Jobs versus job security: That's what this election really boils down to

The NHS, immigration, public finances, the environment and education are all posited as major issues at this general election.

But, as an advisor of Bill Clinton asked during a U.S. presidential contest 23 years ago, what will be the key issue in the end? “It’s the economy, stupid!”

And Britain's vote in 2015 will be no different – except that the debate is now increasingly about the kind of economy we want and whom it works for.

What this election really boils down to is jobs versus job security.

Basically, this means a choice between lots more but generally lower income and precarious jobs, which is what the Conservatives are essentially promoting, versus fewer but better paid and more secure ones, which is what Labour appear to offer.

Of course, neither of these two parties, who remain the likeliest to lead the next government, have painted their starkly competing visions in such plain terms, but that’s the choice we face.

David Cameron today said that if he remains in Downing Street his administration would create a further two million jobs and give Britain “effective full employment”.

Since he came to office, employment – contrary to initial expectations - has risen by 1.9million to the highest number ever in work, so the pledge sounds credible.

But, given 700,000 of those new positions were zero-hours contracts – jobs that aren’t just low paid but also, in a chilling echo of the Victorian era, don’t provide holidays, sick pay or pensions – it’s likely there will be quite a few more of these.

A Tory-sponsored rise in cheap, precarious employment of this kind would almost certainly encourage other employers to be similarly ruthless, so it’s no good assuming that your job would be safe.

At the same time, the party plans to continue its programme of forcing tens of thousands of unemployed people to work for free, which will further undermine pay.

Real wages are 8% below their 2007 peak and British workers are now have the third lowest hourly rate of the initial 15 members of the EU.

And while this is wonderful for many employers, it is miserable for most families and also a false economy.

Derisory pay and conditions are a major factor in why the Britain is the only major economy that has failed to raise productivity beyond its pre-crisis peak.

The painful truth is that Britain’s army of cheap workers produce a fifth less in an hour than the French and 9% less than Italians – both nations we like to mock as lazy.

In his Budget, George Osborne was positively gleeful when he said that the intake from the top 1% of earners had risen to 27% of all revenues.

But rising inequality – with the top 20% now earning 7.4 times more than the bottom 20% - mean that we are relying more and more on the rich and ensuring the rest of us have less influences over services like the NHS that we and not they rely on.

And if those at the bottom are paying less tax that also means many of them are also spending less in the economy and that is bad because poorer people spend a much bigger proportion of their incomes on goods and services.

Labour, though far from perfect in my eyes, at least recognise these problems and have said they want to focus on raising living standards, which over the last five years have suffered the deepest decline since the mid-19th century.

They are argue that the resulting shrinking tax base is the reason that Chancellor George Osborne, despite wielding a great axe, has failed to cut the deficit like he promised.

Ed Miliband’s proposed solution to this problem is to raise the minimum wage by 23%, which is likely to spur salary increases further up the income scale, while also banning zero-hour contracts, which should also help promote wider job security.

They also want to help reduce living costs, so have pledged to freeze energy bills, substantially increase free childcare and reintroduce rent controls.

Beyond that, Labour plan to guarantee a properly paid job to every young person who has been on the dole for more than 12 months or risk losing.

All of this would allow ordinary families to spend more, boosting the economy further while allowing the government to spend less on income support and housing benefit, both of which have soared under the Coalition.

And, yes, protecting the most vulnerable by scrapping the spiteful bedroom tax and maintaining benefits – and not promising £12billion worth of new welfare cuts like the Tories - would also help our economy by boosting the spending of those least likely to stash their cash in the Cayman Islands.

It would also help tackle the utter disgrace of forcing almost a million people to rely on food banks in order to feed themselves

The Tories’ natural response to this is to warn of a Labour tax “bombshell” – with David Cameron yesterday claiming that a Miliband government would cost the average working family an extra £3,000 in tax over the next parliament.

But, even if this was true and the highly respected and independent Institute for Fiscal Studies had not so quickly rubbished this figure, the average man and woman is unlikely to be financially better off under the Tories.

Low tax becomes irrelevant if Britons never see a pay rise and if services that few could afford for without state help are allowed to be ruined.

At the same time, cheap workers are less valuable to employers if, when constantly demoralised, productivity continues to slump and puts future growth at serious risk.

So the choice is simple. Do you want low wages, increasingly precarious employment and a race to the bottom with the Tories?

Or a shot at some job dignity with Labour and the hope of an economy that lifts all boats with the rising tide and not just the yachts?