The squeezed middle – not just about money

By Graeme Henderson

Yo-yos in schools, checked shirts (outside Shoreditch), cider, 3D movies, indie music, dance music, reporting on knife crime/shark attacks – many things cycle in and out of fashion. Political buzzwords would appear to be no different – empowerment, responsibility, broken society, choice, once in a generation opportunity. Every so often though a new pretender surfaces and in the last year it’s been the turn of the “squeezed middle”. It seems to be something more than a fad, but could its emergence also be more than a stop-gap, could it resonate a little deeper.

The squeezed middle are of course somewhere between 11 million and 42 million in number, depending on who you speak to (and when you speak to them) but let’s not get bogged down in the numbers… it’s perhaps closer to 11 million though… why don’t we call it a round 15 million – those of the working-age population largely independent of means-tested benefits but in no danger of straying into the higher rate tax band. I don’t buy the argument that this group didn’t become better off during the New Labour years. Their incomes may have barely kept pace with inflation but public services dramatically improved and tax credits were not insignificant. Nonetheless, if this group is reliant on government spending to ensure they see some benefit during boom years, it’s time to tweak the system. In times of austerity and cuts, the case for change becomes even more acute. Above all, wage inequality is too high and the fact that it is on an ever increasing trajectory is depressing – where does it end?

But could the plight of the squeezed middle extend beyond their salaries, be more than about money? Might their difficulties stretch to preferring a different economic strategy to their poorer and richer compatriots? Going a step further, is it possible that their woes lie as much in their political neutering as the belt-tightening pressed upon them?

Those most well off in society always prefer higher economic growth – they can afford to take the risks and, when such risks pay off, they get the lion’s share of the upside. This often suits those on benefits fine as in general there will be more money in the pot for redistribution (although their benefits will of course come under pressure during a downturn). The squeezed middle on the other hand favour slower but more stable growth. They don’t get quite the same uplift during the boom times, yet when the busts come, they are disproportionately affected.

As for their political voice, in the past many of the squeezed middle would have had powerful trade unions fighting their battles for them, organisations which no longer wield such might. The unions’ image problem derives from being forced to use the nuclear option too often – in other words the mere threat of a strike is ineffective. The threat of people falling out of society is a far more potent one and therefore normally the government only threatens to permanently take away benefits. Likewise, the best off can threaten to leave the country – normally a bluff, but a bluff nonetheless that the government are unwilling to call. The least fortunate in our society will always have access to benefits, the professional classes have the closed shop protection of their respective professional bodies, and those at the top of society can always threaten to float off into the global elite. Are the squeezed middle seen too often as the easy target for further rounds of quantitative squeezing?

Perhaps more should be expected of those on benefits. By this I mean things that are easily achievable, not unreasonable and made very clear before the event. Let me be very clear, threatening to evict whole families from social housing due to a member being involved in the recent riots is not a step too far, it is four steps too far – taking away all of someone’s benefits (one step too far), evicting them from their social housing home (two steps too far), evicting their entire family (three steps too far), retrospectively deciding to evict their entire family (four steps too far). Perhaps also government needs to find ways of introducing more competition into the professions and even find ways of making the top of society’s threat to leave the country less credible.

As for standing up for the squeezed middle’s interests it will not always be appropriate to support actions such as strikes but Labour should still provide them with a voice and try to ensure that their side of the story is heard. For example with the public sector strike during the summer, Labour could have publicised more that this was the first time in its 127-year history that the Association of Teachers and Lecturers had taken national strike action, and by implication not action that they took lightly. People remember when you stand up for them.

The problem for the squeezed middle is that in the age of the hyperbole, they are not being crushed nor pummelled, just gently squeezed. Squeezed by a thousand cuts rather than death by a thousand cuts.

Labour must always be the party that helps those who need help the most but it has to in addition to this give a voice to the more modest concerns of the squeezed middle and make sure they don’t feel squeezed more than everyone else just because they are a soft target. Let’s not take them for granted, and maybe even stick up for them once in a while. They don’t ask for too much, let’s not give them too little… and let’s also be thankful that no one has felt it necessary yet to talk about a feral middle.