Gay Rights in Russia - hardly a level playing field

 

President Putin of Russia is rarely described as a Liberal, but his authoritarian rule has sunk to a new low with the introduction of draconian anti-gay laws in the Russian Duma. The bill was passed by 436 votes to 0 (Putin isn’t the kind of President you say no to) and will ban "gay propaganda" aimed at under 18s. The law is vague and effectively criminalises any action that seems to promote homosexuality (reminiscent of the UK’s infamous "Section 28"), which could involve the arrest of non-Russians (some Dutch tourists have already been arrested for shooting a film about gay rights). There have been grotesque and brutal attacks on gay people and pride marches have been banned, in what seems to be a severe attack on civil democracy, which also arguably goes against the Russian constitution, given that Article 17 guarantees the rights and freedoms of man and citizen according to the universally recognised principles and norms of international law.

 

This has raised serious concerns amongst gay activists around the world with many campaigning for a boycott of all things Russian. Stephen Fry has written a much publicised letter to the British Prime Minister, Lord Coe and the President of the International Olympics Committee to lobby for Russia to be stripped of hosting the Winter Olympics in 2014. The World Athletic Championships are to be held this month in Russia, but sadly the president of the world athletics’ governing body, Lamine Diack sees "no problem" with Russia’s new laws and that the new laws "should be respected". Yes, he actually did say that and it certainly made me choke on my afternoon cuppa. It is possible to see why the athletic championships could not be re-arranged, but it is naïve to assume that sport can not influence events. Sporting bodies can and should make a stand against discriminatory treatment. They are not somehow separate from world events. Many people can still picture Jesse James at the 1936 Olympics making a stand against Nazi Germany, showing how sport can be a powerful tool to shape public opinion. It is arguably irresponsible for such a powerful body as the IAAF not to condemn what is happening in Russia.

 

This begs the question does homophobia still pervade professional sport? At an amateur level, there are many gay sports clubs, but it does seem the case that many gay professional sports people remain reluctant to be open about their sexuality. There are some high profile gay sports people, such as Gareth Thomas, the Welsh rugby player, but they are surprisingly few, given gay people make up around 10% of the population. Are sports players too worried about what their employers will say or do if they come out? Are they worried about the impact on their professional career? Whatever the reason, sports people, as indeed all employees in the UK, are entitled to be treated with dignity and respect within the workplace and not treated less favourably on the grounds of sexual orientation. Many professional sports people are employees, working under employment contracts and are entitled to assert rights they have under the Equality Act.

 

No one can say that gay rights are under threat in the UK in the same way they are in Russia, but nevertheless cases are still brought before the Employment Tribunal for sexual orientation discrimination. It may be a more level playing field here in the UK, but plenty of work still needs to be done.

The passing of Lady T

Last week I watched the cortege of Lady Thatcher pass by Chancery Lane with the pomp and pageantry of a "ceremonial funeral". It was not a "state funeral" (only the British could differentiate between a ceremonial and state funeral), but it felt like one. The Queen was present, ceremonial uniforms were glistening and the military drums were beating.

I was sceptical as to whether such a funeral was justified for such a divisive individual. After all, Atlee and Lloyd George were denied them, despite being radical leaders. I respect her for being the first democratically elected woman Prime Minister in British history. She became leader of a chauvinistic, old Etonian party (which it is back to being), but still broke through the glass ceiling. She was also from a relatively modest background and had a career before entering politics (rather rare these days). While I respect that achievement, it is a shame she did nothing for women once in power.

She was radical economically and was not a Conservative in that sense and was arguably a Classical Liberal. However, she remained socially very conservative, particularly around gay rights and the imposition of the notorious Section 28 that banned the promotion of homosexuality in schools. Her concept of the family was the typical nuclear family and she had no desire to promote equality for minority groups. She was a contradiction in many respects, for example she voted in favour of the legalisation of homosexuality in the 1960s, but sought to introduce section 28 in the 1980s. To some degree this was to appease her back benchers, but it did not come across like that.

Thatcher understood the importance of perception in politics. She did implement draconian employment laws relating to the trade unions and came across as the warrior, the modern Boudicea of the 1980s, but actually there are examples of where she was prepared to negotiate with the trade unions and others, in order to reach a compromise. She would retreat if it was expedient to do so. However, the perception was always of a hardliner and powerful leader (with a hair do and power suit to match). No one dared to mess with Mrs T or they risk being handbagged. She compromised with Europe and signed the Single European Act, the greatest transfer of sovereignty in British history to Europe and actually helped lay the foundations of the Irish peace talks. However, the perception was always different. In politics it often does not matter what you do, but actually how you are perceived, which is why image has always been important for politicians from the time of Elizabeth I to Lady T.

I grew up in the North and her economic policies caused large swathes of the country to be left in ruin. Communities collapsed and people were resigned to the scrap heap. This was a disgrace. Everyone recognised the need for economic change, but she believed that the market could come in and be the saviour. This was naïve – markets are only interested in money and profit margins, whereas our economy at that time needed investment to be modern and dynamic. North Sea oil revenue could have been used to invest in modernising our economy rather than just paying people to stay on the dole queue. We suffer the consequences still, both economically and socially. Many communities are still virtual ghost towns and we remain overly reliant on financial services in the south east for our country’s income. The coalition is working to try and re-balance the economy, but that will take a decade at least.

She was a patriotic person and I believe that she thought she was acting in British interests. To some degree there is truth in that. Nevertheless, she divided a country and caused much heart ache and distress to many. That was in stark contrast to Mr Attlee and Mr Lloyd George. I do not think such a funeral was merited, but hopefully it will help focus the nation on the real legacy of Thatcherism and what we really want from our economy. That is the great debate of our time.

Employee ownership - the future?

The government has just begun its consultation on employee ownership.  This is essentially where an employee will be able to have shares in a company, so that they become "employee owners" and have a stake in the business.  This on the face of it, is a good idea and is a sure indicator that the government wants to spread employee ownership in the economy, so that many more workers feel empowered and part of a business, which in turn (it is hoped) will lead to greater productivity and loyalty from workers.  The Liberal Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg is keen to promote this as a way of creating more John Lewis style business models in the economy.   As a Liberal Democrat, I completely support greater share ownership by employees, as all the evidence suggests that employees have a greater sense of well-being if they feel part of a company and are empowered - a very Liberal idea.  However, given what the Conservative Chancellor announced at the Tory party conference, this comes at a price (what a surprise when Tories are involved).  

Under plans drawn up by the Conservatives, employers will be able to require employees (i.e. new starters, rather than existing employees, where in theory it will be voluntary) to become employee owners, but they will lose key employment rights, such as the right to claim unfair dismissal and redundancy pay.  This is typical of a Tory party who thinks that restricting employment rights is the way back to economic prosperity and my concern is that this is the Beecroft report by the back door, undermining hard won rights.  This would not help with creating greater well-being in the work place  The employer would be able to include a clause in employment contracts requiring the employee to surrender their shares when the employee resigned, was dismissed or made redundant. When shares are surrendered, there are unanswered questions about how the shares would be bought back.  Of course there is a balance to be drawn between employee rights and labour flexibility but my concern is that individuals will sign up to employee owner contracts without fully understanding the implications, leaving many workers vulnerable and without protection.  Also, there is a risk that employees are signing up for shares that are essentially worthless when it came down to it, but lose all their employment rights.

I hope Liberal Democrats in the coalition resist what the Tory party is trying to do here.  We do not want an American style fire at will culture, where workers are left with very little redress if their employer proceeds to treat them unfairly.  That will do little to increase well-being in our fragile economy and is likely to undermine productivity.

Cleggy and the Lords

It was clearly a sad day for Mr Clegg yesterday with House of Lords reform being ditched.  The Liberal Democrats cherish constitutional and political reform and is an important reason why some of us are Liberals and were willing to enter into a coalition with the Tories.  However, the recent episode has highlighted that the Tories will do anything to preserve privilege and vested interest.  Labour saw a political opportunity and went for it.  They knew the Liberals would probably vote against boundary reforms if Lords reform was not delivered, which will go a long way to help secure a possible victory for Mr Miliband's Labour party in 2015 (if anyone bothers to vote).  I understand why Mr Clegg will whip his MPs to vote against boundary reforms, but can he honestly say they are part of the same package of reforms?  A little tenuous in my view.  It looks like "tit for tat" politics, which will not encourage the British people to be pro-coalition in the future.  It will also alienate people even further from the political process and despise politicians still further.  However, at the same time I don't think Mr Clegg has much alternative.

Political reform presented an opportunity to give political renewal to this country to help re-engage Britain's population in the political process.  The final nail in the coffin to that project came yesterday.  "Small c conservatism" is destroying our politics and it needs urgent repair.  I think the Liberals will think twice about ever entering into a coalition again with a party that backs privilege in such an underhand way.

Lib Dems Fairer Fares Campaign

Today the London elections got underway with gusto as we launched our fairer fares campaign.  It was good to meet local residents at Bethnal Green tube in Tower Hamlets (albeit slightly bleary eyed at 7am, but nothing that a strong coffee couldn't cure).  Our message is simple - the huge fare rises under Boris Johnson are a scandal that really hit those on low incomes, particularly those who use pay as you go oyster cards.  Ken Livingstone has no effective solutions and has run out of ideas.  Something needs to be done.  The Liberal Democrats have a 5 point plan for fairer fares in London:


1. A one hour bus ticket to stop penalising travellers who need to change on route. 

2. Special early bird rates to encourage commuters to avoid the main morning rush hour. 

3. Part-time travelcards for travellers who don’t commute into London every day. 
4. The reintroduction of the Zones 2-6 day travelcard for Outer London residents who don’t

journey into Zone 1. 

5. A review of the current zones to ensure no area is being unfairly penalised.

I firmly believes these policies will go a long way in ensuring that the residents of City and East and across London have a fair deal when it comes to public transport.  If you want to join the campaign, please visit www.brianpaddick.com/survey

Campaigning outside Bethnal Green tube, speaking to a Lib Dem supporter

The UK vs Europe - let's stand up for both!

Parliament last week saw extraordinary passion and zeal from the Tory Eurosceptics in their bid for a referendum as to whether Britain remains a member of the European Union.  The European question hangs around the Tory party's neck like a permanent noose and day by day the Tory party shows just how right wing many of the party's parliamentarians are as they gradually hang themselves day by day...  Mr Cameron's pragmatism seems to be increasingly drowned out by the young Turks in the party (let's remember, it wasn't just the Mr Redwoods of this world that rebelled), which leads many to question how long Mr Cameron can control them.  I am thankful that the Liberal Democrats are in the Coalition (and I suspect Mr Cameron is also relieved) to inject a high dosage of realism into the Government's policy in Europe.  Mr Clegg's superb article in the Observer today shows that a pro-European stance is a pragmatic stance, because pro-Europeans know that our economic survival rests on a modern innovative European Union with member states working collectively to take on and compete with the future great powers.

In this post, I wish to passionately make the case for Europe.  As someone who has volunteered in Romania and studied in Italy, Europe has not only brought us economic benefits with a common market, but also cultural benefits, which contribute to bringing continued peace to Europe and this should not be underestimated.  Tory little Englanders forget that for thousands of years, Europeans effectively killed each other instead of working collectively.  My grandfather never let me forget this and he was a veteran from World War II.  He played football with German prisoners of war out in Egypt and in his own way he appreciated the importance of interaction between nations and that as a result we understand and not fear each other.   Of course, cultural interaction can still take place without the EU, but it is certainly a lot easier in the context of free movement of people, which is one of the great achievements of Europe.

In some respects I sympathised with the sceptics, to the extent that yes, we should at long last have a debate on Europe and really have the discussion about Britain's place in the world and where the country wants to go, so that the case for the economic and cultural benefits of Europe can be made.  The sceptics hold on to an imperial past and an Atlanticist foreign policy that increasingly looks redundant in an ever changing world.  American is in decline as the top world power - that is apparent.  It will continue to be the supreme military power for the next 25-30 years, but its economic supremacy will be gone within the decade.  Britain experienced this in the 1890s, losing the top slot economically, but maintaining military supremacy for decades after.  However, we have to accept that nation statehood is not the same as it was in the 19th century.  Global groupings will be the future with decisions being taken on an increasingly global scale.  We need to be a full participant shaping events, promoting European ideals of liberty, fairness and human rights, not just as a lonely island sitting on the edge whilst global events overtake.  

However, what is clear is that now is not the time for this debate.  We should not in an economic crisis be distracted by this debate or cynically using this situation to renegotiate our position within Europe.  That is not what a good friend does - we should be supporting our friends in Europe not, not putting our self interest first, which will only result in pushing us further to the periphery.  

As a Liberal I still believe in the single currency as a concept and nations working collectively together (which Keynes also envisaged), but reforms are needed and euro members seem to be working towards that.  We should not rule out future membership and also be leading the charge for a more innovative and Liberal Europe.  The knowledge economy is the key to Europe's survival and development.  Europe should do less of some things, but collectively countries should work together to improve science and innovation, economic development, climate change, defence, cultural investment and foreign policy to benefit all nations.

It's time to stand up for Europe and in doing so, we will stand up for Britain.

Unfair dismissal plans: Blueprint for bias

See an article below I contributed to...

27 October 2011

The suggestion that scrapping unfair dismissal rules would create jobs and promote growth made in a report to Downing Street by the venture capitalist Adrian Beecroft is effectively a further ploy to remove ordinary workers' rights and a blueprint for discrimination, Richard Macmillan, a solicitor in the employment team at law firm Russell Jones and Walker, has told publicservice.co.uk.

It would also be unlikely that the changes would have the desired effect of boosting economic growth, he said, dismissing Beecroft's argument that employment laws impede "the search for efficiency and competitiveness" and that British organisations are deterred from taking on employees due to the labour laws in this country.

"There is no evidence that enhancing employment rights leads to economic decline or higher unemployment," Macmillan said. "For example, the qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims was changed to one year from two in 1999, and unemployment actually fell in the years that followed. Neither is there any evidence that productivity would be increased by doing away with unfair dismissal claims. Germany has wider labour laws than Britain, but productivity levels are higher. The United States' economic problems are also severe, despite lesser levels of regulation governing its labour market in comparison with our own “ suggesting Mr Beecroft's conclusions are misguided."

Macmillan went on: "Public sector employees in particular would be hit hard if this recommendation became law. At a time when job security is at extremely low levels, the removal of employees' dismissal rights would be a further blow to staff who already harbour concerns over the safety of their jobs as cuts are progressed through a whole range of public sector organisations.

"In my experience, cases end up in the tribunal because managers have failed to address performance issues early enough, leaving problems to fester. There is free ACAS guidance available to all employers so lack of guidance is not a reason to avoid a reasonable procedure. This ultimately leads to a breakdown in working relationships and tribunal claims. Employers can already dismiss employees easily in the first year of employment without worrying about possible claims unless discrimination or whistleblowing is involved. Even if an employee has not accrued unfair dismissal rights, all the law requires is for an employer to act reasonably in the circumstances, which does not necessarily mean a lengthy and onerous process. It is right that a duty on employers to act reasonably exists when someone could potentially lose their livelihood and income as a result of the employer's decision.

"The reality is that a fair balance already exists between the needs of employers and the individual rights of employees. It seems that Mr Beecroft would prefer to limit the rights and empowerment of workers, instead of looking at how we address poor management and other efficiencies within organisations, which could be the real engine for growth and productivity."

And this part came from another author....

However, whether the proposals come to fruition remains to be seen and businesses shouldn't get over excited by them, according to Michael Slade, Managing Director of employment law specialist Bibby Consulting & Support.

"We support any initiative that helps businesses overcome the burden of protracted and costly processes, especially in the current economic climate," Slade said. "But it is wrong to overstate that companies would benefit financially from the unfair dismissal rule being abolished due to reduced compensation levels."

Pointing out that the government had already agreed that from April 2012 the service period for an employee to be able to claim unfair dismissal would be extended to two years, Slade added: "There still remains a substantial amount of anti-discrimination legislation under the Equality Act 2010. So should employees feel their treatment was unfair and attribute it to a 'protected characteristic' under the Act, they would benefit from protection that could attract costly uncapped awards at employment tribunals."