We need a Budget that tackles the living standards crisis. This won't be it

Help for first-time buyers and childcare tax relief ignore Britain's fundamental supply side problems.

Though it may seem hard to remember a time before 'the crisis of living standards' tripped off the tongues of politicians and wonks, in truth it really only entered the economic lexicon after the crash. Economic forecasters believe the toxic cocktail of stagnating wages in the middle and lower part of the wage distribution since 2003; the lack of availability of cheap credit to boost incomes since the financial crisis in 2008; and increasing prices of big-ticket items like housing, transport and energy bills is not going away any time soon. The squeeze that families are experiencing in trying to make ends meet is one of the key issues that politicians from left and right have to grapple with. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to ask, therefore, what the Chancellor’s Budget tomorrow – the big economic set-piece policy event of the year – is going to do about it.

The Budget needs to meet both a short-term and a long-term living standards test. In the short-term, there’s not much available to the Chancellor save using the tax and benefit system to do what he can to ease the burden on families. It’s these short-term levers that all of the pre-Budget speculation has focused on: wealth taxes, childcare subsidies, accelerating planned increases in the personal allowance, and delaying the rise in fuel duty. Osborne’s problem though is that his hands are tied because he has indicated he won’t be budging from his Plan A: reducing public spending and increasing taxes as a way of trying to close the deficit – when from a macroeconomic perspective, he would be better off filling this gap by using demand-side policies to boost family incomes that would also ease the living standards squeeze, and by investing in infrastructure that could also immediately help to create jobs and demand at the same time as delivering long-term returns.

So the expected announcements on childcare tax breaks and fuel duty, even taking into account the increases in the personal allowance already announced, are very unlikely to outweigh the hit that families – particularly families with children – have taken since 2010 – cuts to child tax credits, working tax credits, other working and non-working benefits and child benefit. The majority of families will most likely be worse off as a result of overall changes to the tax and benefit system since the general election: a net negative effect on living standards.

A mansion tax – the most radical tax proposal on the table from both Labour and the Lib Dems – could be of huge symbolic significance: a sign that we are all genuinely in it together, and that it is not just for families of moderate means to bear the burden of spending cuts. Yet a tax of 1% on homes worth over £2m would only raise a modest £1.7bn, less than half of what it would cost to reduce the basic rate by 1p by the Treasury’s own calculations.

These sorts of figures show the issue with focusing on the tax-benefit system as more than a short-term solution to the living standards issue. Even pretty substantial changes to the tax-benefit system can only go so far to address the impacts of some of the long-term economic trends that sit at the heart of the living standard crisis. Wage inequality has grown over the past thirty years: if current trends continue, the High Pay Commission has predicted that by 2035 the top 1% of earners will take home 14% of national income, a ratio last seen in Victorian England. Wealth inequality and the cost of housing has increased, fuelled by a housing price bubble: for the first time in recent history, the majority of under 35s on low to middle incomes live in private rented property. Transport and energy bills are forecast to continue to rise, even though some of these companies’ profits seem to be healthier than ever.

In reality, using the tax-benefit system to fix growing inequality in living standards in the long term is not going to cut it – growing wage and wealth inequality cannot be fixed with ever-greater redistribution. Moreover, there is a renewed recognition, particularly on the centre-left, in the idea of the dignity of labour: that it is fundamentally wrong that people are not able to earn enough to support their families through working full-time, a situation many in minimum-wage jobs find themselves in.

What does that mean for tomorrow’s Budget? If it were really going to grapple with some of these long-term issues of predistribution, it would explicitly be trying to shift policy towards trying to boost real wages in the bottom half of the wage distribution and bringing down the costs of housing, childcare and energy.

There are two key problems with this approach. The first is that no politician – or indeed, economist – really has the answer on how to change the shape of the wage distribution. It probably needs to be some sort of mix of industrial policy, skills policy and policies to empower employees to demand a better deal in the workplace. Yet there is a big elephant in the room: our low skill, low-pay service sector that has grown as a result of the increase in the number of high-skill jobs that have been created in recent decades. The UK can be characterised as a relatively high wage inequality country with a moderately sized redistributive state.  There are other models around the world – Sweden, which has relatively high wage inequality but a larger redistributive state funded through higher progressive taxation, which makes possible the provision of universal free childcare; or Japan, which has low wage inequality and a relatively small state. We can look to Sweden or Japan as exemplars but the reality of trying to transition to a different model is there is no clear policy path to follow. It is much harder to predict the impact of a particular industrial policy on living standards than it is changes to the tax and benefit system.

The second is that while there are much clearer proposals for what to do on big-ticket spending items like housing, childcare, energy and transport, the solutions are radical for a Conservative Chancellor. For example, on housing, building more houses has to be a core part of the solution. On childcare, it would be more efficient to concentrate on expanding the supply of free childcare places. Yet in both of these areas, George Osborne will be announcing demand-side reforms, through help for first-time buyers and childcare tax relief. Neither address the fundamental supply side issues.

Unfortunately for Britain’s families this means the Budget tomorrow is likely to fail on both a short-term and long-term test.

The Treasury. Photograph: Getty Images

Sonia Sodha is head of policy and strategy at the Social Research Unit and a former senior policy adviser to Ed Miliband. She tweets @soniasodha.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

How the row over Jackie Walker triggered a full-blown war in Momentum

Jon Lansman, the organisation's founder, is coming under attack. 

The battle for control within Momentum, which has been brewing for some time, has begun in earnest.

In a sign of the growing unrest within the organisation – established as the continuation of Jeremy Corbyn’s first successful leadership bid, and instrumental in delivering in his re-election -  a critical pamphlet by the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty (AWL), a Trotskyite grouping, has made its way into the pages of the Times, with the “unelected” chiefs of Momentum slated for turning the organisation into a “bland blur”.

The issue of contention: between those who see Momentum as an organisation to engage new members of the Labour party, who have been motivated by Jeremy Corbyn but are not yet Corbynites.

One trade unionist from that tendency described what they see the problem as like this: “you have people who have joined to vote for Jeremy, they’re going to meetings, but they’re voting for the Progress candidates in selections, they’re voting for Eddie Izzard [who stood as an independent but Corbynsceptic candidate] in the NEC”.  

On the other are those who see a fightback by Labour’s right and centre as inevitable, and who are trying to actively create a party within a party for what they see as an inevitable purge. One activist of that opinion wryly described Momentum as “Noah’s Ark”.

For both sides, Momentum, now financially stable thanks to its membership, which now stands at over 20,000, is a great prize. And in the firing line for those who want to turn Momentum into a parallel line is Jon Lansman, the organisation’s founder.

Lansman, who came into politics as an aide to Tony Benn, is a figure of suspicion on parts of the broad left due to his decades-long commitment to the Labour party. His major opposition within Momentum and on its ruling executive comes from the AWL.

The removal of Jackie Walker as a vice-chair of Momentum after she said that Holocaust Memorial Day belittled victims of other genocides has boosted the AWL, although the AWL's Jill Mountford, who sits on Momentum's ruling executive, voted to remove Walker as vice-chair. (Walker remains on the NEC, as she has been elected by members). But despite that, the AWL, who have been critical of the process whereby Walker lost her post, have felt the benefit across the country.

Why? Because that battle has triggered a series of serious splits, not only in Momentum’s executive but its grassroots. A raft of local groups have thrown out the local leadership, mostly veterans of Corbyn’s campaign for the leadership, for what the friend of one defeated representative described as “people who believe the Canary [a pro-Corbyn politics website that is regularly accused of indulging and promoting conspiracy theories]”.

In a further series of reverses for the Lansmanite caucus, the North West, a Momentum stronghold since the organisation was founded just under a year ago, is slipping away from old allies of Lansman and towards the “new” left. As one insider put it, the transition is from longstanding members towards people who had been kicked out in the late 1980s and early 1990s by Neil Kinnock. The constituency party of Wallasey in particular is giving senior figures in Momentum headaches just as it is their opponents on the right of the party, with one lamenting that they have “lost control” of the group.

It now means that planned changes to Momentum’s structure, which the leadership had hoped to be rubberstamped by members, now face a fraught path to passage.

Adding to the organisation’s difficulties is the expected capture of James Schneider by the leader’s office. Schneider, who appears widely on television and radio as the public face of Momentum and is well-liked by journalists, has an offer on the table to join Jeremy Corbyn’s team at Westminster as a junior to Seumas Milne.

The move, while a coup for Corbyn, is one that Momentum – and some of Corbyn’s allies in the trade union movement – are keen to resist. Taking a job in the leader’s office would reduce still further the numbers of TV-friendly loyalists who can go on the airwaves and defend the leadership. There is frustration among the leader’s office that as well as Diane Abbott and John McDonnell, who are both considered to be both polished media performers and loyalists, TV bookers turn to Ken Livingstone, who is retired and unreliable, and Paul Mason, about whom opinions are divided within Momentum. Some regard Mason as a box office performer who needs a bigger role, others as a liability.

But all are agreed that Schneider’s expected departure will weaken the media presence of Corbyn loyalists and also damage Momentum. Schneider has spent much of his time not wrangling journalists but mediating in local branches and is regarded as instrumental in the places “where Momentum is working well” in the words of one trade unionist. (Cornwall is regarded as a particular example of what the organisation should be aiming towards)

It comes at a time when Momentum’s leadership is keen to focus both on its external campaigns but the struggle for control in the Labour party. Although Corbyn has never been stronger within the party, no Corbynite candidate has yet prevailed in a by-election, with the lack of available candidates at a council level regarded as part of the problem. Councilors face mandatory reselection as a matter of course, and the hope is that a bumper crop of pro-Corbyn local politicians will go on to form the bulk of the talent pool for vacant seats in future by-elections and in marginal seats at the general election.

But at present, a draining internal battle is sapping Momentum of much of its vitality. But Lansman retains two trump cards. The first is that as well as being the founder of the organisation, he is its de facto owner: the data from Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership campaigns, without which much of the organisation could not properly run, is owned by a limited company of which he is sole director. But “rolling it up and starting again” is very much the nuclear option, that would further delay the left’s hopes of consolidating its power base in the party.

The second trump card, however, is the tribalism of many of the key players at a local level, who will resist infiltration by groups to Labour’s left just as fiercely as many on the right. As one veteran of both Corbyn’s campaigns reflected: “If those who have spent 20 years attacking our party think they have waiting allies in the left of Labour, they are woefully mistaken”. 

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