The minimum wage has been cut, not increased

Vince Cable rightly noted that "cuts in real wages depress consumption" but the 12p increase in the minimum wage to £6.31 is a real-terms cut.

After recent speculation that the minimum wage could be frozen or cut in cash terms, Vince Cable used his speech at The Institute of Directors to announce that the adult rate would increase by 1.9 per cent (12p) to £6.31 an hour, the under-21s rate by 5p to £5.03 and the under-18s rate by 4p to £3.72. 

In justifying the increase, against those on the right who argue that the minimum wage prices workers out of employment, Cable cited the Keynesian insight that "cuts in real wages depress consumption and demand and thereby cause unemployment." Cable is right; low earners are forced to spend, rather than save, what little they receive (their "marginal propensity to consume" is greater) and stimulate growth as a result.

It's worth noting, then, that the minimum wage has just been cut in real-terms. CPI inflation was 2.8 per cent in February and RPI inflation was 3.2 per cent. The former is forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility to average 2.8 per cent this year. Indeed, as the Resolution Foundation's James Plunkett recently noted, in real-terms, the minimum wage has already fallen back to its 2004 level. 

Today's decision will by described by most of the media as an "increase" but by the best measure economists have - the cost of living - it's a cut. 

In this area, as elsewhere, the coalition would do well to follow the example of Barack Obama, who has pledged to increase the minimum wage to $9 an hour, from $7.25, and to peg annual increases to inflation thereafter. 

Business Secretary Vince Cable announced today that the adult minimum wage would rise by 12p to £6.31 an hour. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.