Advanced Practical Politics exam: Q1
Section A: We posit the theory that to tackle inequality in the UK economy without reliance on the tax and benefits system, we need an emphasis on higher wages and on supporting improved collective bargaining rights by workers and Trade Unions. (reversing what Jacob Hacker calls the “declining organisational might of the middle“).
Section Two: The leading Trade Unions in Britain announce plans for a wave of strikes for higher wages in the public sector.
Your task is to reconcile supporting the theory advanced in (A) while urging restraint on those engaged in (B), without obvious repetition, deviation, obfuscation or evasion.
Note: Distinction will be awarded for answers that employ repetition, deviation, obfuscation and evasion, if not used obviously.
I wouldn’t call A, predistribution, its making sure everyone is paid what they are worth to start off with. The theory in A is about making sure that everyone is valued in society and are paid accordingly. This is supported by liberals all over the world whilst predistribution is to make it favourable to socialists.
Second, the Trade Unions as well as CEOs and other highly waged individuals in the private sector need to remember that everything is relative, therefore they should question and be challenged by governments, employees as to why a certain job is worth a certain amount i.e. why is banker being paid a million pound bonus for failing?
Supplementary questions for Nicola:
Define your terms: “what they are worth”, “everyone is valued”, and “paid accordingly”. If there is any subjective element to the definitions of these phrases and given that, by your definition, no one is disinterested, how would you go about appointing disinterested individuals to define the terms? Or disinterested individuals to appoint the disinterested individuals to define the terms?
Is there any sense in which the phrase “everything is relative” has ever advanced any serious discussion of any material question ever? If so, please detail your example(s) and specify the value it added.
I’d think the obvious ways to address this are:
a) backing pay rises for lower-paid workers, but urging pay restraint for those earning above the national median wage (or other suitable figure). Gets you a slight argument with the trade unions but a publically defensible position, and still allows you to back some of the aims of the strikes and
b) pointing out that low pay is more of an issue in the private sector and especially in formerly public sector but now outsourced jobs, and hence calling on the unions to increase their presence in those sectors.
Mind you, these moves are meant to uncomfortable for the Shadow Cabinet. There’s clearly a move in the leadership of some unions to force Labour to take a stand either way, and then you have the likes of PCS and the NUT who hate us as much as if not more than the Tories.