Predistribution offers Labour a new and radical way forward

The fast track to jobs and growth is by boosting incomes through higher wages.

Ed Miliband may have at last found his intellectual mojo in the American "predistribution theory", which talks about fair wages, trade unions and the power balance at the workplace.  Whilist it might be hard to imagine Labour supporters chanting  ….."what do we want – more predistribution! And, when do we want it? – well, preferably a decade ago when real wages started to fall", the speech Miliband gave to the Policy Network conference could mark the start of something new and radical.  At the very least, a speech by a Labour leader about social justice at the workplace and the need to address in-work poverty through wage bargaining, rather than relying on hand-outs from the state, brings joy to those think-tankers on the centre-left who have been pointing out for sometime that the way forward must be to put more money in people’s pockets. 

The fast track to jobs and growth is by boosting real incomes through higher wages, with wealth distribution recalibrated away from the top 1% who have secured more than their fair share of productivity gains.  The Smith Institute’s evaluation of anti-poverty policies shows that efforts by all governments since 1980 (including New Labour) to reduce poverty and inequality were undermined by deregulation of the labour market.

Successive Conservative governments transformed the world of work through the erosion of employment protection rights, tight restrictions on trade unions, the abolition of wage floors (like the Fair Wages Resolution and wages councils), lower taxes for the better off, a deliberate effort to shift the balance of power at work in favour of employers and abandoning the commitment to full employment.  All of which had a disastrous impact on those on low and middle incomes.

Apart from the significant achievement of the National Minimum Wage, New Labour left much of the post-Thatcher settlement on the workplace intact. Miliband is right to say that there was too much reliance on tax credits to tackle inequality.  The history of New Labour’s efforts to reduce poverty and increase pay show that wages stagnated for the "squeezed middle" even at a time of economic growth, rising tax credits and near full employment.

Whilst all the talk has been about falling real wages and outrageous executive pay, little attention has been given to what we are going to do about it. Beecroft and ever more deregulation is the Tory response. Labour has opposed this, but without really setting out its own prescription. Part of the solution has to be reconnecting social and labour market policies. What we know is that policies that ensure a more equal distribution of rewards are most effective when they work in parallel with labour market institutions (notably, trade unions) that achieve a fairer distribution of incomes before the intervention of the tax and benefit system.

There’s unlikely to be a sudden increase in welfare payments, even under Labour. All political parties agree that the resources available for redistribution will be limited in the immediate future in order to tackle the deficit.  Redistribution remains essential if we are to narrow the wealth divide, but it is only possible now with a shift towards a fairer wage distribution -  and that entails a new contract between employees, unions and employers. Predistribution is about pay, but it is also about Miliband's concept of responsible capitalism.

The solutions are in, many ways, not new but need to be recast for today’s economy. There has to be more transparency in executive pay with an explicit obligation to publish the details of all directors pay packages in the annual reports of listed companies. Listed companies should also record the ratio of high pay to low pay, the distribution of pay across different levels of earnings and the number of workers in receipt of the minimum wage.

Whilst the minimum wage has made a difference for millions, unscrupulous employers continue to short change their staff. Ensuring that the minimum wage is effectively enforced and is fixed at the highest possible level before any negative employment effects appear should also be part of the solution.

Any future Labour government should also seek to reintroduce labour clauses in public contracts. This will not only increase the pay of those working in the public sector (or "para-state") but also set a benchmark for pay in the private sector.  There may also be role for wages councils, which set wage floors, and place peer pressure on employers to act fairly. The development, in partnership with employers, of programmes focused on raising skill levels, boosting productivity and improving the overall quality of employment at the bottom of the labour market will also help those on lower income.

And last (and not least) as we approach the TUC’s conference, any programme to ensure fair initial distribution of rewards most seriously look at collective bargaining and how workers can have greater power at the workplace. For too long there has been an imbalance of power in favour of owners over workers. This is not a small challenge given low levels of union membership density in the private sector, but there are other models including European Works Councils which can act as bulwark against excessive executive pay.

The challenge for Miliband and the Labour movement must be to turn predistribution theory into predistribution practice, which will inevitably mean new popular workplace policies and facing down the vested interests of big business, the right-wing media, and the Tory neo-liberals.  There are obvious political risks with this sort agenda, but the prize of a more equal society is never going to handed to Labour on a plate. 

Ed Miliband delivered a speech on predistribution at today's Policy Network conference. Photograph: Getty Images.

Paul Hackett is the director of The Smith Institute.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.