How much does job security mean to you? As low as £2k in employment shares if George Osborne gets his way. The big news from the Chancellor’s Conference speech in Birmingham was that, in exchange for giving up your employment rights, you can be entitled to a stake in the company that you work for.
The deal is a prime example of the incongruity of Lib Dems and Tories in a coalition. Right wing Tories take a Romney-esque view that business can get ahead better if it can fire at will while Lib Dems are of the view that employees owning part of the company they work for will ensure higher job satisfaction and better output. George ‘Frankenstein’ Osborne has tried to merge the two policies together and ended up with something that, not quite a monster, but is certainly less than the sum of its parts. If employment legislation is bad (it isn’t), then get rid of it and if owning part of the company you work for is good (it is), then go for it. Don’t try to engineer a grubby quid-pro-quo compromise that will just be a stick for employers to beat their staff with.
‘Make me profits or I’ll fire you’ may be a regular refrain across the UK if this comes through and it’s a sentiment that was echoed by Ruth Davidson’s speech which, again, had worryingly Romney-esque strains.
‘Only 12% of Scots contribute to the country’s wealth’ the Tory leader railed, leaving journalists and bloggers to scamper off and check the rather dody-sounding statistic. Accurate or not, the soundbite rather cold-heartedly writes off the 88% of teachers, dentists, lollipop persons et al as benefit claimant ne’er do wells. At least Mitt had the goodness to limit his gaffe to insulting 47% of the population.
If I work for a bank that’s part-owned by the state but makes good profits, am I an asset to the country or a quasi civil servant liability Ruth? Actually, don’t bother, I’m not interested.
We’re all in this together the Conservatives claimed and yet – If someone’s not up to scratch, sack them; if someone comes into your house, shoot them; if someone promises you unlikely, untold fortunes over the next decade, give them a rail contract. No wonder Ed Miliband has taken the One Nation crown, the Tories have laid it out on a plate for him.
The Conservatives are not making unreasonable points, but they are couching them in far too unseemly tones. Having employment rights and a decent pension shouldn’t be unattainable, neither should having a public sector job and feeling good about yourself.
David Cameron’s on a downward spiral but I do think Ruth Davidson will improve as a leader over time. I’d like to see her move closer to the compassionate conservative, vote blue go green and hug a hoodie Tory mantras from a few years ago, even if now know there was more hoodwink than hoodie at play there. Her speech at conference was too stark, too black and white for any latent Tory tastes that I may have.
I wonder what Murdo Fraser makes of it all. Although maybe making it easier to fire a certain person might be to his (and his party’s) good fortune as the Tories fight for relevance in Scottish politics.
#1 by R.G. Bargie on October 9, 2012 - 12:38 pm
“The Conservatives are not making unreasonable points”
Yes they are. “88% of people are worthless parasites because they don’t turn a profit” is pretty much the definition of an unreasonable point, because it takes no account of reason.
#2 by Jeff on October 9, 2012 - 12:48 pm
I don’t think “worthless parasites” is fair or helpful. (It is sailing perilously close to a trashing though).
A substantive debate on the sustainability of Scotland’s plump public sector is not unwelcome and, indeed, probably overdue. Ruth went for the easy soundbite and it came over as clumsy and cold.
#3 by Indy on October 11, 2012 - 9:54 am
Two points. Firstly the analysis showed that Scotland is no different really to the UK.
Second point – there is absolutely no evidence I am aware of that a strong public sector undermines a strong private sector. That’s a widely held opinion but where is the evidence?
If you look at the various indexes of competitiveness that are published the Scandinavian countries are always up there. If the theory that a large public sector undermines a competitive private sector was true then these countries would be languishing in poverty. But they are not.
#4 by Doug Daniel on October 9, 2012 - 1:35 pm
The thing is, it’s not just the public sector she’s insulting here. 88%, that’s almost all of us. That’s the whole public sector and then about the same again from the private sector. She’s saying that anyone earning less than £50,000 is taking more than they contribute. So I’m included in that figure, even though I get a fairly decent wage, and rarely go to the doctor, use no council-provided public services beyond bin collection etc.
She’s telling me that I’m a scrounger, even though I pay every penny of tax asked from me (unlike many in those 12%, one would guess). Combined with Johann Lamont telling folk that we’re expecting “something for nothing” by wanting universal benefits, and you’re left wondering why the hell you should even bother paying tax, if you’re not to expect anything back for it (oooh, except the safety provided by Trident…) and if we’re considered to be such a burden.
This is typical Tory tunnel vision, thinking everything can be valued by how much profit it does or doesn’t generate. This is the sort of short-sighted vision that leads to “unprofitable” public services being cut, regardless of what non-monetary benefits they provide (or at least ones that can’t be easily translated into a monetary value). Thatcherism saw public services being sold off. Cameron-Osbornism seems to be going one step further – selling PEOPLE off. They’ve run out of public services to privatise, so now they’re intent on privatising our human rights.
It feels like unionists are determined to turn the referendum into a blatant class war. Well, lots of luck to them on being on the winning side of that one in Scotland – especially while trying to push 88% against them.
It just amazes me that people in England were duped into voting for them in 2010. We all warned them that the Tories hadn’t changed. Why couldn’t they have listened? I just hope people who are thinking of voting NO in 2014 are paying attention to all this – how could an independent Scotland possibly offer a scarier, riskier future than that which the Tories are painting?
#5 by Jeff on October 9, 2012 - 1:56 pm
One simple, and by now surely quite obvious tactic that the Tories will look to use in 2014 is getting their private sector chums that have big enough bases in Scotland to threaten pulling jobs down into rUK in the aftermath of a Yes vote. If Michelle Mone would pull her jobs out of an independent Scotland, I’m sure London-based CEOs and Chairmen would at least threaten to (irrespective of whether they would or wouldn’t). The Scottish lambs, bless, wouldn’t know what hit them and the polls would plummet (further than currently).
So I don’t think you’re right to call it a class war Doug, it’s a battle of who controls the purse strings and I don’t think the SNP has an answer to Tories playing dirty on that score due (to be fair to Ruth but also in a way because of the sentiment she is a part of) to the lack of entrepreneurial and business confidence at a grassroots level across Scotland.
#6 by Iain Menzies on October 9, 2012 - 4:00 pm
On Ruth: Lets accept for a second that the stat she uses is accurate. If it is then 12% of the population is paying tax for the rest of society. if the rest of society is getting more out of the state than the put in then the services they get are a de facto tax rebate. Putting aside questions of what services should or should not be provided by the state, isnt the point that is spending is dependent on such a small portion of the public then there is rather little room to increase such spending without overly raising tax? You want to criticise the tone thats fine, tis your blog after all….at least your being honest that thats what you are doing rather than actually dealing with the point. For it is an interesting point. Which you almost address. The public sector is too big in scotland. Thats her view. Now people like old Doug there will say this is typical tory meanness and a cover for wanting to sack every public sector worker and leave every poor person in the country dying of scurvy. But that isnt what any tory i have ever met would actually want to see happen. The answer is to grow the private sector. To produce more, and better paying jobs. The public sector does not create wealth…no not even teachers and nurses. They are (if they are in the public sector) the result of spending the wealth that is generated in the private sector. Or at least (considering the levels of borrowing we have (yes even here in scotland) they are the result of spending the wealth that the private sector will make. It is better that there are more jobs in the private sector than in the public sector, and that more people are employed there. And that it makes up a larger share of GDP than currently. Why? because the bigger, and indeed more profitable, the private sector the more money that people have. the more money that people have the more they have to spend, which creates more jobs. which brings down unemployment which means more people paying tax….to pay for all those teachers and nurses. Moreover the more people that are in profit making jobs, and the more profit they can make, the more money they can earn. Which means you can get mroe tax out of them, even with lower rates, and they need less support from the state. Frankly i would rather see the vast majority of scots being well enough paid that the majority of the social services they use are paid for by themselves because they choose to. Even if some people dont think they should have that choice and that if they have the money they should be taxed because its good for them dont you know.
On Shares for ‘rights’: I really dont see the problem. If someone wants to take £2k worth of shares rather than certain rights why shouldnt they. No one is suggesting the abolition of employment rights. Even if some should be.
#7 by Jeff on October 9, 2012 - 4:19 pm
Grow the private sector, great, I’m in. You are correct that I didn’t expound on how to actually do this but, well, neither did you and, crucially, neither did Ruth.
I’d have happily, if time had allowed, dug into the nitty gritty of a real detailed policy or proposed solution that Ruth (or Johann or Willie) had put forward but it’s not happening. The debate involves words and words alone right now and while the SNP aims to bump along best they can up to 2014 and opposition parties want to castigate Salmond without getting their hands dirty with facts, figures and think tanks, Scotland’s drifting along going nowhere.
So I agree with you that my post does little more than scratch a surface, but whose court is the ball in?
#8 by Iain Menzies on October 9, 2012 - 4:46 pm
In Scotland the Ball is in the SNP’s court. They are after all the party that forms the Scottish Government. We are what 3 years from an election to Holyrood? Right now the job of the otehr parties is to, well oppose, the Scottish government. I think we would agree that the Scottish Government doesnt like opposition, and would rather everyone just nodded, smiled and agreed that they were just wonderful…but why would any of the other parties do more than set the context of the policy that will come.
I dont actually think that there is any good reason for any of the other parties to be suggesting actual policy at this point. Especially since it is likely that the specifics would have to change by the time we get to another election. So if they were to come out with solid policy all that would happen is that the SNP would, oh i dont know, accuse the leader of the labour party of being a tory (as if that was akin to satanism) rather than dealing with the weakness in their own policy. Then a year of three down the line when any such suggeste dpolicy had to be tweaked, or even abandoned they would shriek u-turn.
So really, why should the opposition parties get into specifics now?
#9 by Jeff on October 9, 2012 - 4:56 pm
That’s all very convenient is it not? The SNP has a duty to govern sensibly but it also won an election on a manifesto that intended to plough on with universal services and taking a different path to the cost-cutting down south, whether that is correct or not.
So from where I am sitting the onus is on opposition parties to disprove the SG’s argument that spend, spend, spend is the answer to Scotland’s problems. Johann and Ruth have painted an alternative, but surely they need to firm it up with detail and actual, tangible alternative policies if they want to really challenge the SNP’s position?
To be clear, I’m not saying the Opposition shouldn’t be opposing the Government, I’m saying quite the opposite really, that they should be opposing more rigorously. I understand what you’re saying that it’s ‘smart politics’ to wait 3 years before laying out the detail of what you’d do in Government in order to win an election but surely opposition parties have as much responsibility (if not opportunity) to put forward and deliver solutions to help Scotland out of the problems it faces here and now, not just in the weeks and months before an election.
It’s easy for Salmond to accuse Lamont of being a Tory when she makes a vague argument against means testing. If she went further (and I think she will) then, and only then, will she be able to pinpoint where the SNP is going wrong. It involves hard yards but the time to do it is now if she, and Ruth and Willie, is serious about standing up for Scotland and confident in her currently somewhat wishy-washy arguments.
#10 by Indy on October 11, 2012 - 9:58 am
You are correct in saying the problem in Scotland lies in the private sector. That’s what we ought to be looking at not saying let’s sack care workers in the hope that they become entrepreneurs instead. That’s just plain stupid. Support the entrepreneurs better. Leave the care workers alone.
#11 by Iain Menzies on October 11, 2012 - 5:18 pm
No one said we should sack the care workers.
#12 by Chris on October 9, 2012 - 5:00 pm
Why would you want to own shares in a company that wants to make it easier to sack you? Why would a company give shares to disgruntled ex-employees?
It is completely nuts. Even if you really enjoyed your work and got on with your employer why would you want shares in return for reduced security? There is nothing in it for the employer.
I suspect it is just an announcement to be seen to do something about red tape.
#13 by Jeff on October 9, 2012 - 5:11 pm
The win-win element of employee shareholdings, for me, comes into it where the employer gets a more motivated workforce and the employee gets to feel more than just a cog in the wheel.
There is something delightfully contrary to distinctly Tory values when owners don’t cream off all the profits despite their having the good idea in the first place. There is admittedly a risk that managers will offset employee shareholdings with lower salaries.
I still think in theory this is an excellent idea that would make the country (UK or Scotland) considerably fairer.
#14 by Don Francisco on October 9, 2012 - 8:53 pm
I really struggle to see how these proposals will make anything better. Why would anyone voluntarily trade in their employment rights for shares? I might do it if I felt pretty secure in my job, thereby entirely defeating the purpose of the choice.
And how does this save money? How does it make it easier for employers? Does abolishing the right for someone to ask (and that’s all it is) for flexible working help your company be more productive?
Not that I was expecting much better from the Tories. The £10bn cut from benefits was my personal favourite fantastical/moronic policy. Let’s throw thousands off benefit to find work! In a no growth economy! Cos it’s worked like a gem so far…
#15 by Ben Achie on October 10, 2012 - 12:48 pm
A minority holidng in a private company is worthless, unless there is a dividend, but paying for this in terms of em[ployment security is bizare. The basic legal redundancy requirements are guaranteed to employees if a business goes bust, but I suppose the quid pro quo of this logic is that their shares are worthless too!
Scotland’s public sector is TOO BIG, but has grown thus in our capacity is a satelite of SouthEast-centric UK government, where we basically have a colonial attitude towards us – well, yes, and most of the rest of the UK too! But it is easier for the Scots to do something about this.
Our relative position – against a backprop of overall UK decline – has improved under devolution, especially under the SNP in challenging economic circulstances. Think how much better it would be under independence where the intention is to grow our economy and thus reduce the GDP share of the private sector to give us economic stability.
But it is offensive to suggest that just because someone works in the public sector they are not contributing to national wealth. The inequalities between public and private sector employment do need to be addressed, however.
#16 by Pa Broon on October 10, 2012 - 4:45 pm
I disagree about the public sector not creating wealth, I work for the NHS, I equip hospitals. If you don’t have a healthy population, good luck getting them out to work to make profits in the private sector.
Same with teachers, its daft to suggest teachers don’t create wealth, they may not generate cash directly, but good luck running a business if your workforce can’t read, write or count.
Sure, there’s a balance to be made between the two. What wee Ruthie said has been debunked, the true ratio of public versus private sectors in Scotland is within 2% of the wider uk. It still probably needs to shrink, I see folk at work who definitely aren’t doing much for the economy, but to say nurses (for example) make no direct contribution in terms of GDP, is rubbish.
As for the tories and their shares for rights idea. I’m not buying it. They rely on this wealth-trickling-down idea and I think we can all agree, its not happening any more. The gap between the rich and not so rich is growing.
#17 by James Morton on October 10, 2012 - 7:55 pm
The problem for the tories and labour is that under PFI more and more aspects of the public sector was farmed out to the private sector. Not a single public sector department runs its own ICT for example – it’s all run privately. Hospitals use private firms to handle data records storage as does DWP. Catering, cleaning, building management, sterilising of surgical equipment – outsourced. Too much work, not enough staff – enter the agencies with temps – from back offices to the wards, there is no area were temping isn’t used. Defence spending – not just soldiers wages but contracts to supply materiel and weapons testing – outsourced. All major bus and train operators – subsidised by the tax payer. BNF subsidised by the tax payer. Then we have ATOS – G4S – SERCO all bidding for plump contracts to run public services. A4E and their ilk harvesting unemployed at great expense. Social entrepreneurs are just looking for public money as well. Workfare – state subsidised work schemes that only benefit the company involved, the trainee gets nothing out of it, the taxpayer doesn’t even benefit. I could go on and on…but you get the point. The private sector has in the last 13 years gorged itself on public sector outsourcing. This has just driven up costs of the public sector and the the private sector has become very dependent on it.
If you were wanting to reform the public sector – that’s were I would start. No more rewarding failure. No more allowing the contract winner long term contracts that actually encourage them to fail in meeting delivery targets. In fact unless there is a verifiable benefit to the tax payer in having private sector involvement – I would have nothing to do with them except on the supply side – stationary – hardware and the like. Because, frankly, their involvement to date, particularly ICT contracts has been an unmitigated disaster, made worse by the fact that failing reaps them great financial rewards.
Were possible examine the possibility of using trading fund status for certain agencies. Like Registers of Scotland…. switched to trading fund status back in 1987 and hasn’t relied on block grants or subsidies ever since. It’s not always possible or desirable to go down that path, but far more accountable that outright privatisation.
Also if you want grass roots level entrepreneurship – invest in it, encourage it. You won’t get it by sacking people left and right and farming out ever huge piles of tax cash to private sector groups seeking to do public sector work on a cost plus basis…it is that which is unsustainable.
As for companies seeking to leave Scotland – frankly I don’t see it happening. I remember the same hysteria from a few loud mouths back in 1997 if labour got in, and again if Scotland voted yes to devolution. It didn’t happen. I don’t think a tory party that is unelectable and relies on London party funding and the odd rich donor has that many friends in Scotland. Literally a case of all talk and no trousers.
#18 by Indy on October 11, 2012 - 10:05 am
Totally agree. And I would also end the private sector “culture” within the public sector – e.g. directors of departments earning massive salaries and getting huge payoffs when they take early retirement. That’s a piece of nonsense and takes a surprisingly large amount of money out of the public sector. Time to go back to the way it was. If people want to earn massive salaries go work in the private sector because that is not what the public sector is about.