There are not many things that the average Labour party member shares in common with the characters of Downton Abbey. But for most of us, one such trait may be a slight queasiness about the idea of making money.
While an ageing dowager might roll her eyes at the flashiness of the nouveaux riches, we are more likely to be left uneasy when Peter Mandelson proclaims himself ‘intensely relaxed’ about people getting filthy rich, or when Chuka Umunna says Labour should help entrepreneurs ‘make their first million’.
But if the next Labour government is to achieve Ed Miliband’s goal of creating a more just and equal Britain, there is no easy way round wealth creation.
At its simplest, if we want to improve the incomes and wealth of the less well-off, there are three ways to go about it. We can seek to grow the overall economy, we can redistribute resources within it or we can cross our fingers and hope that a more equitable distribution will somehow happen on its own.
That last idea has not always been as mad as it might sound.
In the decades after the war, the changing global economy saw a rapid growth in demand for professional employment, with more ‘room at the top’ of society even without significant government intervention. Manual labourers could see their children get white-collar jobs, while nobody else had to lose out in return.
It was a golden age of social mobility – and it was good while it lasted – but the market for salaried office workers could only go on increasing for so long.
In recent decades the labour market has changed in a different way. The concept of ‘room at the top’ has been replaced by that of ‘hollowing out’. Technological change and globalisation mean that more and more mid-level jobs are being automated, mechanised or outsourced, leaving well-paid professional and financial jobs at the top and poorly paid service sector jobs at the bottom. A chief executive still likes advice from his broker in person, and a patient’s bed cannot be changed by a computer program or an Indian call centre, but everything in between is insecure.
Crossing our fingers, therefore, is unlikely to help the poorest today. But what of redistribution? Even without an overall increase in wealth, surely it must be possible to share the resources that already exist more fairly?
The last Labour government took significant steps in this area. The introduction of tax credits provided greater support to working people on low incomes. The creation of a new top rate of income tax meant that those with the broadest shoulders took on a greater share of the burden of fiscal consolidation after the crisis. And the maintenance of inheritance tax weakens some of the most gratuitous transmission of privilege from one generation to the next.
But in the face of strong technological trends hollowing out the labour market, we should be realistic that even heroic efforts by governments are unlikely to secure a fundamental change in the distribution of income in our society, especially within the life of a single parliament. And the first rule of targets is not to set one over which you have very limited control.
Beyond a certain level, such policies become politically unacceptable as more and more people find themselves amongst the losers from redistribution, while the amounts raised in revenue are spread too thinly to generate significant voter gratitude among the winners.
At some point such policies will become economically counterproductive too, as international competition and tax avoidance eventually begin to have a material impact.
Growing the economy therefore still has an important part to play. It means there is no need for a zero-sum game in which one person’s gain from a policy is automatically another person’s loss. The scope for damaging social conflicts is reduced as less political capital need be expended in order to improve the wellbeing of the less well-off. It becomes easier for Labour to be a truly ‘One Nation’ party.
The conclusion is clear. In today’s economy, laissez-faire will not achieve Miliband’s goal of improving the incomes of ordinary working people. But redistribution is not the whole answer either. The next Labour government must also grow the economy and create wealth – and that requires us to be the friend and partner of British business.
———————————-
Stuart Hudson is a former adviser to Gordon Brown and is now a director at the corporate communications firm Brunswick
———————————-
And the name of Labour’s MP who represents the interests of the FSB is….
David, the FSB has no proven record of standing-up for small business start-up when government schemes – partnered by banks – fail said business due to policy and practice failings. Believe me, the governments former SFLG scheme – aimed at helping funding towards viable business ideas and start-ups – was responsible for failing so many people… where was the FSB then? I don’t remember the FSB on the news media making any reference to such government/bank failings when ‘ordinary’ people were failed as a direct result of the policies and practices?
Yes, I agree that the Labour party has to put the tax payers money where its mouth is – if it truly supports small business start-up and its development – and ‘protect those users it – or the bank – fails. Now, this sort of attitude is what creates a sustainable growth in small business… NOT a decline in social mobility of those who “got there against all odds… only to be failed”.
Sorry but I disagree. Members of my branch of FSB have gone out of their way to help me set up my small business as it is almost an article of faith for them to prevent me making the same mistakes as they made. There is also the obvious, long standing, link with the Co-Operative Bank.
When a political question was raised (Is there any way of legislating so as to prevent rival companies/firms posting clearly untrue comments on review sites such as Trip Advisor or the various trades portals?) I hit a brick wall.
Of course I can not comment on what has happened in the past, but it might be a start if something tangible was offered to someone setting up a small business.
David,
Firstly, thank you for your response.
However, you have sadly missed the point I was making – that is, I was not talking about the successful points, I was specifically talking about when viable Small Businesses – let’s not forget those people behind it – who are knowingly FAILED by government/bank schemes. I ask you again, if you are aware of the government’s SFLGS (Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme) you will know what I am talking about. The organisation who stuck their neck out for such people who were failed in this appalling way was IBAS (Independent Banking Advisory Service) – NOT FSB!!
How do I know this? Research and I speak as someone who had previously this scheme.
So, I get your point that when all is well the support is there. What you should be MORE aware of is who SHOUTS at your corner when policies and practice fail you? Would that be FSB? From experience, when it comes to government partnership with banks schemes, IBAS wins the day!!
FSB did not SHOUT in the corner for those failed by this government scheme. I should know, like others, I asked for the support of FSB during such failings… and didn’t gain any collective support from them.
David, wake-up! With the failing of so many VIABLE small businesses by government and banks over the previous decade when have you heard FSB on the news media SHOUTING LOUD about it? NEVER.
I really wish you success in business!
I agree that the Labour party has to put the tax payers money where its mouth is – if it truly supports small business start-up and its development – and ‘protect’ those users it – or the bank – fails.
Now, this sort of attitude is what creates a sustainable growth in small business… NOT a decline in social mobility of those who “get there against all odds… only to be failed”.