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

Leader: History is not written in stone

Statues have not been politicised by protest; they were always political.

When a mishmash of neo-Nazis, white supremacists, Trump supporters and private militias gathered in Charlottesville, Virginia on 12 August – a rally that ended in the death of a counter-protester – the ostensible reason was the city’s proposal to remove a statue of a man named Robert E Lee.

Lee was a Confederate general who surrendered to Ulysses S Grant at the Appomattox Court House in 1865, in one of the last battles of the American Civil War – a war fought to ensure that Southern whites could continue to benefit from the forced, unpaid labour of black bodies. He died five years later. It might therefore seem surprising that the contested statue of him in Virginia was not commissioned until 1917.

That knowledge, however, is vital to understanding the current debate over such statues. When the “alt-right” – many of whom have been revealed as merely old-fashioned white supremacists – talk about rewriting history, they speak as if history were an objective record arising from an organic process. However, as the American journalist Vann R Newkirk II wrote on 22 August, “obelisks don’t grow from the soil, and stone men and iron horses are never built without purpose”. The Southern Poverty Law Center found that few Confederate statues were commissioned immediately after the end of the war; instead, they arose in reaction to advances such as the foundation of the NAACP in 1909 and the desegregation of schools in the 1950s and 1960s. These monuments represent not history but backlash.

That means these statues have not been politicised by protest; they were always political. They were designed to promote the “Lost Cause” version of the Civil War, in which the conflict was driven by states’ rights rather than slavery. A similar rhetorical sleight of hand can be seen in the modern desire to keep them in place. The alt-right is unwilling to say that it wishes to retain monuments to white supremacy; instead, it claims to object to “history being rewritten”.

It seems trite to say: that is inevitable. Our understanding of the past is perpetually evolving and the hero of one era becomes a pariah in the next. Feminism, anti-colonialism, “people’s history” – all of these movements have questioned who we celebrate and whose stories we tell.

Across the world, statues have become the focus for this debate because they are visible, accessible and shape our experience of public space. There are currently 11 statues in Parliament Square – all of them male. (The suffragist Millicent Fawcett will join them soon, after a campaign led by Caroline Criado-Perez.) When a carving of a disabled artist, Alison Lapper, appeared on the fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square, its sculptor, Marc Quinn, acknowledged its significance. “This square celebrates the courage of men in battle,” he said. “Alison’s life is a struggle to overcome much greater difficulties than many of the men we celebrate and commemorate here.”

There are valid reasons to keep statues to figures we would now rather forget. But we should acknowledge this is not a neutral choice. Tearing down our history, looking it in the face, trying to ignore it or render it unexceptional – all of these are political acts. 

The Brexit delusion

After the UK triggered Article 50 in March, the Brexiteers liked to boast that leaving the European Union would prove a simple task. The International Trade Secretary, Liam Fox, claimed that a new trade deal with the EU would be “one of the easiest in human history” to negotiate and could be agreed before the UK’s scheduled departure on 29 March 2019.

However, after the opening of the negotiations, and the loss of the Conservatives’ parliamentary majority, reality has reasserted itself. All cabinet ministers, including Mr Fox, now acknowledge that it will be impossible to achieve a new trade deal before Brexit. As such, we are told that a “transitional period” is essential.

Yet the government has merely replaced one delusion with another. As its recent position papers show, it hopes to leave institutions such as the customs union in 2019 but to preserve their benefits. An increasingly exasperated EU, unsurprisingly, retorts that is not an option. For Britain, “taking back control” will come at a cost. Only when the Brexiteers acknowledge this truth will the UK have the debate it so desperately needs. 

This article first appeared in the 24 August 2017 issue of the New Statesman, Sunni vs Shia