Labour should beat George Osborne at his own game with a living wage employment allowance

Cutting the "jobs tax" was the best move the Chancellor made, but Labour should go further, writes Nick Pecorelli.

In George Osborne’s budget politics triumphed over economics and bravado over honesty. But in amidst the cauldron of denial, downgrades and general gloom there was one interesting policy proposal that small businesses should celebrate and progressives should build on.

George Osborne announced a new employer’s national insurance employment allowance of £2000 for all businesses; a cut in the “jobs tax”. This is a much better approach to supporting small businesses than cuts in corporation tax because so many small businesses are too hand to mouth to make a profit. Moreover, a flat rate allowance helps the smallest businesses most.

Using national insurance to promote employment goals is not new. But what is new is the decoupling of total employers' national insurance payments from individual pay rates, and this opens the door to a very different way of using national insurance to support progressive values.

One of the last Labour government’s defining policies was the implementation of the national minimum wage. Over one and a half million low paid workers received a pay rise and instantly there was a wage floor set in statute below which no one could be legally paid. 

The national minimum wage has been a success not just because Labour made the moral case but because it made an economic one. Higher pay floats workers off benefits, saves taxpayers money and puts cash into the hands of those who are most likely to spend it rather than save it.

But Labour also bound in business by setting up a Low Pay Commission, on which both sides of industry and experts are represented. The Low Pay Commission’s job has been to agree the minimum wage annually at a rate which is affordable and does not damage job creation. 

Today, the minimum wage is set at £6.19 an hour for those aged 21 and over. That’s better than a world where employers could legally pay £2 an hour but certainly not a decent wage.

Hence, the campaign for a living wage of £7.45 an hour (or £8.55 in London), launched by London Citizens over a decade ago. The Living Wage campaign is energised and has had many successes, but these are mainly amongst larger corporations and the public sector.  Larger corporations can typically afford to see paying a living wage as part of their corporate social responsibility agenda. Councils can make the political choice to pay a living wage (and for that matter stipulate that their contractors must also pay it). But for many small businesses, predominantly those in certain sectors, it’s simply tough to do it and make the sums add up, particularly when your competitors aren’t paying it.

Many of these businesses only employ a few people – restaurants, hairdressers, small independent retailers, niche textile operations and so on. So a simple way for Labour to adapt George Osborne’s employment allowance into a policy that not only promotes employment but employment on a decent wage, is to argue that it should become a Living Wage Employment Allowance and only be available to businesses who pay a living wage (a lower youth rate would be needed to encourage employers to take on inexperienced workers). 

This will help fill the policy void between the compulsion of the national minimum wage and the exaltation of the campaign for a living wage.

By giving most help to the smallest businesses it will help create a new wage norm. Once a first, second and third employee are paid a living wage it becomes more challenging for an employer to offer a lower wage to a subsequent employee. Slightly larger businesses will also be more likely to pay a living wage even if the financial inducement of the Living Wage Employment Allowance does not fully cover the cost, partly because their employees would now be able to earn a higher wage elsewhere and partly simply because paying a living wage should become the new norm.

Over time when entrepreneurs are thinking of setting up new ventures the Living Wage Employment Allowance will help focus minds on sectors and business propositions where a living wage is affordable.

As wages for low paid workers increase more people will be floated off benefits and the taxpayer will gain. Some local areas where poverty is rife will get a spending boost, providing not only a direct benefit to economically depressed areas but a further boost to government coffers. A future Labour government could commit to use these proceeds to increase the Living Wage Employment Allowance and create a virtuous circle of more jobs, better wages, and higher tax revenues. A target of £10,000 might be achievable in the next parliament.

Compliance should also be relatively easy to monitor because wage information is automatically gathered through the national insurance system.

Britain cannot afford a low pay economy but neither can it expect small businesses struggling to make ends meet to pay decent wages without some support. A chancellor who has pursued some of the most regressive policies in recent history has unwittingly opened the door to progress. Labour should seize the opportunity George Osborne has presented with both hands and argue for a new approach that will make Britain’s economy both stronger and fairer.

Photograph: Getty Images

Nick Pecorelli is Associate Director of The Campaign Company

Getty
Show Hide image

The Women's March against Trump matters – but only if we keep fighting

We won’t win the battle for progressive ideas if we don’t battle in the first place.

Arron Banks, UKIP-funder, Brexit cheerleader and Gibraltar-based insurance salesman, took time out from Trump's inauguration to tweet me about my role in tomorrow's Women’s March Conservative values are in the ascendancy worldwide. Thankfully your values are finished. . . good”.

Just what about the idea of women and men marching for human rights causes such ill will? The sense it is somehow cheeky to say we will champion equality whoever is in office in America or around the world. After all, if progressives like me have lost the battle of ideas, what difference does it make whether we are marching, holding meetings or just moaning on the internet?

The only anti-democratic perspective is to argue that when someone has lost the argument they have to stop making one. When political parties lose elections they reflect, they listen, they learn but if they stand for something, they don’t disband. The same is true, now, for the broader context. We should not dismiss the necessity to learn, to listen, to reflect on the rise of Trump – or indeed reflect on the rise of the right in the UK  but reject the idea that we have to take a vow of silence if we want to win power again.

To march is not to ignore the challenges progressives face. It is to start to ask what are we prepared to do about it.

Historically, conservatives have had no such qualms about regrouping and remaining steadfast in the confidence they have something worth saying. In contrast, the left has always been good at absolving itself of the need to renew.

We spend our time seeking the perfect candidates, the perfect policy, the perfect campaign, as a precondition for action. It justifies doing nothing except sitting on the sidelines bemoaning the state of society.

We also seem to think that changing the world should be easier than reality suggests. The backlash we are now seeing against progressive policies was inevitable once we appeared to take these gains for granted and became arrogant and exclusive about the inevitability of our worldview. Our values demand the rebalancing of power, whether economic, social or cultural, and that means challenging those who currently have it. We may believe that a more equal world is one in which more will thrive, but that doesn’t mean those with entrenched privilege will give up their favoured status without a fight or that the public should express perpetual gratitude for our efforts via the ballot box either.  

Amongst the conferences, tweets and general rumblings there seem three schools of thought about what to do next. The first is Marxist  as in Groucho revisionism: to rise again we must water down our principles to accommodate where we believe the centre ground of politics to now be. Tone down our ideals in the hope that by such acquiescence we can eventually win back public support for our brand – if not our purpose. The very essence of a hollow victory.

The second is to stick to our guns and stick our heads in the sand, believing that eventually, when World War Three breaks out, the public will come grovelling back to us. To luxuriate in an unwillingness to see we are losing not just elected offices but the fight for our shared future.

But what if there really was a third way? It's not going to be easy, and it requires more than a hashtag or funny t-shirt. It’s about picking ourselves up, dusting ourselves down and starting to renew our call to arms in a way that makes sense for the modern world.

For the avoidance of doubt, if we march tomorrow and then go home satisfied we have made our point then we may as well not have marched at all. But if we march and continue to organise out of the networks we make, well, then that’s worth a Saturday in the cold. After all, we won’t win the battle of ideas, if we don’t battle.

We do have to change the way we work. We do have to have the courage not to live in our echo chambers alone. To go with respect and humility to debate and discuss the future of our communities and of our country.

And we have to come together to show there is a willingness not to ask a few brave souls to do that on their own. Not just at election times, but every day and in every corner of Britain, no matter how difficult it may feel.

Saturday is one part of that process of finding others willing not just to walk a mile with a placard, but to put in the hard yards to win the argument again for progressive values and vision. Maybe no one will show up. Maybe not many will keep going. But whilst there are folk with faith in each other, and in that alternative future, they’ll find a friend in me ready to work with them and will them on  and then Mr Banks really should be worried.