What does it mean to make work pay?

Increasing the amount of better quality jobs in the UK is key to addressing low pay.

A key argument in the welfare debates this week has centred on ‘making work pay’. The Government argues that changes to tax and welfare will improve the lot of low and middle income working households. Though curiously, this came as suggestions surface the minimum wage could be frozen or cut.

Alongside others, we have shown that the increase in the personal tax allowance is roughly cancelled out by reductions in tax credits and other benefits. But there is a more fundamental flaw in the way this argument has been conducted.  It has focused purely on the role of the tax and benefit system with no discussion of how to make work itself pay.

This flaw was also evident in two other inputs into the debate in the last couple of weeks, both of which were otherwise useful and interesting.

First, a report on Improving Progression in the UK labour market by Policy Exchange. It’s encouraging to see work addressing the core issue of how we support people to not only get work but keep it and progress in it. This will let them end up earning enough to live decently, ideally without needing tax credits. The introduction of Universal Credit gives the opportunity for the Welfare to Work system to address this issue for the first time.  The report estimates that, under the new system, around 1.3 million people will become subject to some kind of in work requirements and support. 

This is a diverse group, with a mixture of ages and family types. Most work between 15 and 24 hours a week and over half are in fairly stable employment. Some have characteristics which will restrict the amount of work they can do: around a third have dependent children, over half are over 45, some are likely to have some health or caring related issues. Nearly 45% also have relatively low or no formal qualifications.  Most are apparently not actively looking for more or better work, although the reasons for this are not clear. The report makes some very sensible recommendations for improving the incentives for Jobcentre Plus and Work Programme providers to give real attention to progression in work. It also suggests piloting various other measures, including greater sanctions, to persuade more people to actively try to increase their hours and pay. 

However, the report seems to assume that there are abundant opportunities for more hours and progression, if people could only be motivated to look for them. This contrasts with our research showing that there are already 1.4 million people who want to work full time but are working part time because no full time job is available, the highest figure in 20 years.

At a Resolution Foundation seminar, Conservative MP and Skills Minister Matthew Hancock set out his agenda for tackling low pay. He argued that actively tackling low pay was vital and set out three ways of doing so: defending and strengthening the minimum wage; creating a tax system which supports low paid workers; and increasing productivity - by freeing businesses to compete, having good matching of jobs to applicants and increasing skills and human capital.

Both Mr Hancock and the seminar respondents (Allister Heath, City AM editor, Nicola Smith of the TUC and Ryan Shorthouse of Bright Blue) agreed that increasing the amount of better quality jobs in the UK was key to addressing low pay. But there was almost no discussion about how to do this. The debate was all about supply-side measures – tax, benefits, skills. All this is vitally important, but is highly unlikely to work without getting to grips with the demand side.

Only then can work truly pay – giving the ‘hard working families’ politicians talk so much about a real chance for independence and security.

Photograph: Getty Images

Helen Barnard is a Policy and Research Manager for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Who will win in Manchester Gorton?

Will Labour lose in Manchester Gorton?

The death of Gerald Kaufman will trigger a by-election in his Manchester Gorton seat, which has been Labour-held since 1935.

Coming so soon after the disappointing results in Copeland – where the seat was lost to the Tories – and Stoke – where the party lost vote share – some overly excitable commentators are talking up the possibility of an upset in the Manchester seat.

But Gorton is very different to Stoke-on-Trent and to Copeland. The Labour lead is 56 points, compared to 16.5 points in Stoke-on-Trent and 6.5 points in Copeland. (As I’ve written before and will doubtless write again, it’s much more instructive to talk about vote share rather than vote numbers in British elections. Most of the country tends to vote in the same way even if they vote at different volumes.)

That 47 per cent of the seat's residents come from a non-white background and that the Labour party holds every council seat in the constituency only adds to the party's strong position here. 

But that doesn’t mean that there is no interest to be had in the contest at all. That the seat voted heavily to remain in the European Union – around 65 per cent according to Chris Hanretty’s estimates – will provide a glimmer of hope to the Liberal Democrats that they can finish a strong second, as they did consistently from 1992 to 2010, before slumping to fifth in 2015.

How they do in second place will inform how jittery Labour MPs with smaller majorities and a history of Liberal Democrat activity are about Labour’s embrace of Brexit.

They also have a narrow chance of becoming competitive should Labour’s selection turn acrimonious. The seat has been in special measures since 2004, which means the selection will be run by the party’s national executive committee, though several local candidates are tipped to run, with Afzal Khan,  a local MEP, and Julie Reid, a local councillor, both expected to run for the vacant seats.

It’s highly unlikely but if the selection occurs in a way that irritates the local party or provokes serious local in-fighting, you can just about see how the Liberal Democrats give everyone a surprise. But it’s about as likely as the United States men landing on Mars any time soon – plausible, but far-fetched. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.