Labour leads the Conservatives on voting intention by 43 per cent to 28 per cent, according to a poll by YouGov and The Times. So how would the favourites to win the next general election try to tackle the cost of living squeeze? Depressingly, the answer seems to be: through price and wage controls.

After the party’s proposal to subsidise an energy price freeze, Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, announced on Sunday that Labour would mandate the Low Pay Commission to “factor in living costs” when setting the national living wage. Why employers of low-wage workers should compensate employees for rocketing fuel or food prices, as opposed to paying them for their toil, is left unexplained.

Some of us saw this risk coming. When George Osborne unveiled the new, higher “national living wage” when he was chancellor in 2015, he politicised the Low Pay Commission. From 1999 onwards, the body had set the original minimum wage prudently, at levels businesses could afford, to avoid significant job losses.

Osborne demanded more aggressive rises, waving away concerns about unemployment risks. In doing so, he set a precedent for politicians to change the Low Pay Commission’s mandate. Naming his brainwave the national “living” wage, he embedded into the political discourse a rhetorical link between the wage floor and living costs.

Unlike with the handwringing over changing the Bank of England’s mandate, concerns about this politicisation of the wage floor were ignored. Sure enough, an arms race ensued. The target for the national living wage was increased further in 2020, from 60 per cent to 66 per cent of median hourly earnings by 2024. Labour still shouted “more!”; now the party wants the minimum proofed against double-digit inflation. Well, we assume so. The party’s stated policy — for the Low Pay Commission to consider living costs alongside median wages — is suitably vague. Maybe Labour wants a double-lock, such that if inflation rises faster than median earnings, the wage floor tracks prices. Perhaps it wants to ape the official living wage campaign in hooking an undergirding minimum to the cost of life’s essentials.

Either way, today’s supply-shock conditions highlight the danger. Energy price rises make us poorer. Production becomes more expensive and workers less productive, making cuts in real pay inevitable. Forcing companies to pretend this isn’t happening and to keep real pay unchanged, above market levels, is a surefire route to mass layoffs or firms going under.

This is not to deny the real pain that workers will feel. The energy shock will require substantial government relief to many households. Average real weekly earnings have been stagnating since early 2008. Clearly, though, minimum wage rises are no route to salvation. The wage floor has risen in real terms from about £8 an hour in 2010 to £9.50 this year, a 19 per cent increase. It’s the mere 7 per cent rise in productivity over those 12 years that’s really done for the average worker.

There’s a lesson here. Sustainable ways to improve most workers’ financial lot are limited to faster productivity growth or reversing bad policies such as tight planning laws, energy supply constraints, protectionism and childcare staffing regulations that make essentials more expensive. Labour’s plan ignores this, instead forcing low-wage employers to bear the costs of these terrible policies.

By all means, let’s help poorer households to keep the lights on and pay their rent. We should do it, though, through honest redistribution, not wage controls. Compelling businesses to deliver social policy, by paying employees much more than the value of their work, would kill jobs and businesses.