By-election loss would mark new low for Labour

May 21 2008 by Bill Gleeson, Liverpool Daily Post

THE timing of the Crewe and Nantwich by-election tomorrow coincides with a new low in the Government’s popularity.

Political commentators see the election contest as a barometer of Labour’s ability to hang on to power at the next General Election.

Crewe and Nantwich has been a safe enough Labour seat ever since it was created in 1983. Since then, it has been held by the seat’s former MP Gwyneth Dunwoody and has never really figured on the Conservative Party’s list of winnable target seats.

Yet there is a real possibility that, when the result is declared tomorrow, it will be the "toff" Edward Timpson, not to forget fellow toff David Cameron, who will be smiling.

To win, the Conservatives must overturn a Labour majority of just over 7,000. The seat is socio- economically divided between the traditional Labour territory of Labour-voting Crewe and the more leafy lanes of Tory-voting Nantwich. The split is even enough to make it a close contest.

To lose such a seat would be disastrous for Labour Party morale. It would be a clear indication the country as a whole is fed up with Gordon Brown’s clumsiness with issues like the abolition of the 10p tax band.

There are also signs that business is every bit as fed up about other tax muddles, such as the changes to capital gains tax taper relief.

To cap it all, the economy is slowing, and that fact alone is enough to swing the result of any election against the incumbent government. The credit crunch, rising fuel and food inflation and falling house prices are adding to the sense things are becoming harder.

Nor is the economic outlook likely to pick up in time for the next General Election, however long Mr Brown tries to defer it.

The latest national opinion polls offer no comfort for Labour. Indeed, if some polls are to be believed, the Conservatives are less than a single percentage point from securing an outright majority of votes cast.

Lose tomorrow and Labour’s poll deficit becomes irreversible.

THE Government has been busy in recent times tightening up employment laws to extend the rights enjoyed by full-time staff to more and more people.

For example, all parents with children under the age of 16 will be able to request to work the flexible hours needed to look after children during school holidays or when they are sick or to attend school parents evenings.

Another example of tighter employment laws are the proposed provisions that would give agency workers the same rights as full time staff if they work in the same job for more than 12 weeks.

Without doubt, much scope exists to narrow the inequalities between the protection offered to some groups and lesser levels of protection offered to others, but can this be achieved without undermining Britain’s international competitiveness? Probably not.

Nor does greater protection always help the groups whose rights have been enhanced.

Take disabled people, for example. The statutes protecting disabled people in employment are pretty strong.

Once in a job, it is hard to make a disabled person redundant: they would have to be among the last to go at a struggling firm.

Yet, on the other hand, employers’ concerns about their obligations make it much harder for disabled people to get a new job.

While disabled people can sue for compensation if discriminated against when applying for a new job, they would much rather benefit from the career advancement available to most other people.