Britain, Economic, Government, Politics, Society, United States

Shrinking the British state requires an Elon Musk

GOVERNMENT-ECONOMY

THE Left is hysterical after Donald Trump appointed Elon Musk to head up a new US Department of Government Efficiency.

The Tesla billionaire will try to radically shrink the inefficient state, slash red tape, and cut trillions of dollars of wasteful spending.

Never has the intellectual divide between political leaders on each side of the Atlantic been greater.

And nothing better symbolises this chasm separating Keir Starmer’s Labour and Donald Trump’s Republicans than Trump’s choice of hi-tech billionaire Elon Musk to be his efficiency tsar.

Since taking office in July, the Labour Party have been intent on expanding the bloated British state. You just need to look at the details of the eye-watering tax hike of £40billion in the Budget, the huge injection of £22.4billion into the NHS, and the creation of additional quangos.

The contrast couldn’t be any starker. Not only has Mr Trump tasked Musk but also appointed pharma and tech pioneer Vivek Ramaswamy, to head a new Department of Government Efficiency (DoGE). Both have already trumpeted their ambition to wipe $2trillion from the cost of running the US federal government. Word has travelled at lightning pace as Mr Musk declared on his social media channel X that there was no threat to democracy but is to be a direct attack on bureaucracy and America’s big spending state.

Yet, in the UK the Labour Government is set on a course of adding to its spending rather than cutting costs. The British state now spends a mind-boggling 44 per cent – up 5 per cent since the pandemic – of the £2.7trillion annual output of the UK economy.

Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, a self-confessed admirer of the US, has an opportunity as head of the UK Treasury to follow suit and embrace a new world of efficiency. Just imagine the positive impact in the City if she decided to lay credible plans similar in proportion to those announced by Mr Trump.

There is no doubt that Britain is desperately in need of its own Elon Musk-type efficiency tsar. It would certainly change attitudes. If the US Department of Government Efficiency achieves $2trillion of savings without damaging outcomes, then the debate on the depth of public services will change at the next UK election.

Any efficiency here would start by dismantling Labour’s plans for new quangos and organisations which do little more than mimic bureaucracies and other government affiliations which already exist.

These include the new “Border Security Command” which is duplicating work done by the immigration and security services and the National Crime Agency; and “Skills England” which is doubling up on work being done by private sector trade organisations and trades unions.

The list goes on. Labour’s plans for an Industrial Strategy Council and a National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority, despite their elaborate and grandiose names, will simply add more red tape and wage bills, increasing the size of the state rather than improving productivity.

Across government, budgets have exploded over the last decade. The NHS which consumed £144billion in 2016 is now projected to cost £277billion in the current fiscal year. Education spending has climbed from £102billion to £146billion over the same period. The nation’s welfare bill has rocketed from £240billion to £379billion. And the Transport budget has gone from £29billion to £66billion. Staggering sums of money all round.

Still, no one can say that state services have improved – in fact, quite the reverse. Anyone seeking to claim “Pension Credit”, following the Chancellor’s brutal assault on the winter fuel allowance for pensioners, can testify for that.

If we had our own Musk to drive efficiency and better productivity in the public sector the red tape and bureaucracy would be peeled away without the unions being indulged. We were shown what could be achieved when, as Prime Minister, Boris Johnson appointed a vaccine tsar (Dame Kate Bingham) who harnessed the efficiency of the private sector to enable the NHS to produce Covid-19 vaccines in record time.

It says everything about Labour’s approach that British pharma giant AstraZeneca, which developed the Oxford Covid-19 vaccine, has just announced it is to plough a record £2.7billion of research and development expenditure into the US rather than the UK.

Only by having the willpower to challenge the inefficiency of the state will there be belief in it being shrunk to manageable levels.

That would create a more agile and productive nation. It is so needed.

Standard
Britain, Business, Economic, Government, Legal, Politics, Society

Rights for workers. Reforms will be multi-phased

BRITAIN

BUSINESSES face years of uncertainty as a result of the Government’s phased introduction of major new workers’ rights.

A document published by the Department for Business and Trade admitted letting millions more staff sue their bosses from day one will create “concerns from business” and risks “unwelcome additional work for the tribunal system”.

But the “Next Steps” report also reveals that the landmark Employment Rights Bill is only the first stage of the shake-up, with many more reforms to be introduced later through secondary legislation or codes of practice.

The future burdens on firms include the “right to switch off” which will prevent managers from contacting staff out of office hours.

There will also be a review into the system of parental leave and the introduction of “socioeconomic duty”, which will force public sector bodies to consider the impact of policies on different classes in society, leading to fears the middle class will be squeezed out.

A proposed review of health and safety regulations could lead to staff getting the right to clock off if it gets too hot in their workplaces.

The DBT document says it will look at “how to modernise health and safety guidance with reference to extreme temperatures”. Unions have already called for a maximum of 30C (86F) indoors, or 27C for those doing strenuous work. Under a separate Equality (Race and Disability) Bill due later this year, firms employing more than 250 will have to report on the difference in pay between white and ethnic minority staff.

They will also have to show how they benefit the environment and communities when bidding for work, under plans to “ensure social value is mandatory in contract design”. Over the next few years, bosses will also have to follow the progress of legislation and contribute to public consultations if they want to raise concerns.

Experts within the field of employment law have expressed concerns. With multiple ongoing consultations for various reforms not yet included in this Bill, it remains to be seen if the numerous reforms will trickle into employment law over the course of months, if not years. That in turn may give rise to businesses struggling to keep up with the ever-changing legal position and risk ending up in hot water.

Now that the Employment Rights Bill has been introduced into Parliament, it’s clear what a daunting task employers will face. Much of the detail is still yet to come. Employers will have the opportunity to consult with the Government on the detail such as the length of probation periods, but that is vexed and problematic because they will have to wait longer until they are able to prepare for the detail of reforms yet to be published.  

Others believe that if the right balance is struck then we have the potential to get more people into work and boost economic growth. If the process is mishandled, however, there is a danger these things could have the opposite effect.

And there are concerns that these proposals will ultimately make it riskier and more costly for businesses to employ staff at a time when business confidence is at its lowest point in two years.

Standard
Britain, Business, Economic, Government, Legal, Politics, Society

Employment rights bill

BRITAIN

PRIOR to Labour coming into office, its general election manifesto said the government would introduce its workers’ rights package within its first 100 days. Yesterday, on day 97, it fulfilled that pledge. Parliament will debate the newly published employment rights bill in just over a week’s time. Even so, this is only one stage in a longer workplace reform journey that will take more than one parliamentary session to deal with. Many of the government’s decisions about changes to the world of work remain to be nailed down and are not part of the bill at all.

It has become easy to caricature the new legislation, and many are doing so. The Conservatives dismiss it all as rewards to Labour’s trade union paymasters. The Unite union says the plan is full of gaping holes. The Federation of Small Businesses says the plans are rushed and chaotic. But the British Chambers of Commerce says the government is listening and responsive. What isn’t in question, though, is the level of business fury. A leading legal publication says the package strikes positive notes with lawyers.

With views polarised, this is leading to a sterile, zero-sum debate on work issues. But the larger truth is that this is a bill about change. Employment law has not kept pace with developments in the worlds of work, family, and business. The stark reality is that a fresh approach, centred on the work issues of today and tomorrow rather than those of the past, is long overdue.

Unsurprisingly, then, the employment rights bill is multiple different things, not one simple ideal. The bill is large and wide-ranging. It comes in six discreet sections, containing 119 different clauses and runs to 158 pages. Most of it is about terms and conditions for individual employees, and the obligations that employers will have to follow. The bill also creates a Fair Work Agency to enforce it. Relatively little of it is actually about the law on trade unions at all, though you might not think so to listen to the political debate.

The most important rights in the bill belong to individual workers, and especially to new hires and to families. These include unfair dismissal protection from day one, along with day-one paternity and unpaid parental leave rights. Sick pay will apply from day one as well. Workers on zero-hours contracts will gain guaranteed hours if they want them. Fire and rehire on worse terms will be banned. Flexible working will be a default right.

The bill does not set all these rights in stone. A statutory probation period for new hires is still being discussed, during which greater flexibility would apply. Fire-and-rehire prohibitions may not be applied to businesses at risk of collapse. Small firms, some of which do not have HR departments to navigate these rules, are looking for a more adaptable approach too. It is better to get these issues right than to rush into them.

Some gaps remain. These include the right to switch off outside working hours, as well as a requirement for large employers to report on equalities pay gaps. Some unions want to roll back more of the restrictive legislation from the Conservative years. Nevertheless, the larger reality is that it is important that workforces should be well paid and treated fairly. This matters in terms of economic and employment justice, but also in making businesses more innovative and more productive. On this, at least, the Labour government’s approach is in line with the public mood – and rightly so.

Standard