» More developments on ‘shares for rights’ ¦ What You Can Get Away With

There’s a very good open letter to Nick Clegg on Lib Dem Voice today, and it covers many of the points I wanted to make on the ‘shares for rights’ proposals George Osborne put forward this week.

The plan itself is bit of political game-playing by Osborne, in my opinion. The Tories have failed to get any traction for any of the Beecroft proposals on employment rights, so they’ve now switched to a different tactic. Employee ownership of companies is a good thing, and something – as Nigel Quinton points out in that LDV article – that the Liberal Democrats have pushed for. So, Osborne’s using those as a Trojan horse to hide his real aims in. By allowing some Treasury support for a version of employee ownership, he can cover the real aim of the policy which is to start chipping away at employment rights. Then once the principle of employment rights being universal has been surrendered, they can come back and look at removing them from others – maybe if employers don’t want to give away shares, they can offer employees a bit more pay for less rights, for instance – until they’re all but gone for everyone.

That’s why it’s especially galling to read that the party leadership appears to have fallen for the con trick and allowed this to progress. The press release on the Treasury website, the talk of consultation, the start date of April 2013: all of this points to something that’s been agreed at a high level, with Osborne given approval to announce at Tory conference as a Government policy, not a Tory proposal. Until Tim Gordon mentioned it in the briefing email that Nigel Quinton mentions, there’d been not a word on this from anyone high up in the party, when they’ve been hurriedly rushing to the media to condemn other Tory Conference wheezes. Indeed, given that Tim Gordon’s email misrepresents the scheme, one has to question just what is going on, and who’s giving who bad information?

Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Bookmark this on Digg
Share on reddit
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Yahoo Bookmark

, ,
Trackback

2 comments untill now

  1. That’s why it’s especially galling to read that the party leadership appears to have fallen for the con trick and allowed this to progress.

    Alternative hypothesis: the senior party leadership supports this, but just doesn’t want to say so.

  2. You might think that; I couldn’t possibly comment.