You don’t have to be a leftie to think Beecroft is wrong

Wednesday’s post on the Beecroft report aroused quite a bit of interest, including a re-print, with a not so snarky title, in Legal Week. It also led to me being called a leftie in various places, just as, a few weeks ago, my Peak State post saw me labelled as a shrink-the-state Tory in others. Pigeon-holing is lazy but, alas, the Guilt by Association fallacy is some people’s default mode of argument.

Criticism of the Beecroft report is not confined to the left though. Here’s Peter Oborne in the Telegraph:

Mr Beecroft, along with his Conservative admirers, has taken a very dangerous wrong turning. The kind of untrammelled free market capitalism which Mr Beecroft is advocating is inhumane, unedifying and unBritish, and ultimately comes close to the false proposition that the Conservative Party should be the plaything of very rich men pursuing their financial interests at the expense of a disempowered workforce.

The consequences of Beecroft’s proposals would, says Oborne, be disastrous.

He’s not alone. Ed West, no leftist he, was equally scathing when the report was first leaked:

[U]nions are there for a reason, and so are employment laws – and Britain’s are already among the most flexible in Europe.

Britain certainly needs more jobs, but are we happy to pay the social cost from having more temporary, unprotected, deskilled and de-unionised labour? We already have among the highest inequality levels in Europe, the biggest gap between management and workers, and in many areas a workforce that is short-term, demotivated and unproductive, and with wages sunk by cheap foreign imports.

Contrary to the idea banded about in the less thoughtful areas of political discourse, conservatism is not about protecting the rich: it is about creating an environment that is safe, sober, crime-free, respectful, educated, gentle and high in social capital and trust. In other words, about protecting the poor and weak. Until the Conservative Party realises this, they will continue to haemorrhage support.

This is another example of the tension between two strands of conservatism that I wrote about last week. Traditional conservatism has a visceral loathing of disorder. It therefore values social cohesion above free-market economics and is wary of anything that might threaten it. It is not surprising, then, that it was Conservative governments that gave us some of the earliest health and safety legislation, protection from the criminal law for employees in contract disputes, compensation for injuries at work, the first employment protection and, of course, laws against unfair dismissal.

The motives of conservatives may be different from those of liberals and socialists but each had their own reasons for regulating the labour market and bringing in employment protection. Many of them are, therefore, just as uneasy about the prospect of its removal.

But my favourite conservative comment on the Beecroft report comes not from a politician or pundit but from a Kentish business owner, Gary Bennett, commenting on this pro-Beecroft piece by Charles Orton-Jones:

The views expressed in this article and by Beecroft typify a definite “type” of business and management style endemic in certain parts of the conservative party lunatic fringe, which seems to want to use the current economic crisis as an excuse to turn the clock back to the early 19th century where employees had few, if any, rights.

As a conservative supporter and small business owner there are many things I disagree with Vince Cable (and the Trade Union movement) on but I think he is spot on here.

It saddens me that Cameron has appointed somebody like Beecroft, whose self-serving hidden agenda completely misses the point. Its not about regulation – most of which is common sense and relatively easy for a business of our size to navigate.

Attracting and retaining good people is this biggest challenge which is harder for a small business than for a corporation. Making exceptions in employment law for Micro-businesses will make them look less appealing to potential employees. This will make us a less attractive proposition for talented people! When you find your needle in a haystack you want them to consider your business as a professional organisation, not as a fly-by-night outfit that might dismiss you on a whim.

Sadly, I think this will do the Tory brand enormous damage (even if Cameron kicks this into the long grass). The fact this is under consideration just beggars belief.

Let’s have some proper, professionally conducted research among real small businesses, not the unfounded views of an asset-stripping venture capitalist.

There really isn’t much I can say to follow that. Someone buy Mr Bennett a drink.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to You don’t have to be a leftie to think Beecroft is wrong

  1. B.O. Locks says:

    What is wrong in being a leftie?

  2. Pingback: You don’t have to be a leftie to think Beecroft is wrong - Rick - Member Blogs - HR Blogs - HR Space from Personnel Today and Xpert HR

  3. Jackart says:

    I agree with your point about the exceptions for microbusiness, but given how easy it is to fire, wouldn’t you rather get a bit of cash than argue the toss in a tribunal?

  4. Dipper says:

    Lots of businessmen want to be able to fire their own workers, but do they want their customers to be living in fear of being summarily fired by their employers?

  5. The significance of the Beecroft report is that it has called the bluff of the neoliberals. The OBR have now admitted that they don’t expect the cut in the top rate of tax to materially boost growth. With fiscal stimulus (of the tax-cuting variety) a busted flush, the focus has shifted to “structural reform”.

    The embarrassment on the right is not just because Beecroft’s report was a shoddy piece of work, lacking empirical rigour and riddled with saloon-bar prejudice, but because he has failed to identify any reforms that would reliably lead to increased confidence and expansion. In a spectacular own goal, he has suggested changes that would increase anxiety and undermine confidence.

    It should be no surprise that the more feral ideologues of the Tory party (see the TPA/IOD proposal to shrink public spending from 48% to 33% of GDP) are now claiming the problem is the government, and specifically the fact that their milksop austerity (damn those LibDems!) has failed to shrink the state and thereby allow private enteprise to expand into the void.

    Expect heads to explode any day now.

  6. Paco Jariego says:

    Reblogged this on Mind the Post.

  7. Pingback: What You Can Get Away With (Nick Barlow's blog) » Blog Archive » Worth Reading 57: And every one of them a baked bean

  8. Pingback: When the price stays down and the quantity goes up … | Freethinking Economist

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s