What measure do you prefer, GDP or a happy country?

The influential book "The Spirit Level" [Why Equality is better for Everyone; Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, Penguin 2010] has said it. Economics soothsayer Joseph Stiglitz has said it. Now even the EMF, after years of advocating bank recapitalisation and austerity as medicine for broken economies has said it: inequality is wrong. Awareness of this has long been a major factor behind progressive politics, principally on moral grounds. It is simply not right that some people are rewarded for what they do in huge multiples of the remuneration available to most, when they exert no greater discernible effort and merely happen to have talents "the market" elects as more valuable. In many cases inequality stems from no effort at all, merely from wealth acquired by inheritance, accident or good fortune.

Those now leading the campaign against inequality no longer need rely on moral indignation as the basis for arguing against it. These researched and credible sources have now concluded clearly that it is wrong economics. Inequality is damaging because too much wealth is sucked out of the economy into overseas vaults (literal or metaphorical); and too little into the hands of those whose work has contributed to its creation and who will spend it in our local businesses. The problem with this realisation is that it has little traction with those who run the economy, the very plutocracy whose wealth is so divisive. These strive to ensure that their power is perpetual and that the rest of the people are pacified by being led to believe that we live in a democracy, rather than under an oligarchy of the rich. While there is still a chance for democracy to exert itself, we must wrest power back to the wider population and regain control of the country's assets and levers of power for the good of the 99%. We need Parliament, the law, the infrastructure and proper tax management to be in accountable hands, so that inequality is reduced and a fairer society created. The Economy is not just about GDP but about the wellbeing of people.

Migration as economics

Say “immigration” and the conversation will be about “how many?” Say “migration” and a natural ebb and flow of humanity is depicted, within as well as to and from a country. Say “economics” and immigration falls into its proper place as a cog in the machine, creating and responding to economic and social conditions.

Without injection of new capacity, skills and diversity to our economy, our home-grown demographics will lack the ability to grow the economy, to service pension commitments and to fulfil functions essential to the smooth running of the economy. How would today’s UK function without the contributions of care and health professional, independent retailers and agricultural workers, to say nothing of academics and entrepreneurs of first and second generation immigrant origin? UK needs to look an attractive destination where skills can be employed.

Labour should never be the party to demonise this transfusion; but it can and should ensure that the right parameters apply. Labour’s value of long-termism should be applied to a vision of what sort of country we want, in terms of population size, diversity and qualifications. The demise of trade and industry councils on whose advice sectoral skills requirements could be identified has left the recruitment of the skills needed for our future economy, be these from home-grown or imported talent rudderless. Whilst we must continue to welcome incomers on humanitarian grounds, we should set out our recruitment stall in the EU in particular, and help those who may consider migration to decide if they may expect find a welcome and a job here. UK should not seek the skills of those whose capabilities are more important to their country of origin. This may suggest that working in and with source countries to educate and develop a future workforce meeting UK as well as domestic needs could become an important role for DFID/FCO.

We do not need money launderers or the mega-rich who merely extract wealth from our nation. All incomers should expect to pay taxes just as any indigenous citizen would, including on assets which are not working for the economy. We have to form a view on the demand for lower wage workers in sectors such as agriculture; and how this draws migrants in. Raising and policing minimum wages may encourage more uptake of such work by indigenous workers but equally attract more incomers.

How can this formula be implemented, though? Free movement within Europe, including UK, surely offers the best market for recruiting the skills we need. Sounder borders and internal implementation of regulations for employment throughout Europe, including UK, will enable any unwarranted inward migration to be managed. UK’s libertarian attitude to identity documentation may be a barrier to such a policy and should be revisited, pragmatically.

Above all, Labour needs to address the agenda, language and prejudices which drive the public perception of this topic. Only by leading with a language which is more strategic, factual, positive and inclusive will we be able to pull away from the sterile, xenophobic arguments about how many “others” we find it acceptable to live with.

Tom for UckfieldLabour