Tories finally return to an Energy Price Cap with measure that is tentative first step on road to easing cost of living burden for many

Photograph: Twilight power lines from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

Finally, a piece of domestic legislation from the government emerges. After a year of prevaricating, the government's promised energy price cap seems to have at last begun it's journey through Parliament.

The energy price cap had been a feature of the Conservative manifesto at the last election, but was jettisoned along with most of their agenda in the aftermath - sacrificed on the Brexit altar.

The opposition has been pressing the government of late to return to the measure. There are many households burdened by the high cost of living and any help extended to them is to be welcomed - and hopefully that is what the Domestic Gas and Electricity Bill will do.

The government had chosen to pursue a less interventionist, less confrontational, approach in the form of promoting how customers could switch tariffs and companies to get a better deal. But customers just weren't playing the markets.

So, with prices continuing to rise more than wages, squeezing households month on month, the government has been forced to take action to tackle the cost of living. But it won't be an easy sell to either the energy industry or to all Conservatives.

When the Tories first announced their interest in a energy price cap, the government's approach was to follow the system for capping pre-payment - with a maximum figure, an absolute cap, based on the lowest regional price that is reviewed biannually.

Energy firms have already expressed discontent. When the layoff of two thousand workers in Britain was announced, Centrica blamed them on the impending prospect of a price cap. Others have been calling for any cap to have 'headroom' to allow competition.

Such arguments are accompanied by the opinion of right-wing think tanks like the IEA, who argue a price cap will give minimal help to those who don't switch, end the benefit that switchers get, and entrench the Big Six - who benefit from the support of government subsidies - at the expense of their smaller competitors.

The progressive view on energy costs anchors on the essential nature of energy - along with other utilities like water. People simply cannot live without their utility supply. That creates an easily exploitable monopoly that must be closely monitored - at the least.

However, there isn't always agreement on how to actually run these services among progressives. But there are plenty who are unconvinced by either extreme - nationalised or privatised. Making switching suppliers easier and capping prices is a sort of middle ground.

So too is the Corbyn-era Labour proposal, to reconstitute municipal and regional public run - whether by cooperatives, non-profits or local authorities - utility companies to establish a basic, baseline affordable supply for everyone to compete with the corporate Big Six.

With Theresa May's admiration for Joseph Chamberlain, she should have little consternation at the prospect of municipal services. As the mayor of Birmingham, he was among the pioneers of local government as an active participant in improving the services for local people.

And for all the arguing back and forth, there is a lot of common ground between Labour and the Conservatives here. In fact, the Tories have pretty much adopted the policy wholesale from Ed Miliband, who had campaigned hard for an energy price freeze.

For this reason, when it comes down to it, the Domestic Gas and Electricity Bill may have a quick passage through Parliament - with the govt able to rely on opposition support to fend off any backbench concerns about interfering with markets.

What is clear is that households are under a lot of pressure - not least those forced to pay upfront for utilities because of poor credit scores. This situation just reinforces the absurd debt-traps that surround those with insecure work and low pay.

Drastic reductions in the price of a basic supply of energy is one move. Making that permanently available through a municipal energy supplier would be a complimentary second. A third would be removing the credit score entry qualifications, to help people get away from expensive, exploitative, pay upfront deals.

Pay caps may very well not be a long term solution. But the more pressing concern is to, on every front possible, unpick the nets cast into the churning water surrounding the poorest and most vulnerable.

Wellbeing has been forgotten in the drive to improve employment statistics

Photograph: Job Centre Plus by Andrew Writer (License) (Cropped)

As we approach eight years of Conservative government, the impact of their time in government is becoming clearer. If we judge a society by the wellbeing of it's poorest members, the Conservatives have fallen short.

Despite low unemployment and a real terms rise in household incomes - about £600 a year between 2007/8 and 2015/16 - the poorest have not seen the benefit, caught beneath the weight of the rising cost of living and Conservative cuts to benefits and tax credits.

As we wrote in October, you can't count on increasing employment alone to improve people's wellbeing - especially if the work available is precarious, with insecure pay and hours.

Last week, Resolution Foundation released a report looking at how employment had changed over the last twenty years. It pointed out that there has been a shift among working people, on the lowest incomes, towards lower hours and part-time employment.

Resolution described this shift as, in part, unwelcome and involuntary - with a quarter of working class people wanting more hours. The squeeze on working hours is not being helped by the increasingly precarious, non-standard form of hours worked.

This situation is coinciding with the real terms increase in earnings being offset by several forces: the rising cost of housing, the rising cost of energy and the rise in households servicing growing debt.

With wage growth lagging behind consumer price rises, the cost of living is putting a great deal of pressure on the least well-off households. The Conservative drive to clamp down on welfare and drive people into work has not delivered greater wellbeing.

For seven and a half years, the Conservative approach has been steady as she goes. Even a change of Prime Minister and Chancellor has not led to a change of plan. The evidence shows that, for the wellbeing of the poorest, this needs to change.

First of all, there is a need to address the punitive impact of welfare reforms - that will see the incomes of the poorest fall 10% by 2021-22 compared to 2010. Work is not paying.

Consider: how does the government expect a household that struggles to stay afloat on a precarious income - juggling high rent and servicing debt - with no extra for savings, to meet it's needs when a job if lost and they're faced with a five week benefits application waiting period? Answer: More debt.

Second, the cost of living must be tackled. We need cheaper energy and cheaper rent. How this will be achieved in the long run - whether by community-owned services to breach the energy monopoly and an expansion of social housing and a living rent, or through increased market competition - in the short term they government action.

And third, bound to the first two, a concerted effort must be made to address the growth of household debt. Debts caused by living costs, mostly rent, are a damning indictment of the failure to make work pay - debts that only increase when help is needed most.

The least well off are being crushed and trapped under Tory policies, living with growing anxiety and precarity. Wellbeing is suffering to no discernible end. That is the tale of eight years of Conservative government.

To achieve its goals, the Living Wage must be part of a comprehensive policy of reform

The Living Wage Foundation has designated this week as Living Wage Week, with the aim of spreading a broader awareness of the measure and what it fights for: the right to a decent standard of living (Ainsley, 2016).

Its launch coincides with the announcements today of the recommended living wage, as part of the voluntary living wage scheme, being instituted by civil administrations in London, Scotland and Wales along with a number of major firms (Living Wage Foundation, 2016) - the actual Living Wage, higher than the government's 'National Living Wage'.

At a time of rising prices and economic uncertainty, an increase in pay will be a very welcome boost for many of the most vulnerable and those facing hard times. But the idea of minimum wages has been controversial in economics. There are sore divisions over the idea of an intervention through the law to 'artificially' raise wages.

For those on the neoliberal economic right, setting minimum wage thresholds are an artificial inflation of the costs of business, where costs are seen as the primary problem. From their view, the priority should be to reduce costs, so to increase competition, and through both together to reduce prices - allowing market-set wages to go further (The Economist, 2015).

On the interventionist economic left, there has been a delicate negotiated balance to strike. With trade unions for instance, there is a need achieve better returns for workers on the one hand, while also ensuring the long term affordability of pay so as to avoid future closures and lay offs.

What particularly concerns both Left and Right is that business, faced with wage inflation, may decide they have little choice but to begin to replace many basic low pay jobs with cheaper automation (The Economist, 2015{2}).

It is absolutely clear that it is just that people get proper returns for a their labour. And further, it makes sense. The OECD has stressed that economic inequality hurts economic growth and therefore the general prosperity (OECD, 2014). That makes measures of redistribution from shareholders to workers, and a fairer distribution of the 'rewards' between them, essential.

However. There can be no complacency. An economy is an intricate web and pulling at one string has knock on affects for the whole network - especially when progressive administrations are not the only ones pulling strings that have decisive results. To achieve the aim of a decent standard of living, just wages must be seen as an integral part of a broader policy of reform, which must look also to the other side of the equation: the cost of living.

In two key sectors, in housing and in energy, high costs have a devastating impact on the economy and the lives of all citizens, especially the most vulnerable. A secure wage goes hand in hand with secure housing and affordable energy - a Living Wage needs the companionship of a Living Rent.

The third aspect of any broad progressive economic policy has to be tackling the thoroughly unequal distribution of power over economic decision-making. Too much decision-making power is concentrated in the hands of too few, creating vested interests inclined to behave like cartels.

Only with all three together - giving citizens the guarantee of a reasonable reward for work, the security of basic housing and energy, and enfranchisement in the making of economic decisions - can the economy serve the needs and wishes of citizens rather than just those of narrow and self-serving interest groups.

And, as a final note, the fear of automation must at some point be addressed. With it, there will also need to be an assessment of our attitudes to welfare, to how work is rewarded, and even our definition of work itself. Above all pursuing one goal: that progress should serve citizens, not disinherit them.

Theresa May and the Brexit cause, stuck with each other, face being unravelled by a common threat: Few things in politics hit home harder than a rise in the price of food

As prices threaten to rise, Theresa May, pictured in her time as Home Secretary, is faced with the same challenge that took down the plans of her hero Joseph Chamberlain. Photograph: Rt Hon Theresa May MP, Home Secretary, at 'The Pioneers: Police and Crime Commissioners, one year on', by the Policy Exchange (License) (Cropped)

Joseph Chamberlain's vision for Britain was an Empire behind a wall of protectionist trade tariffs - literally taxing imports in order to force the use of domestic and colonial resources. Chamberlain's campaign was ultimately defeated when it became clear that protection also gouged prices, increasing the cost of basic necessities like food.

Prime Minister Theresa May seems set to emulate her hero. In the past few weeks, just the fear and uncertainty of a future Brexit alone has been enough to upset investors, which restricts the access to the credit needed to get things done; to decrease the value of the pound, and therefore its purchasing power; and to start squabbles between suppliers and retailers over the price of food.

That is not a great early sign for the May Ministry. Nothing is likely to threaten the long term longevity of a Government than sharp increase in the cost of food. Most policy can be abstracted or explained away with excuses. But little hits home more directly than it being more expensive just to eat. Having hitched her leadership to the abandoned Brexit wagon, their success and failure now appear entwined.

Remain and Leave

Now, unlike during Chamberlain's days, in terms of how the arguments were made, the debate between keeping EU membership and leaving the EU was not supposed to be a straight contest between free trade and protection. Rather, the two sides were in theory presenting different ways to go about free trade. Supporters of the European system saw a free trade area gradually pushing back barriers, while its detractors saw rules and regulations preventing business exploiting opportunities with the emerging economies beyond Europe.

Yet what looks to be an increasingly drastic withdrawal from Europe looks set to have much the same impact as throwing up a wall of import taxes. Withdrawal from the Single Market, as now seems to be on the cards, would put Britain on the outside of Europe's own tariff barriers. That would in essence subject Britain to all the negatives of trade barriers without any of the benefit of recouping tax receipts, since it would be British exports to Europe facing taxes, not the other way around.

And there is little that could be more damning for the Leavers' approach than driving up prices. If there is one thing that free trade offers, through the opportunity to operate at scale, its a reduction in the cost of doing business and therefore, theoretically, a reduction in prices.

Free Trade and Free Movement

When Richard Cobden and John Bright led the Anti-Corn Law League campaign against tariffs, it was to fight the protection it afforded to landowning aristocratic that drove up the price of bread. Keeping down the price of food was one a core group of goals for the free traders of mid-nineteenth century. They also saw in free trade the chance to build a lasting peace between European nations.

The Single Market, formerly known as the Common Market, was the realisation of a century of efforts by Europe's free traders to realise those possibilities - to bring Europe together in peace with a vast barrier-free trade area.

But building that barrier free area has required a massive regulatory reform process. Some on the Right have portrayed those efforts as a nightmare of expensive and restrictive bureaucratic red tape. Yet to the crafters of the free trade area it has been an essential effort to match up the trading standards, on everything from packaging to safety, in all of the member countries - so that no product or service is faced with expensive and restrictive internal barriers.

That process of taking barriers led one of the biggest, most profound and most controversial removals of internal barriers: free movement of labour. As of the vital resources of business, labour has received the same treatment as other barriers to trade, from the standardization of rights to free movement across traditional borders - allowing labour to be where it is needed most and rewarded best.

Freedom and Fear

It is also the change most provocative to what has become the established European order. Europe that went from being divided between lords to being divided rigidly between nations. It still does not seem ready for the prospect or reality of no dividing lines.

To be clear: it is absolutely right to review trade policy. The free traders of the nineteenth century sought to break open, for the general benefit, a state protected cartel of aristocratic landlords. But today's economy is very different and what might have broken one cartel could easily feed another.

The European system is certainly not without issues. The area itself was formed through technocratic standardization rather than purely through the removal of restrictions on business - enough alone to provoke an argument over the definition of 'free' trade.

However. Going back to a world of trade barriers, of tariffs and protectionist import taxes, opens again the box of vested interests being subsidised by the state and of endless trade treaties that it will take never ending public vigilance to keep in check. And pursuing any path motivated by fear, to throw up barriers and restrictions and take away liberties out of arbitrary discrimination, is dangerous.

The Path Ahead

Europe's social fabric is fraying and the walls between nations are going back up. Fears over living standards, paucity of secure housing and lack of opportunities - fueled by years of austerity's chronic denial of public investment - are closing off the EU's member states one by one and turning them inwards.

In the midst of this, Theresa May has bought into the Brexit cause. She has taken it on as her mandate. Her hero Chamberlain saw his efforts thwarted by free traders pointing out an inconvenient truth: that food was too expensive because of a grain cartel his policies supported.

May's Government has inherited a fragile economy in which food prices are just beginning to threaten a rise. Will the Prime Minister be able to act fast and head off the threat? Or will her government go the same way as the protectionist Conservative & Unionists of her idol?