of course, they aren't claiming £30,000 for gardening with £1600 of that for a 'duck island'!

Essentially, the point I'm making here is that people can be relied on to behave like people, not angels. At the end of the day, many people enter politics on a truly alturistic basis. They want to make a difference and they want that difference to be positive. However, we can only rely on people to behave like people and people lie, they steal, they cheat and they look after number 1. We can't count on anyone (including ourselves) to be whiter than white but that's what rules and laws are made for; to discourage us from doing things we ought not to. The same goes for the government. There are more than a hundred MPs that have made ridiculous expenses claims, but they have been able to do so because the rules are not good enough and they have been able to get away with it because the oversight is not tough enough.

That's why I am supporting the Liberal Democrat Take Back Power campaign. The people of the UK need a government that works for us, not for the financial gain of its members. We need proper oversight and we need proper representation. Labour have proposed no serious changes to the rules - they would like the status quo to remain so that they can keep their fingers firmly in the cookie jar. The Conservatives have proposed only the very weakest of reforms that will make no real difference to the people of this country.

The Liberal Democrats' Take Back Power campaign aims to reform the expenses system in full, ensure the public have the right to sack any MP that has been suspended for misconduct, reform the outdated House of Lords, reform party funding so that the government can't be 'bought' through party donations, introduce fixed term Parliaments, reform the electoral system so that each vote really does count and change procedure to reduce executive power. More detailed information can be found at http://www.takebackpower.org/.

It is important that we take the opportunity NOW to press for true electoral reform rather than letting the government get away with a continued abuse of power. Therefore, I urge everyone to take a stand and sign the online petition. It's time to make our voice heard.

Election!

My postal ballot arrived yesterday so let's talk about the local elections on the 1st of May.

First and foremost, no matter what the circumstances I intend to vote. I have voted in every election (bar one, when I was out of the country) since I was 18 and don't plan to break the habit. 'Why?' I hear you ask. It's my right! All over the world there are people who can't vote or people, like those in Zimbabwe, whose vote is made meaningless by their corrupt leaders. It may often seem like a vote in this country is meaningless but to those who honestly believe that I suggest you try living in dictatorship for a while and see how you feel about British politics then! Also, remember that just as there are many people whose vote means nothing, there are as many who can't vote. In the past many women have fought and died in this country for my right to vote and I am not about to insult their memory by squandering my vote. Thus, I would rather spoil my ballot than not actually vote and I encourage EVERYONE to think alike. It's your right, your voice and your power. If you choose not to wield it, you choose not be heard and not to act therefore you can't complain when everything's going tits-up!

Anyway, returning to my point, who should I put my trust in as my chosen representative in this local election? Well, in my ward I can vote Labour, vote Conservative or vote Lib-dem. What a choice! I am salivating at the endless possibilities!

Lets face it, by voting for the Labour representative I am effectively giving a seal of approval to the existing Labour dominated council. Here in Salford, our council tax is one of the highest in the area and we have just had the highest percentage increase of an council in Greater Manchester. For that increase we have roads that are riddled with pot holes, a substandard recycling programme and not much else. True, the Labour council are redeveloping my area - knocking down derelict buildings in favour of new 'low cost' housing - but they are also in favour of introducing congestion charging in Manchester and, the so-called low cost housing is, in reality anything but, the new housing is years from being built and the council is also looking to close schools in favour of larger super schools. All in all, not a great picture. I feel it could be time for a change.

So, what of the other candidates? Well, I have no idea what the Conservative candidate will stand for since we have had nothing from them. In general, however, the Tories are against anything that Labour want to do so you would think that makes them an ideal replacement. But I have a problem voting for a candidate that hasn't made any effort to convince me to elect them. It's almost as if the Tory candidate has decided that I won't vote for Labour therefore I will vote for them. They are not worthy of my vote.

That leaves the Lib-Dems as the only other choice. However there is always the concern that the Lib-Dems, as the 'third' party in this country, are unelectable. Even if they did get power, I'm not convinced they would know how to use it. At least THEY have made an effort to try and convince me!

So, what to do?