Employment isn't a simple matter - the numbers hide complex picture of poverty, precarity and the need for opportunity

The government's favourite fallback when criticised is to turn to the employment figures. Theresa May pulled the figures out at last week's PMQs, saying that she noticed the opposition leader hadn't raised the subject with her.

But the government's excitement about those figures is hard to square with the reality of life in this economy for ordinary workers.

The fact that the dominant corporate culture in Britain sees it as a viable strategy to lay off thousands of workers in 'restructuring', explains a lot about how most of the people in poverty in Britain can be in work - suffering in poverty despite having paying jobs.

Employment may be high, but big questions remain about the quality of employment. Retail may not be work that produces the greatest satisfaction, but it does provide opportunities for those who need them most - like a ladder to management experience and the stability that can provide.

The latest threat to that slender social mobility ladder is the restructuring happening at Tesco, where unions are afraid that as many of 15,000 jobs are going to be cut, some two dozen per store - more job losses at the firm, that follow on from some ten thousand others lost in the last four years.

Uncertainty and precarity are becoming the norm. Average wages remain below what they were in 2010. Income equality in Britain continues to decline. And amidst these pressures, the welfare safety net has been diminished. This is the pattern that lies hidden behind the employment figures.

Over time, of course employment won't stay the same. Some kinds of work will disappear and others will replace them. Perhaps, over time, work itself will change beyond recognition - to no longer be the 'work to live' system we are familiar with. But it will change.

It isn't good enough for Conservatives to preach innovation, to preach flexibility. That approach is leaving people with no stability and rising anxiety. Trapped in a precarious working life that isn't rewarding people. There has to be a better way.

Brexit looms, hovering menacingly over everything, threatening to diminish workers rights and job security, ordinary people need reassurances about the future. The old ladders to prosperity for working class people are being kicked down.

It's no good talking up the figures when thousands are facing layoffs. What people need is to be able to depend upon practical support when they lose work, and the same as they try to develop the skills to find a new path forward. To know that there are paths they can take, opportunities for a stable life.

That means more intervention and more guidance. More communication, to let people know where the paths are and what people will need on those roles. This is only the beginning of what is needed, but in a time of crisis you have to deal with the emergency first.

The disappearance of high street retail jobs hurts working class most, taking away crucial ladder to opportunities

In the year 2000, the European Union issued it's Lisbon Strategy.The plan, under then President of the European Commission Romano Prodi, was to prepare Europe for the 'knowledge economy', in which the continent was to be the skill and knowledge centre for the world.

The advance of technology on the high street is part of what that strategy was preparing for - to transition to a position where low skill work was done by machines, giving people more time, education and training needed  to prepare for more technical and high skilled work.

The problem across Europe, including here in Britain, is that the expansion of skills, education and the opportunities to exploit them - necessary to making this transition work for the working class - hasn't happened.

Low skill work is going away, but it's loss is only hindering the working class. In the past year alone in Britain, twenty two thousand high street retail jobs have been cut. Many more are planned. With them, crucially, goes job and income security for the working class.

And it's not just shop floor work. Management positions are being lost too. With them goes the ladder that working class people could, in the past, have climbed towards greater opportunities with more responsibility and higher pay - the entry level access point to a well paying career.

Now. The decline of any particular market sector is not, by itself, a disaster - so long as opportunities for people to make a living continue to appear to offset the losses of security of work & income, and that ladder to opportunity.

However, the stats do not look great. While unemployment is at a forty year low, working poverty is high. Child poverty is high. Precarious work is high. Security of income is under threat at a time when pay has not yet recovered from the long post-2008 slump.

Moving to a knowledge economy is the right direction. But only if it takes working class people with it. Abolishing entry level work to reduce corporate bottom lines at the expense of the poorest and most vulnerable is despicable.

Without a framework of education and training, and a responsive social security network - built around a reliable means of making a living and a flexible income guarantee for a volatile, and frequently 'gig' oriented, economy - the transition becomes a step backward, techology in the hands of business again reducing people rather than elevating them.

And elevation is the point. Liberation is the point. If technology is not going to free us, increasing our capacities and opportunities, then what is the point of it?

The reality of austerity Britain: work and life are now poor, precarious and uncertain

People gather in Manchester to march against austerity past the Conservative Party Conference 2017.

The reality of the Tories' austerity Britain was exposed in the figures released last week. Those figures revealed that wage growth remains poor at 2.2%, barely above pre-crash levels and falling behind consumer prices rises, with inflation now at 2.9%.

But what do these figures tell us about the big picture of austerity Britain?

Consider Theresa May's response when confronted on issues like poor wages - unemployment is falling. Whenever the PM is confronted, she turns to the unemployment/employment figures. The trouble is, you can't just say that employment is in itself a fix.

Especially when it evidentially isn't the case. Britain might have it's highest recorded employment and lowest unemployment, but what do we know about the quality of life that is providing? What we know, is that working poverty is now very high.

There is no essential truth that employment fixes people's problems or empowers them. Work can only bring liberty under certain conditions.

And austerity Britain is a land of precarity, where social security has been replaced with - or perhaps, outsourced to - uncertain and scarce low paid work. All of which is now threatened by automation, and pits ordinary people against each other in long applicant lists.

This is only heightened by the flaming wreckage of the welfare system. People in need are left without support, and in mounting arrears, for a month and a half when claim out of work support - a situation the government are struggling to even convince there own party to support.

Inevitably, Brexit comes into this. It is important that the ideological case behind leaving the European Union was never made clear. But it's argument for 'freer trade' and less regulation, is a pitch to go further down the road on which we currently travel - to a place of permanently less surety or stability.

But why would those who have campaigned so hard for Brexit want this?

Pete North, Editor of LeaveHQ, blogged how - what he himself described as - the long, painful years of austerity still to come, will in fact be a price worth paying (by ordinary people whose lives would be left in tatters) to accomplish a kind of vague social change, that displayed for more ignorance about young people than any comprehensive thought on the subject.

The governments of David Cameron and Theresa May have pledged a more compassionate conservatism, that takes care of those most in need, while being responsible with the public finances. They have been failures on both fronts.

None of their measures have delivered on even one of these aims. The debt continues to climb. Meeting deficit targets is still delayed. All the pain of austerity and ordinary lives dropped in uncertainty, and the government has nothing to show for it - neither in the public finances or in producing a compassionate society.

Seven years of Conservative government has been a diastrous experiment. It's time to get off this road and find a new way forward.

Labour and the Basic Income: To make automation work for people, first the relationships between people and society, work and welfare, must be reframed

To tackle the problems of the future, first we need to rethink our approach to work and welfare. Photograph: Job Centre Plus by Andrew Writer (License) (Cropped)

In the passed few weeks, the Labour Party has been talking up it's determination to make technological advances work for ordinary people, rather than disenfranchise them.

For the party leader Jeremy Corbyn, the focus has been on the workplace. Corbyn has raised the question of how to use cooperative collective ownership of businesses by workers to put automation in the hands of people - rather than let automation be their replacement in the hands of their bosses.

Meanwhile, Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell has focused on the state role. McDonnell, talking at a Manchester anti-austerity event, spoke of a renewed drive for public investment as the first step to anchoring technology to people and their interests.

It was left to the Labour National Youth Conference to contribute the third integral component, with the future of the Labour Party backing a motion in support of the universal basic income.

The motion acknowledged both the problems with Britain's welfare system and the concerns for the future being raised by the rise of automation. To answer these, the LNYC motion presented the basic income.

The basic income is a universal form of welfare, a payment received - with very little bureaucracy - by all citizens. It is designed to cover the basic essentials of life, so as to end poverty and it's coercive power over how people choose to live.

Labour usually falls in with the same basic conceit, shared by most right wing liberal groups, social democrats and worker's parties: that life begins and ends with work - or rather, with wage labour. That work of this sort is a fundamental component and an axiom in the building of any social model.

Work, to 'earn' the right to live in exchange, is treated as a value. As a moral component essential to any social contract. But for progressives, this cannot be the last word.

If we are to have true social progress, we must start first with a base of no poverty and no homelessness. We must begin with the right to live. If we care about choice, about liberty and justice, we must not let coercion remain the starting point for engaging with society.

For the Labour Party in particular, embrace of that wage labour conceit verges on hypocrisy - the party of workers buying into the 'moral value' of 'working for a living'.

There has not been nearly enough scepticism of it, or recognition that it is a value of limited scope. Restricted to the specific benefits it delivers within a specific social system. A system in which even certain forms of work are prioritised above others, and were these forms of work are made nearly mandatory.

Right now there is a crisis in welfare - but not the way the Conservatives think. The crisis in welfare is one of dignity. Conservative cuts have strangled Britain's social security safety net.

That has left vulnerable people at the hands of an exploitative market and put through probing, demoralising, assessments by organisations with weak ethical codes and goals that run counter to the wellbeing of people who desperately need support.

If Labour are really going to reform this country, to tackle these kinds of injustice, they first need to get the foundations right. By no means is basic income a panacea. But it is a fairer and less coercive starting point for a society.

As more and more work becomes automated, as paid work becomes more scarce, we need that fairer starting point as a basis upon which to build a new kind of relationship between people and society - one that acknowledges, from the start, their basic right to live.

The questions the Prime Minister doesn't answer are usually the important ones, like Layla Moran's question on free childcare

Photograph: Child Care by Lubomirkin on Unsplash (License) (Cropped)

On Wednesday, new Liberal Democrat MP Layla Moran attempted to ask a question at PMQs. Her effort was drowned out - and ultimately upstaged by - the Tories' reaction. The bad behaviour of MPs got the headlines and successfully buried the lead.

Getting the media to write headlines about bad behaviour - the proverbial dead cat on the table - rather than the substance of policy is the basic aim of cynical political strategy. For the Conservatives, that's a point scored.

Moran was finally able to ask her question, though, and called on the PM to take action on the problems that have arisen with the Government's longstanding pledge to expand free childcare to thirty hours a week for 3 and 4 year olds.

The Prime Minister's response was less than convincing and that shouldn't be a surprise. The problems encountered in delivering this flagship policy underline the fundamental failings of the May Government and it's predecessor.

The plan to expand free childcare, a major campaign promise, has run into major problems. The moderated version of these events are that some thousands of families can't access the service thanks to 'technical issues'.

However, Layla Moran turned a light on the deeper problems underlying the implementation: the Tory claim that they were offering so called 'free' childcare masks the fact that they're not paying the full cost of the childcare.

This is a persistent habit of the Tories. They make big pledges, but then shift responsibility for delivery, and for raising funding, to others. Local government has also been hurt by this Conservative approach.

The Tories hand off ever further responsibility from central government, while drastically reducing funding as they devolve control over it. Social care in particular has been badly hit, even as the costs in the sector continually rise.

It's worth noting it was Theresa May's attempt to respond to that self-created social care crisis that hurt the Tories so badly at the election. The party's new plans for social care - to raid middle class homeowners - didn't survive beyond the manifesto launch.

In the case of childcare, it means that many providers won't offer the service as it is simply not finacially viable to do so. That will restrict access to free care. For others, it will mean increased costs as providers are forced to spread the costs across other service users.

This is a trend with the Conservatives, one that has plagued the policies enacted by the government. Privatised delivery has produced poor results and ethical violations in the provision of welfare. Local government has had funding taken away and then been called out for not keeping front line services, such as libraries, open.

Outcomes can be explained away. They can be put down to ideological differences as to the end goals, or dismissed with excuses blaming past governments or other bodies. But the failure of flagship policies shouldn't be shrugged off.

The expansion of free childcare is a long standing promise, but one that has had a cloud over it for most of that time. Failure to provide the plans with adequate funding was pointed out as far back as the end of 2016.

Problems have been noted and gone unaddressed, undermining the fundamental promise contained in the pledged policy. Failures like this need to be catalogued, because it keeps happening under these Conservative governments.

Shifting responsibility to others, denying funding. At some point, the buck has to stop and the Conservatives have to be held to account for their policies and their failure in the delivery of them.

Junior doctors strike ballot exposes reality of human cost behind Tory laissez-faire

Junior Doctors at Castlefields Arena in October, taking part in the People's Assembly Take Back Manchester protest march that was held in parallel with the Conservative Party Conference.

Last week ended with news that ballots had been sent out a for vote on whether doctors should go on strike (The Guardian, 2015). The decision follows the latest developments in the dispute between junior doctors and Conservative Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt (The Economist, 2015).

With Prime Minister's Questions as a back drop, Hunt attempted to see off possible strike action with an offer of higher pay to junior doctors (Campbell, 2015). Yet his offer of an 11% rise was heavily criticised for being massively offset by the redefining of working hours to run longer into the evening - cutting what could previously be defined as out-of-hours pay during anti-social hours.

A vote for industrial action will surely reignite the tense clashes between government and unionised public servants that have been so much a feature of the Cameron ministries. As with the tube strikes, fears over long shifts worked during anti-social hours have led to stand offs and tense meetings between public sector union leaders and Conservative government ministers (BBC, 2015; Cooper, 2015).

For the Conservatives, their response has been consistent. They have refused point blank to see the human impact of political and economic decisions. The approach of the Right over the last five years has been to simply dismiss or condemn public servant strikes as "irresponsible" and inappropriate (BBC, 2011; Wardrop, 2011; Evening Standard, 2015).

Yet Conservative decisions are having profound affects upon the lives of many people, not least public servants. There have been public sector and private sector job losses, a more frightening prospect for many as unemployment support has also been cut and restricted, and invasive pressures have been put upon public servants.

From doctors to tube workers, to low pay workers, the balance between work and life is being drastically tipped by a lurching grasping attempt by the market to snatch up the personal time of citizens (Jeffries, 2014; The Guardian, 2015). Hours are running longer and later, more temporary and more insecure. Refusal runs the risk of dismissal in favour of someone who will accept the conditions.

On the Conservative part, there is a denial of responsibility. As Conservatives shift the duties and burdens onto the individual, they stand by their laissez-faire position that it is not the place of the state to 'interfere' with how markets are shaping people's lives.

Yet the Conservative use of the laissez-faire approach does not seem to reflect its liberal origins. The difference between laissez-faire in the hands of the Liberals of old and the Conservatives of today, is that the Liberals saw work as a means to personal self-improvement and liberation.

In pursuit of those aims, of ensuring that "individual men and women may have life, and that they might have it more abundantly", Liberals moved away from laissez-faire - towards a more interventionist approach - when the realities of exploitation and poverty where exposed. The ideological and economic ground they abandoned has been occupied by the Conservatives.

In Conservative hands the high aims of laissez-faire look more like propaganda. The economy, as they're managing it, is hugely unequal. Their 'apparent' prosperity is built around the statistical distortion caused by the concentrated wealth of the 1% - through property and other assets holding inflated value - and through "competitiveness" - where investors and employers can be guaranteed cheap labour, from workers who live increasingly fragile and temporary lives filled with stress and anxiety.

This is laissez-faire within a strictly hierarchical, deeply unequal, conservatism organisation of society. A society where free time is treated as the privileged reward of success in a system based around wealth, assets and property. That system locks out the poor and the unfortunate, who have no chance of owning property at grossly inflated prices and for whom social progress requires some combination of debt, nepotism and extreme good fortune (Mason, 2015).

What the junior doctors are campaigning for affects all citizens. Safely run services and respect for the rights of citizens to lives outside of work. It isn't unreasonable to put alongside to those demands the right to some sort of security & consistency, and a guarantee against poverty, as demands on workers become greater and the safety nets to protect them become thinner.

The market may have competition but it is not fair, particularly in a society suffering from massive inequality. For a government to choose to stand by as people are stretched thin, used up & exploited, or cast recklessly adrift by market forces is for it to neglect its duty to social welfare. Whether they like it or not, Conservatives have to face to fact that the state has a duty to interfere and that it can do so for the common good.

Intervention doesn't have to mean state ownership. There are decentralised alternatives like co-operatives and a citizen's income that could empower workers and make them more secure. But what it does mean, is that a government has to be prepared to act and to look beyond the appearance of prosperity, as reflected in short term profits, to find better alternatives.

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.