A special generation

I returned from York yesterday night after visiting my elderly grandfather in hospital. It was heartbreaking to see him so frail and vulnerable: the man I remember playing cricket with me in the garden, taking me to feed the ducks, telling me endless stories of London during the war as well as the unforgettable stories of army life in Egypt in the 1940s. Sadly, dementia has taken its hold and the physical effects are all too stark now; that is the inevitable circle of life, but always difficult to accept. However, my grandfather was a major part of my childhood and I have learned many lessons and values from him. He has never forgotten his working class roots and has always encouraged me never to forget my working class origins either. I pay tribute to him and all he stands for.

Despite the frailty, a small part of his old self is still there, albeit intermittent, which brought home to me that we should treasure each and every moment we have with elderly relatives or friends. My grandfather's generation is a special generation: that war time generation that sought to build a better world, however small the contribution, from the rubble and they should be respected. They lived through one of the most dangerous periods of our history then fascism threatened our liberal democracy, but their steadfast determination saw us through. Churchill didn't win the war, but the ordinary working people did and a better Europe for all has been built as a result. That is the fundamental reason why I remain as pro-European as ever, because never must there be a return to those dark days and I sometimes think that is forgotten.

I fear in our society we don't always respect elderly people as we should. The hallmark of a decent society is how we treat our elderly, some of the most vulnerable people in society. One thing I know from my grandfather that even if you just spend a short time with an elderly person, they usually appreciate the time you take. Modern society values youth, but we should never forget how valuable experience is.

The Tuition Fees Debacle

Well, last week reminded me of The Smiths and that famous song: "Panic on the Streets of London" or perhaps Kaiser Chiefs "I predict a riot" was more appropriate! The Coalition Government has announced tuition fees of £9,000 per year, which led to protests outside Conservative Headquarters. interestingly Liberal Democrat Headquarters on Cowley Street didn't suffer the same unrest, despite the castration of Liberal MPs in the press over the last few weeks. We will see if this is just a symptom of a wider movement of unrest against the cuts. I suspect that it won't and comparisons with riots during the 1980s will prove to be unfounded. There isn't widespread protest against this policy,but largely confined to students themselves (actually very few of the protesters will be affected by the policy)

As a Liberal Democrat, in an ideal world it would be great to have all education free, but the fact remains we do not live in an ideal world and a contribution by graduates (we should note that these fees are not upfront and will only be paid back once graduates are earning over £21,000) sadly is unavoidable in the present climate. One argument against is that the people in the cabinet taking the decision did not have to pay when they went. However, when Vince Cable attended less than 10% of 18 year olds went to university. The figure is now close to 40% and so the system of funding could not remain as it was given the deficit. That is the harsh reality. What I do not understand is why those Liberal MPs signed those pledges?  The Lib Dems have had a reality check over the last fortnight concerning the realities of power and many Liberal MPs may suffer as a result next time. However, attacks from the Labour party look pretty pathetic given they introduced fees in the first place and can't seem to agree on a policy in any event. Ed Miliband looks pretty ineffective over this.

In fact, my view is that the coalition government have correctly put the focus back onto where resources should be spent in education at this time. The Liberal Democrat policy of the Pupil Premium to concentrate resources on the most disadvantaged in society is right and in early years (a bright poorer child will be overtaken by the age of 7 by a wealthier less bright child in our society). Plus Vince Cable has been right to consider how we improve Adult education so that people from lower income backgrounds keep their skills up to date in a fast changing world.

Economic and Social Liberals all agree that education is one of the surest ways to real freedom so that individuals can realise their potential. The recent policy announcement is not perfect. I am for one do not believe that the government has adequately addressed the issue of encouraging more people from disadvantaged backgrounds to attend university, but I do believe that the best has been done in difficult circumstances. I fear if this has been a purely a Conservative policy with no Liberal influence, it could have been far worse.

The Enterprise or non-enterprise Tsar?

David Cameron's appointment of Lord Young as the new Enterprise Tsar (yes, the Russian Revolution happened over 90 years ago, but the British still like to appoint Tsars), did rather remind me of a scene from the play adaptation of Yes, Prime Minister, where Sir Humphrey ponders on the appointment of Tsars to tackle government policy. If you want to let the country know you are doing something - appoint a Tsar, even though they usually do little or make any real difference.

What made me laugh was that here we are trying to get the economy moving again, kick start a new entrepreneurial spirit and zeal amongst the business community and what happens, a relic from the House of Lords is rolled out, who wears bow ties to do this! Welcome to modern Britain. I assume he left the bowler hat and umbrella at home on this occasion.

However, on a serious note, his appointment does carry some real concern for me and I expect it will for many Employment Lawyers. There are rumours afloat that Lord Young may recommend that workers in small businesses will not be able to claim unfair dismissal rights for 2 years as part of the drive to cut bureaucracy. For me this is a disgrace. Limiting the right to make claims for unfair dismissal undermines the liberty of workers and their sense of empowerment. Why should a small business/large business, international corporate have the right to treat their employees unfairly and drive them out with no good cause? The law as it stands in my view is more than adequate. At present, an employee cannot claim ordinary unfair dismissal for the first 12 months and so the reality is that employers can dismiss employees relatively easily in the first year (unless discrimination is at play). Isn't that a fair balance for business? I think yes.

I am not for one a believer that limiting rights and empowerment leads to a more efficient and productive economy as is demonstrated with the French economy. Interestingly, statistics from the European Union show that France has a far more productive economy than the UK, even though workers work fewer hours and there are more enhanced employment rights, which suggests that greater rights for employees can benefit an economy. I believe that a more productive economy is generated if you involve workers in the business so that there is a sense of empowerment and ownership over work (therefore increasing a sense of pride and a willingness to work hard) - rather than the "us and them" approach in a company, which can be created if rights are limited.

So I put it to Lord Young that he should think long and hard before limiting employment rights and to think whether his goal of generating a more enterprise based economy can be achieved if workers' rights are further limited. I hope it is something the Liberal ministers in the coalition will resist.