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.

Ed Miliband failed in efforts to put the cost of living at the centre of the political debate, but it remains the big picture

Photograph: Ed Miliband gives his first keynote speech to Labour Party conference as leader, in September 2010. At Labour Party Conference, Manchester (License) (Cropped)

At a time when compassion for the suffering of others is at a high, even forcing Prime Minister David Cameron into accepting more refugees from Syria (BBC, 2015), it is worth remembering that compassion is needed domestically as well. Homelessness has increased even as housing costs have continued to soar (White, 2015). The rising cost of welfare has led to questionable actions to reduce the bill (Stone, 2015) and the proliferation food banks (Wintour & Butler, 2014).

These are all expressions of an underlying theme: the cost of living is too high. Before he became mired in the catastrophic miscalculations that were the Ed Stone and the mugs that boasted of closing borders to foreigners, Ed Miliband tried and failed to make the cost of living the centrepiece of his leadership of the Labour Party (Miliband, 2014).

Overcome by the media pressure to deal with the big issues facing Britain with stern and direct action, as well as party insider insistence on pursuing obsessively conservative methods (Glasman, 2011), Miliband's attempt to take the lead on the big issues of the day dissolved into populist political stunts. For just a moment the Labour leadership had grasped a single coherent theme that might have helped the party to form a distinctive position.

These two, big, long term problems facing the UK - that housing is too expensive and that welfare costs too much - have often been reduced to the result of 'migration problem' which, it is commonly believed, increases the burdens on both of the first two, so making them all the more expensive. Yet migration is little more than a scapegoat, or an exacerbation that exposes fears, and only distracts from the real issues moving beneath the surface. The fact is that the cost of living is too high - there is some dispute, however, as to why.

In the struggle to tackle the exorbitant cost of living, there are two schools. On the Right, the focus is upon so-called distortions of the market - instead of relying on market competition to set prices so that efficient marginal wages will go further, the Right sees government as interfering and managing in a manner that leads to distortions and corporate oligarchies. On the Left, the answers lie with income inequality - provoking a need for intervention to introduce regulation, maximum wages, redistributive taxation, all to ensure that workers earn a better share.

Cost of Living and the Right

On the Right, one of the big criticisms of Left-wing economics is its failure to keep minimum wages, and other measures that inflate costs for business, under control. From the pro-market perspective, a rise in wages increases prices. That wage inflation drives price inflation, which gives rise to wage inflation, in a vicious cycle.

The argument goes that minimum wages hurt employment - they increase labour costs artificially and put basic low paid work at risk of replacement by more economically efficient automation (The Economist, 2015). More complex assessments argue that tax credits are a superior welfare alternative, encouraging people to work by offering subsidy without driving up business costs. Employers can respond by paying more, as they might say, 'competitive' wages - low enough that they can have more staff and more staff of greater skill - with incomes of low paid workers being effectively 'topped up' by tax credits, with the government taking on the cost.

However, with the age of austerity in full swing and public debt being used as the rallying banner for cutting back state taxation and spending, governments have wanted to cut their own budgets (Money Talks, 2015). Tax credits, as a sizeable public expenditure, has become a target, with its cost being passed on to businesses in the form of increases in the minimum wage. That, of course, needs to be paid for out of business profits and so is passed on to customers in higher prices - resulting in higher wages not necessarily meaning relatively higher incomes, as the cost of living also goes up.

For the economic Right, the focus is on trying to find ways to reduce the cost of living without tampering with the delicate functioning of the market (The Economist, 2015{2}). That has led to calls for planning regulation reform to ease way to profits in the house building sector (BBC, 105{2}).

However, the cost of living presents huge challenges, such as the gigantic housing costs, that have no easy or cheap fix. Building houses to address housing shortages is necessary. Yet it is also expensive and the profits that can be derived from a project are as much a part of the problem as the shortage itself. Nor does building them alone tackle the other issues like the unfairness of ownership and the need for economies of scale in the rental sector. Previous attempts in the UK to thrust this task upon the private sector, under Thatcher, only helped propel the country into the present crisis (Gulliver, 2013).

Cost of Living and the Left

For the Left, the pro-market analysis is taken as tantamount to an attack on the life security of the poorest. Moving away from minimum wages is seen as a dangerous step further along the road towards the precarious lives filled with constant stress of zero-hours contracts (Fleming, 2015).

They would seem to have good reason to be guarded. There is evidence that suggests in-work poverty is climbing and the gap between the poorest and prosperity is widening (Pradella, 2015). The relative wage, the value retained by workers from the value they produced, is under increasing pressure.

The response of the Left, historically, has been to try and ameliorate these conditions through welfare. The most obvious and blunt force approach has been deficit spending on public sector projects, a Keynesian option to create more and better paid work - allowing workers to afford a more stable life. This is an idea that, with a new twist, is being considered again by Jeremy Corbyn (Peston, 2015).

For the broader economy, the benefits are proposed to lie in the Keynesian priority of propping up demand. The struggle has become finding a way of doing so within the dominant capitalist market system, without upsetting its balance. The Left's main tools for the task have been tax credits and minimum wages.

Corbyn, in particular, appears to want to turn back - for the duration of the crisis at least - to the more blunt approach with his people's quantitative easing. To make up for lack of income distribution into the pockets of consumers, which suppresses demand, Corbyn suggests turning to credit - much as Reagan and Thatcher did after the suppression of workers' bargaining power in the 1980s (Harvey, 2010). But in true democratic fashion, the burden of that debt falls of the state on behalf of all of the people, rather than on the head of any particular debtor.

So while the pro-market Right is interested in seeking ways to make it possible to do more with less, the Left's focus on giving people more to spend.

Cost of Living: The Bigger Picture

However, because Corbyn's QE for the People is just a correction for a crisis, sooner of later the Left will have to come back around to Ed Miliband's aborted project to tackle the cost of living head on, which, under pressure from the clamour to tackle public debts, shows significant crossover with the Right. Miliband's strategy included promises to tackle energy costs, to increase the housing supply, to tackle renting costs, to cut tax for poorest, to cut small business rates, to increase wages and clamp down on the illegal - and migrant-exploiting - practice of undercutting wages.

The pro-market groups on the Right also have to confront big questions. When the early free traders, like Richard Cobden and John Bright, wanted to extend free trade in the interests of peace, breaking the power of corporations and land owners, and making food cheaper for the people. Modern free traders are battling against the land oligarchies of their own times, but the power and influence of rentiers over the high cost of dwellings will not be shaken off by a laissez-faire cull of regulations. Rentiers own the playing field as well as the pieces.

If the high price of housing and energy could be tackled, then a debate over minimum wages or marginal wages would be held on a much clearer, unfogged, field. The discussion of the impact of wage levels - and how they set the 'purchase power' of the poorest, with their higher pay coming at the cost of higher business prices, potentially meaning higher prices and lower employment - would be substantially more straightforward.

Yet it is hard to shake the feeling that the wages debate would still mean buying into an economic rhetoric based on manipulation and coercion of people into certain kinds of 'productive' behaviours, and which ignores key ideas. Particularly, who benefits, how and how equally from the profits/net gains of an enterprise? There were elements of that idea in the debate that Ed Miliband tried to open up on the cost of living, in taking elements from both camps.

But it didn't go far enough, going only so far as to make a pitch to the middle class within present structures (Grice, 2014) - and was soon drowned out by populist support for closed borders and austerity toward welfare. Surely, the really progressive approach is to ask whether we can reconstruct the economy so that people can get a better relative share of the product of their work, see their relative share go further, and have greater social security?

The only way to achieve that is to tackle the cost of living holistically. Such an alternative approach to solving the cost of living crisis would need to be coherent, with a core idea and theme that would bind the various parts together.

It would need co-operation and mutuality in all sectors, to give people the power to ensure they receive a proper relative share. It would need guarantees of basic economic securities that would have a minimal distorting affect upon the costs of business, such as a citizen's income. And, it would need to tackle the oligarchic rentier control over the basic fundamental resources such as energy and housing that siphon off so much of a wage - particularly in the housing sector where, both in ownership and rental, costs have spiralled up beyond any semblance of reality under the inefficient system of private landlords that blocks the positive affects of economies of scale.

While presenting a progressive alternative would be a gigantic challenge, it also presents a clear and distinct path forwards. In a mainstream assembled around frustratingly similar politicians offering bafflingly similar ideas, a distinct and coherent economic alternative could be electorally popular as well as economically necessary.