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 |
| London |
-£42.30 |
-£2,200 |
-7.5 |
| Yorkshire & The Humber |
-£33.10 |
-£1,721 |
-8.1 |
| North West |
-£32.40 |
-£1,685 |
-7.8 |
| Wales |
-£32.10 |
-£1,669 |
-8.0 |
| East |
-£32.10 |
-£1,669 |
-7.0 |
| South West |
-£32.00 |
-£1,664 |
-7.8 |
| West Midlands |
-£29.80 |
-£1,550 |
-7.2 |
| Scotland |
-£27.30 |
-£1,420 |
-6.4 |
| East Midlands |
-£27.00 |
-£1,404 |
-6.5 |
| South East |
-£26.30 |
-£1,368 |
-5.5 |
| North East |
-£23.10 |
-£1,201 |
-5.8 |
| Northern Ireland |
-£18.50 |
-£962 |
-4.8 |
14 Responses to “Coalition sees average earnings fall in every part of the UK”
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
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.
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?
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.