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.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The Prevent strategy needs a rethink, not a rebrand

A bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy.

Yesterday the Home Affairs Select Committee published its report on radicalization in the UK. While the focus of the coverage has been on its claim that social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are “consciously failing” to combat the promotion of terrorism and extremism, it also reported on Prevent. The report rightly engages with criticism of Prevent, acknowledging how it has affected the Muslim community and calling for it to become more transparent:

“The concerns about Prevent amongst the communities most affected by it must be addressed. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed with suspicion by many, and by some as “toxic”… The government must be more transparent about what it is doing on the Prevent strategy, including by publicising its engagement activities, and providing updates on outcomes, through an easily accessible online portal.”

While this acknowledgement is good news, it is hard to see how real change will occur. As I have written previously, as Prevent has become more entrenched in British society, it has also become more secretive. For example, in August 2013, I lodged FOI requests to designated Prevent priority areas, asking for the most up-to-date Prevent funding information, including what projects received funding and details of any project engaging specifically with far-right extremism. I lodged almost identical requests between 2008 and 2009, all of which were successful. All but one of the 2013 requests were denied.

This denial is significant. Before the 2011 review, the Prevent strategy distributed money to help local authorities fight violent extremism and in doing so identified priority areas based solely on demographics. Any local authority with a Muslim population of at least five per cent was automatically given Prevent funding. The 2011 review pledged to end this. It further promised to expand Prevent to include far-right extremism and stop its use in community cohesion projects. Through these FOI requests I was trying to find out whether or not the 2011 pledges had been met. But with the blanket denial of information, I was left in the dark.

It is telling that the report’s concerns with Prevent are not new and have in fact been highlighted in several reports by the same Home Affairs Select Committee, as well as numerous reports by NGOs. But nothing has changed. In fact, the only change proposed by the report is to give Prevent a new name: Engage. But the problem was never the name. Prevent relies on the premise that terrorism and extremism are inherently connected with Islam, and until this is changed, it will continue to be at best counter-productive, and at worst, deeply discriminatory.

In his evidence to the committee, David Anderson, the independent ombudsman of terrorism legislation, has called for an independent review of the Prevent strategy. This would be a start. However, more is required. What is needed is a radical new approach to counter-terrorism and counter-extremism, one that targets all forms of extremism and that does not stigmatise or stereotype those affected.

Such an approach has been pioneered in the Danish town of Aarhus. Faced with increased numbers of youngsters leaving Aarhus for Syria, police officers made it clear that those who had travelled to Syria were welcome to come home, where they would receive help with going back to school, finding a place to live and whatever else was necessary for them to find their way back to Danish society.  Known as the ‘Aarhus model’, this approach focuses on inclusion, mentorship and non-criminalisation. It is the opposite of Prevent, which has from its very start framed British Muslims as a particularly deviant suspect community.

We need to change the narrative of counter-terrorism in the UK, but a narrative is not changed by a new title. Just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, a bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy. While the Home Affairs Select Committee concern about Prevent is welcomed, real action is needed. This will involve actually engaging with the Muslim community, listening to their concerns and not dismissing them as misunderstandings. It will require serious investigation of the damages caused by new Prevent statutory duty, something which the report does acknowledge as a concern.  Finally, real action on Prevent in particular, but extremism in general, will require developing a wide-ranging counter-extremism strategy that directly engages with far-right extremism. This has been notably absent from today’s report, even though far-right extremism is on the rise. After all, far-right extremists make up half of all counter-radicalization referrals in Yorkshire, and 30 per cent of the caseload in the east Midlands.

It will also require changing the way we think about those who are radicalized. The Aarhus model proves that such a change is possible. Radicalization is indeed a real problem, one imagines it will be even more so considering the country’s flagship counter-radicalization strategy remains problematic and ineffective. In the end, Prevent may be renamed a thousand times, but unless real effort is put in actually changing the strategy, it will remain toxic. 

Dr Maria Norris works at London School of Economics and Political Science. She tweets as @MariaWNorris.