Coalition sees average earnings fall in every part of the UK

Working people in every region of the UK are significantly worse of in real terms since 2010, according to figures from the Labour Party.

Working people in every region of the UK are significantly worse of in real terms since 2010, according to figures from the Labour Party.

London, Yorkshire and the Humber, the North West, Wales and the East of England have seen the biggest falls.

The figures come ahead of an opposition day debate on living standards, economic growth and the deficit in which Labour will say that the government has failed to meet the goals it set in 2010.

Labour’s shadow chief secretary to the treasury Chris Leslie said that “far from delivering rising living standards, working people are now over £1600 a year worse off under this government”.

“Instead of securing the recovery in 2010 we’ve had three damaging years of flatlining. And we’ll need 1.5 per cent growth every quarter between now and the election simply to catch up all the lost ground since 2010,” he added.

The below table shows the change in real average earnings in each region and nation of the UK between 2010 and 2012

Region/nation Weekly change (£) Annual change (£) % change




Yorkshire & The Humber




North West












South West




West Midlands








East Midlands




South East




North East




Northern Ireland




Like this article? Left Foot Forward relies on support from readers to sustain our progressive journalism. Can you become a supporter for £5 a month?

14 Responses to “Coalition sees average earnings fall in every part of the UK”

  1. vjfvjgfjthyujuyuuk

    This of course has nothing to do with millions of immigrants driving down wages at all. Time to wake up

    Please sign and share, blog, tweet, facebook the Daily
    Express petition to stop EU immigration. Over 151,000 have signed.

    Sign here-

  2. mactheanti

    Are you seriously expecting credibility for your post when quoting the Express newspaper?

  3. tangentreality

    The fact that the cost of living has gone up has very little to do with the Coalition’s fiscal policy, which is by and large very similar to what Labour would have had to do had they retained office. The increase in the cost of living is primarily attributable down to high inflation, which the CPI and RPI measures do not fully reflect. Inflation has been driven by the Bank of England’s deliberate policy of QE, which has expanded the money supply dramatically over the course of the last 5 years. Labour have been complicit with this.

    You can’t really blame the Coalition when it’s not really their policies that have had the biggest impact. The policy which has done that is one which Labour have tacitly agreed with.

  4. John

    You want to stop migration entirely? You’d better have a retirment plan in another country. In 60 years there’ll be only 3 people of working age to support each OAP. Or worse with rising age-lengths.

    And you can forget about state pension; no way will there be money for that. With or without immigration.

  5. Cole

    So we should blame the bankers for screwing up the world economy. And of course the City provides about half of the funding of the Conservative Party.

  6. Cole

    Gosh, they’ve got up to 150,000. Not much compared to, say, the 500,000 who protected about the NHS bill.

  7. Simon Robinson

    Do the figures include bankers – because if it does – that suggests the under lying figures are a lot worse for most people!

  8. throbb007

    Immigration is not the problem, it is people taking advantage of low wages and workers’ rights that is the problem. Migrant workers are often placed with an agency who will sort out work, housing and transport (at a cost to the worker), industry then uses these agencies who will provide workers for just a few hours at a moments notice.
    The agencies will not pick the 20 year old man living at home with mum and dad over a migrant worker as they will not profit twice. The agency will take their fees from the employer and travel / rent from the worker.
    The majority of inexperienced and lesser skilled workers have to compete with this and can’t, not because of immigrant workers but because of morally feckless employers who no longer have to directly employ their workforce therefore not taking any responsibility for health, safety or long term welfare. They treat workers as a commodity supplied on demand by agencies are more interested in how much profit they can make from one minimum wage job rather than treating any of their clients with the dignity that should come from working for a living.
    All the time we are pointing the finger at immigration as the cause of the problem we will never find the solution -ie wages that pay enough to house and feed a family and workers rights which give stability to less -skilled and lower paid workers.

  9. tangentreality

    Not really that simple, though, is it? It was a combination of reckless lending and a fundamental failure of the organs of state, namely the Bank of England, the Treasury and the Financial Services Authority, to spot the systemic risks that were developing. So blaming the Tory Party is hardly accurate. It was a failure on behalf of the bankers, and those charged with their supervision.

    It is interesting to note that the failed regulatory system was put in place by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, introduced to Parliament by Gordon Brown, then Chancellor of the Exchequer. No small amount of the blame falls squarely at his feet, and by extension, the Labour Party’s.

  10. TM

    Greed is the problem, and that will never go. But some governments legislate against it and some governments encourage it. Now people are being cast to the 4 winds and in the end it may affect us all. We have a growing economic apartheid in the UK that must be tackled. Why isn’t the Left talking about that specifically?

  11. nodbod

    Yes it was done under Labour with the Tories saying that the deregulation did not go far enough! Idiot Osborne is currently trying to make the UK exempt from European banking regulation and deregulate still further here. So the argument that it was down to Gordon Brown is partially true but would have been worse under the Conservatives.

    To blame the regulators and all and sundry for failing to spot the systemic risk defies belief. That is part of the game, is it not? “I lost all credit but it’s not my fault, Gordon Brown said I could.” Inept and incompetent but not responsible; how lovely. For them.

    Still these wonderful bastions of capitalism have learnt that when it all goes wrong, the taxpayer will bail them out because, when all is said and done, it is too big to be allowed to fail. Back to the article – how much have the 1% had their standard of living impaired? And (starting a sentence with “and”) what did happen to the QE money? Did any

  12. tangentreality

    You seem to think that FSMA 2000 was a de-regulatory act. It wasn’t. Quite the contrary – it significantly strengthened the regulatory setup. The problem was incompetence, a lack of oversight and that the regulation was inappropriate and ineffective.

    The European banking regulations wouldn’t have done anything to prevent the financial crisis – if you haven’t noticed, many of their banks are in a worse state than ours. So your assertion that it ‘would have been worse under the Conservatives’ is completely baseless.

    Of course I am not saying the bankers are devoid of responsibility – what I am saying is that, in a system where they were given an implicit guarantee that the State would bail them out if they got into trouble, is it any surprise that they landed themselves in a mess? Not really. They are responsible – but not solely. How does pointing out that the regulators didn’t do their job ‘defy belief’? I would have thought it was blindingly obvious.

    Please do not try to describe this horrible system we currently have as capitalism. It is not. It makes capitalists feel sick. This has come about as a result of cronyism between big business and big government. In a true capitalist market, no bank would have been big enough to warrant nationalisation.

  13. nodbod

    Thank you for this. It clears up a few things. I made the point about regulators and the bankers themselves because many people do not seem to realise this.

    I particularly like your last paragraph. It seems to suggest that banks should be smaller and, as a corollary, more of them? If you have time – what would you see as a more optimal solution?

  14. tangentreality

    Absolutely they should be smaller, and absolutely there should be more of them.

    Progress has been made with the establishment of the Prudential Regulatory Authority under the auspices of the Bank of England – their specific remit is maintaining overall systemic stability. Likewise, the newly-formed Financial Conduct Authority’s remit to increase competition within the sector is welcome. Competition is, after all, the best regulator.

    However, continued structural and practical problems remain. The Big Five banks still dominate the sector, each with a colossal market share which means that the State would still be obliged to (re)-nationalise them in the event of failure. These should be broken up. RBS would be a good one to start with.

    I would also give the FCA enforcement powers with regard to market share, so that the market would not become too skewed in favour of a select few banks. I’d also lower the capital adequacy for smaller banks, to promote easier entrance to the market for start-ups.

    Most of the FCA’s work continues to be focused on small-scale retail distribution, which is demonstrably not the major source of systemic failings. The whole regulatory setup needs to be geared away from small-scale retail distribution, and focused more on the investment banking side of things, which is where the problems have manifested.

Leave a Reply