The mouse, it roars! After another day of major Coronavirus announcements getting drip fed to the media, even Lindsay Hoyle was moved to voice his displeasure and put the government on notice. I'm sure Boris Johnson dreads the hour of their confrontation. Unhappily for him, the extension of restrictions - it would be stretching credulity to call it a lockdown since the last wasn't one - raises a whole new set of problems for the Tories.
Thanks to Johnson's holding out on adding India to the red list of countries, the re-named Delta variant is in circulation and the government have lost control. Again. Therefore, the foolhardiness over so-called freedom day is to be pushed back from 21st June to 19th July. Some very minor restrictions will be relaxed in the mean time, such as caps on numbers at weddings and funerals provided there is social distancing, but nothing else changes. The good news, however, is the vaccine roll out is driving down hospitalisation rates and therefore deaths. Too late for some thanks to the usual lackadaisical Tory approach and their getting pulled in different directions by the interests they articulate and serve. But amid the gloom, at least Johnson can console himself with the fact public opinion is onside, especially the solid bloc of his core support. There's little sign Covid is chipping away at his edifice still.
High and dry then? Not quite. The problem with a huge majority, an obscene poll lead, and an opposition that's barely noticeable is the absence of a check on one's worst instincts, and thus the will to overreach manifests. Which is where Dishy Rishi comes in. Even though the government have extended restrictions, the Chancellor is determined not to add another month to the furlough scheme. As planned, the furlough scheme starts getting wound up from the beginning of July. The amount the government will pay drops from 80% of salary to 70% of up to £2,187.50/month, and then from August until the end of September it drops again to 60% of up to £1,875/month. However, employees on furlough will still be entitled to the 80% rate and so businesses are going to have to fork out. This means businesses, mainly small businesses, who can't return to normal and start taking cash are either going to collapse, or let go their hundreds of thousands of employees. Local government grants vary from area to area, and so Sunak is bent on unleashing a wave of unemployment and sucking demand out of the economy.
Economic madness, yes. But not if the primary concern is preserving class relations by reinforcing the discipline of the labour market. Since last year, Sunak has been concerned with cutting furlough and ensuring the "most generous package of support in the world" is anything but. Also gung-ho for a return to workplaces while many companies are contemplating a life of substantial home working, he (and a number of other Tories) feel the worry in their bones that things won't quite be the same after the pandemic. More time at home has, it is feared, tilted decisively the mental balance between life and work. The longer the emergency measures bed down as the new normal the harder it's going to be to turn back the clock and refasten the workplace rubber band on staff who want a bit more from life than the daily grind. It means moves by bosses to restore the ancien regime might be met with grumbles, slack productivity and perhaps, just perhaps, the worst thing of all: collective workplace resistance.
Leading Tories are nothing if not hyper class conscious, even if they clothe their interests and stakes in stuff and nonsense. The keenness to throw hundreds of thousands out of work is a play as old as Thatcherism. Pull the rug from under workers by forming a substantial army of the unemployed before going after others' pay, jobs, and industries. Few in the cabinet, particularly the true believers in hard right economics, know nothing restores labour discipline quite like the prospect of job losses. The uppity consequences of furlough and spending more time away from the workplace can be nipped in the bud, even if it means liquidating a small layer of small and medium-sized business.
Can the Tories get away with it? That same layer of the petit bourgeois have so far been kept afloat by the government and their support has been reciprocated in the polls, but now they're being lined up as sacrificial lambs, just like another key prop of Tory support, the question is whether these turkeys will carry on voting for Christmas. For the Tories, it doesn't matter. Heart strings might get pulled when the Daily Mail interviews some Hard Working Mother who has had to close her shire county teahouse, but with the solid block of retirees to fall back on the government feels it has a freer hand to tread on some toes in its coalition if the greater Tory good is served. And the question of keeping labour discipline on an even keel? Nothing, apart from the the persistence of the party itself is more important.
Image Credit
«Johnson can console himself with the fact public opinion is onside, especially the solid bloc of his core support. There's little sign Covid is chipping away at his edifice still.»
ReplyDeleteWhy should he become less popular when the news are so goo? The BBC reports:
“Hamptons says the switch comes despite a 7.1% rise in average rents over the past 12 months, as strong house price growth coupled with increases in higher loan-to-value (LTV) mortgage rates have added to the cost of buying and owning a home.”
Their economy is BOOMING! :-)
«High and dry then? Not quite. The problem with a huge majority, an obscene poll lead,»
The polls must be wrong! Tony Blair, who won 3 elections by himself, is never wrong about electoral matters, the good news for Keir Starmer is that the BBC reports:
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-41952976
“Tony Blair: 'Labour should be 20 points ahead in polls'”
Any moment now! :-)
Working from home is a minority activity so I think you have over estimated its political importance.
ReplyDeleteThose working from home are likely to be more affluent and living in the south east, for instance 70% of “workers” in Richmond upon Thames have worked from home during the pandemic but only 14% in Burnley or Middlesbrough.
I place “workers” in quotes as some of the highest percentage is amongst those described as managers, directors and senior officials.
«Why should he become less popular when the news are so good? The BBC reports: “Hamptons says the switch comes despite a 7.1% rise in average rents over the past 12 months, [...] Their economy is BOOMING! »
ReplyDeleteAnd that includes many New New Labour members, I remember a previous commenter on this blog reporting in May 2020 as to the popularity of the Conservative policies as to rents during lockdowns:
“I raised the problematic policy on my CLP Facebook group. I was stunned by the support for the policy from the countless landlords who were Party members! "I can't afford to give my tenants a rent holiday" "This is my pension, I'll go bust" etc etc. Absolutely stunning. I had no idea how many private landlords there were in the Party. Kinda explains a lot...”
Most of them probably very grateful to Boris Johnson for his highly competent support for his support of their "Blow you! I am alright Jack" living standards gained thanks to labour unions and to the Labour Party winning good wages and low housing costs for them some decades ago.
Graham, we are still talking about millions of people here! Most offices are not back to full capacity with staggered working and limited in-person days being the norm.
ReplyDelete«Those working from home are likely to be more affluent and living in the south east, for instance 70% of “workers” in Richmond upon Thames have worked from home during the pandemic»
ReplyDeleteThose are the core constituency of New Labour, Conservatives, LibDems, and Mandelson and Umunna referred to them when declaring that New New “Labour would only win if the party championed aspirational voters who shop at John Lewis and Waitrose”.
«only 14% in Burnley or Middlesbrough.»
The "pushed behind" don't matter that much, otherwise they would not have been "pushed behind".
"Working from home is a minority activity so I think you have over estimated its political importance."
ReplyDeleteWorking from home does indeed affect millions of 'workers' as Phil points out, many many public sector workers for instance.
If these people can work from home than why the hell should they be forced to get in a car in the morning, or a bus or any other mode of vehicle, waste 2 hours a day travelling when they can work from home?
They can also put on the washing, Oven etc while working, saving even more time and if in an household one person can work from home but the other person cant then both people benefit by the fact that one of them can work from home. Politicos always want to individualise things, but if judged at the family level then we are talking tens of millions of people.
The added benefit is that for those who cant work from home, it reduces congestion, makes more space on public transport and helps clean up the planet in the process. It also helps society more easily go into emergency measures when pandemics hit.
I am struggling to see why any sane person would object to any of this or not see the obvious benefits?
I mean, why the fuck are we having this debate should be the debate!
«If these people can work from home than why the hell should they be forced to get in a car in the morning,»
ReplyDeleteYou have to look at it from the point of view of "investors", the only one that matters, and there pluses and minuses of "home working", for example:
* Less opportunity for surveillance by the management.
* More opportunity for outsourcing and offshoring.
* Less concentration of people in the "hot" areas of the country, leading to lower property prices for both residential and business property.
* Impact on voting patterns from relocation of workers too.
These put in conflict different sides of the "investor" classes, for example home working is easier for those businesses that can structure activity more around "piece work", and there is an obvious conflict of interest between "investors" in different regions.
Pursuing the "everything goes back as it was" option reduces the tensions and possible conflicts and dislocations, as well as benefiting some core "investor" lobbies.