Conservative Home's debate blogs

My Photo

Conservative blogs

About Conservative Home

Advertising

  • DVD rental
  • Conservative Books

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Jonathan Isaby's twitterings

      follow me on Twitter

      Tim Montgomerie's Twitterings

        follow me on Twitter

        « Some cartoons are worth a thousand words | Main | Poor Lord Saatchi »

        Comments

        James Hellyer

        Why shouldn't Tesco get to compete? Already convenience shops are open all day on Sundays. Indeed some Co-Ops and Spars are open 24-7. Either all shops should be able to offer the opening hours they want, or none of them should open on Sunday.

        The question then becomes whether you think you have the right to restrict other people's freedom to shop when they want.

        Rather than tinkering with Sunday trading laws in the name of family cohesion, we should actually tax low earners less. Then they wouldn't necessarily find they *had* to work on Sundays. But they would still have the choice...

        Mark

        What's special about Sunday?

        I know that for some it's a day of worship, but why should they impose their beliefs on me, or anyone else?

        By all means legislate to provide for a guaranteed one day a week off, but leave the CHOICE of day to the worker (not the employer). Employers could offer incentives for employees to choose the unpopular days!

        Jews might take the saturday, Christians the sunday and other people may prefer to work at the weekend and take midweek. Yes, everyone should have a guaranteed rest day, but why should that day be Sunday?

        Editor

        The idea of Sunday (or any specified day) being the shared day of rest is that the maximum number of people can spend it together, Mark. When the number of people with the same day off is maximised there is more opportunity for families and friends to spend time together. When everyone chooses their own day off - which, I realise, can have other advantages - that encourages a more individualistic and less family-friendly/ communal society.

        With regard to James' comments - tax relief for the low-waged is desirable but it won't prevent retail sector workers being forced to work on Sundays.

        James Hellyer


        But sensible employment laws will stop people being forced to work anti-social hours. Simply forbidding discriminatory employment practices seems a sensible approach. It's the same with the Working Time Directive - companies should not be allowed to force people to sign waivers before they are employed.

        That would create better market conditions, because if a company then couldn't get staff for anti-social shifts, it would have to pay a premium to attract them.

        I'm not convinced that it's the place of government to dictate working hours and times. Rather it's place is allow people to make their own choices.

        Bob

        We still believe in capitalism, right?

        Why would Conservatives want to deny low income families the chance to earn some extra money on a Sunday?

        How does restricting Sunday trading enhance individual freedom?

        And since when were Conservatives against world class British companies that lead their industry, create thousands of jobs, export heavily, turn large profits, and contribute significantly to the public purse?

        Did I miss a meeting or something?

        Blimpish

        Conservatives surely only believe in capitalism as much as it delivers the economic goods; but capitalism only takes place in the context of a social order governed by law, and is always limited by those laws.

        While I'm not convinced about withdrawing Sunday shopping law, that's for prudential reasons - I don't think it makes us electable - and not because I'm against it in principle.

        James Hellyer

        "Conservatives surely only believe in capitalism as much as it delivers the economic goods; but capitalism only takes place in the context of a social order governed by law, and is always limited by those laws."

        That's a little back to front. Capitalism allows a prosperous and upwardly mobile society that can support democratic institutions and the rule of law. It allows people to own and prosper, thus giving them a reason to invest in civic institutions that will protect them and the fruits of their labours.

        Blimpish

        ... and it doesn't exist in a meaningful form anywhere where there isn't a coherent social order. The idea that society exists solely on material foundations and that political and cultural practices are somehow epiphenomenal is sub-Marxist tripe.

        That isn't to say I don't support capitalism, or that I'm not a ludicrously free-market conservative - I do and I am. But markets are not enough, and are not self-sufficient.

        James Hellyer

        "... and it doesn't exist in a meaningful form anywhere where there isn't a coherent social order."

        You're still looking at things backwards. A coherent social order can exist in a totalitarian regime or a theocracy (I'm sure Iran, say, has a very coherent social order).

        However social cohesion does not mean that people enjoy freedom. Indeed it can mean that they are subordinated to structures that do not operate in their interests; structures that, for example, dictate how and when they can work. That may promote social cohesion, but not social mobility (which should be Conservatism's aim).

        Blimpish

        "A coherent social order can exist in a totalitarian regime or a theocracy." Agreed. But these can also exist without a coherent social order - in fact, a totalitarian regime must work to destroy a coherent social order because within it will rest alternative sources of authority, which cannot be tolerated by a totalitarian state. (Or else it wouldn't be totalitarian.)

        But neither a totalitarian regime nor a theocracy require a coherent social order in order to exist, and this is where the difference for us is. A constitutional regime, one where we can enjoy liberal and democratic freedoms, can only exist where there is a coherent social order.

        To say that all we need is freedom and everything will sort itself out is not conservatism - for one thing, it's an ideological statement, because it assumes that the magic wand of freedom can 'solve' all political dilemmas. It can't. Some things can't be reduced simply to "more freedom."

        As to your last - social mobility is not the primary aim of any conservatism properly so called. Conservatives typically defend the status quo, including established hierarchy and social practice. Within that, conservatives seek to make improvements across a range of goods - including the liberal good of social mobility (or equality of opportunity) - but only where those improvements are achieveable without compromise to society as a whole.

        Editor

        A delayed response to James' posting above. James wrote:

        I'm not convinced that it's the place of government to dictate working hours and times. Rather it's place is allow people to make their own choices."

        As already argued I'm not convinced that employment law does provide secure protections, James, but in the context of pursuing 'shared opportunities for rest' (which was what a common day of rest was about) I think the individualised focus on "their own choices" doesn't make sense anyhow. Extended or nuclear families can't choose to be together if an increasing number of individual members of families choose to work and therefore erode any collective possibility for time together. Protecting one day in every week in which opportunities for 'family time' come before the right for individuals to work as long as they wish on the other six days is an acceptable restriction. An individual's freedom may be the primary freedom but freedom of groups and freedom of association are also important freedoms that need soil in which to blossom.

        James Hellyer

        "As already argued I'm not convinced that employment law does provide secure protections, James, but in the context of pursuing 'shared opportunities for rest' (which was what a common day of rest was about) I think the individualised focus on "their own choices" doesn't make sense anyhow."

        I wouldn't disagree that current employment laws offers insufficient protection to workers. Employers should not be able to force people to work excessive or antisocial hours. However people should be free to choose to work such hours (if, for example, they want the money).

        I would disagree if you postulated that government should remove that choice, possibly reducing people's incomes and abilty to get by, in the cause of forcing them to socialise.

        "Extended or nuclear families can't choose to be together if an increasing number of individual members of families choose to work and therefore erode any collective possibility for time together."

        I believe the key word there is "choose". If a family chooses not to be together, then that is their concern. I don't think it's to compell them to endure the equivalent of Hancock's Sunday afternoon. However that does not mean that you shouldn't ensure they are not denied the opportunity to be together if they so desire (by, for example, protecting their right to a specific day off of their choice).

        "An individual's freedom may be the primary freedom but freedom of groups and freedom of association are also important freedoms that need soil in which to blossom."

        But I would say that association should be by choice rather than because everything else the individuals could do is close for the day by law! Freely entered into associations should be more rewarding and enduring (rather than being an act of endurance).

        Andrew

        I'm going to be a little less measured than Blimpish.

        Are you totally insane, Tim? The left will, quite rightly, see this type of move as a step towards imposing a particular religious moral view of the world into our legislative programme. The Conservative party is no longer the party of the Christian church. To pretend otherwise is foolish at best. This isn't America - we don't have a constituency who want this kind of theocracy, in whatever language you choose to dress it up.

        I totally buy into your 'supporting families' message, but there are far better ways to do it than forcing quality time on them on the holy day.

        Blimpish

        As Andrew's a mate, I hope he won't mind if I (while agreeing with his substantive point, about what's politically sensible) take severe objection to his use of the word 'theocracy'.

        'Theocracy' implies some fusion of Church and State, and further that it is claimed that all state policy is divinely ordained. This has never existed in this country - not once - and it has rarely existed in Christianity, because Christianity is not a law-based religion and sees Church and State as separate. (There have been exceptional cases of direct religious rule, at various times and places. But they are not the norm.)

        'Theocracy' has become a weasel word used to demean the use of theological, alongside philosophical, bases in political reasoning. It is rooted in a claim that philosophical reasoning is somehow objective and rational, whereas theological reasoning relies on divine authority, which is always questionable. This claim (which is anyway limited to liberal philosophical reasoning) to objectivity might have been intellectually respectable up until the late nineteenth century, but not since then.

        Andrew

        Fair point, and I'll gladly retract.

        Andrew

        Off topic slightly, I suppose, but my point is that the implication that the religious have access to a higher morality than the secular is really irritating to those of us who don't believe in God, but do, for example, think that much religious social doctrine is sensible. For example, I think the Catholics are right on abortion. Religion doesn't have a monopoly on morality. That said, I wouldn't legislate on it, largely for reasons of liberty and strategy.

        But yes, theocracy is a weasel word, used in anger, and I take it back.

        Blimpish

        Agreed, Andrew, but it cuts both ways. To reformulate your words: the implication that the secular have access to a higher reason than the religious is really irritating to those of us who do believe in God, but do, for example, think that much secular philosophy is useful.

        Religion doesn't have a monopoly on morality, no. But it does have grounds for it. My problem with purely philosophical moralities is that they all ultimately depend on asserted premises, belief in many of which is no more rational than belief in God. (And indeed, many of them are traceable to religious sources - like the idea of human equality.)

        Andrew

        I agree with you there - there's nothing more irritating to an atheist like myself to read one of Polly Toynbee's 'all religion is evil' rants. But all morality must boil down to fundamental assertions - the trick is to agree on our fundamentals. Taking time out on Sunday doesn't follow from any of mine.

        Blimpish

        Yes, but the question some of us have is how you can find a moral consensus when you've got 60m sets of fundamental assertions. And the answer looks like being... maybe you can't.

        Editor

        Andrew - a few posts above you asked if I was insane because I didn't want further deregulation of Sundays. You then say that I'm giving a political gift to the left - who'll assume that I'm trying to impose some kind of theocracy (I enjoyed your and Blimpish's debate on that). No - as this post has proved - the real enemy of the market economy are fundamentalist marketeers. Many on the left will see value in what I'm proposing. The unions object to workers having to spend all of their time on shopfloors. USDAW and the Keep Sunday Special Campaign (the left and the Christian community) were at one in opposing the Major-Blair deregulation of Sunday. Stopping further deregulation could unite left and right - just as some on the left and right can unite in opposing euthanasia, hard porn, GM crops and sex selection of babies.

        It's actually the neanderthal laissez-faire right that is the real enemy of capitalism. Capitalism flourishes in soil where families (and the thrift, sense of hard work, learning that they produce) are strong. Putting some limits on capitalism is essential to its long-term future. Regulation of consumer debt, protections on working hours and a modest minimum wage help sustain the market economy - they don't endanger it.

        James Hellyer

        "No - as this post has proved - the real enemy of the market economy are fundamentalist marketeers."

        Does it? As the main marketeer spokesman on the thread, I've acknowledged the need to legislate to ensure workers aren't forced to work on Sundays, however I leave open to them the choice to work on Sundays.

        The only real difference here, is that you would compell all but the self-employed to not work on Sundays, whereas I would ensure they had the option.

        Editor

        "The only real difference here, is that you would compell all but the self-employed to not work on Sundays, whereas I would ensure they had the option"

        This isn't an option to work - it's "freedom" to work on Sunday or not get hired.

        I posted this on PollingReport.co.uk earlier today...

        "The idea of protections for employers not to work on Sundays sounds a nice idea in theory but doesn’t really work in reality. Employers will seek flexibility in their workforce. Job applicants who say, at an interview, that they’re unwilling to work on Sundays simply won’t be as likely to get hired as those who say they will. The employer can tell the government inspector that other reasons were decisive for the non-Sunday-applicant not getting taken on… and how can the government inspector prove otherwise. It’s a minefield unless we give all families the right to have time off together on Sundays."

        James Hellyer

        "This isn't an option to work - it's "freedom" to work on Sunday or not get hired."

        But Tim, that's precisely the option I was saying should be protected in law! The difference was that I wanted to leave the option open to the employee, rather than remove it entirely through government dictat!

        "Job applicants who say, at an interview, that they’re unwilling to work on Sundays simply won’t be as likely to get hired as those who say they will."

        Yes, and that's like the 48 hour week - a question the employer should not be able to ask PRIOR to the signing of a contract.

        Editor

        If you believe that those protections really work, James, we'll have to agree to disagree. But you might like to take a look at the http://www.keepsundayspecial.net/>Keep Sunday Special Campaign's website and its observation that "Tens of thousands of shopworkers were served with new contracts which gave them little choice about working any five days out of seven. For some promotion prospects have been affected; some have left their employment rather than work on a Sunday."

        James Hellyer

        "If you believe that those protections really work, James, we'll have to agree to disagree."

        I don't think they work at present. I do however think they can be strengthened so they can work.

        The comments to this entry are closed.