Britain's 200 wealthiest people "are together worth £318.2bn"

Sunday Times Rich List says worth of country's super-elite has increased eightfold since 1989.

Today's annual Sunday Times Rich List gives an eye-opening insight into the fortunes of Britain's super-elite.

The list is topped by Alisher Usmanov, 59, who was born in Uzbekistan and owns iron ore producer Metalloinvest. He is worth an estimated £13.3bn.

He is replaces steel tycoon Lakshmi Mittal (£10bn), who has dropped to fourth place behind media mogul Len Blavatnik, who sold his £2bn stake in Russian oil and gas company TNK-BP in March, (£11bn) and Sri and Gopi Hinduja (£10.6bn). Two more oil tycoons - Roman Abramovich (£9.3bn) and John Frediksen (£8.8bn) - are fifth and sixth.

The list shows how international Britain's elite are - the highest ranked billionaire born in Britain is the Duke of Westminster in eighth place, who has amassed £7.8bn from the London property market. And as the BBC's business reporter Anthony Reuben notes: "New money has replaced old, but not much of it has been earned in Britain."

Beyond the individual entries, though, the real story is the growing wealth of the super-rich has outpaced economic growth for everyone else. 

In 1989, when the list began, the Queen's £5.2bn assets were enough to clinch her the top shot. The combined wealth of the top 200 people in the 2013 list is £318.2bn - eight times what it was a quarter of a century ago.

The average salary of a full-time worker in the UK is currently £26,500.

Alisher Usmanov and his wife arrive at the opening of the Bolshoi in 2011. Photo: Getty

Helen Lewis is deputy editor of the New Statesman. She has presented BBC Radio 4’s Week in Westminster and is a regular panellist on BBC1’s Sunday Politics.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The future of policing is still at risk even after George Osborne's U-Turn

The police have avoided the worst, but crime is changing and they cannot stand still. 

We will have to wait for the unofficial briefings and the ministerial memoirs to understand what role the tragic events in Paris had on the Chancellor’s decision to sustain the police budget in cash terms and increase it overall by the end of the parliament.  Higher projected tax revenues gave the Chancellor a surprising degree of fiscal flexibility, but the atrocities in Paris certainly pushed questions of policing and security to the top of the political agenda. For a police service expecting anything from a 20 to a 30 per cent cut in funding, fears reinforced by the apparent hard line the Chancellor took over the weekend, this reprieve is an almighty relief.  

So, what was announced?  The overall police budget will be protected in real terms (£900 million more in cash terms) up to 2019/20 with the following important caveats.  First, central government grant to forces will be reduced in cash terms by 2019/20, but forces will be able to bid into a new transformation fund designed to finance moves such as greater collaboration between forces.  In other words there is a cash frozen budget (given important assumptions about council tax) eaten away by inflation and therefore requiring further efficiencies and service redesign.

Second, the flat cash budget for forces assumes increases in the police element of the council tax. Here, there is an interesting new flexibility for Police and Crime Commissioners.  One interpretation is that instead of precept increases being capped at 2%, they will be capped at £12 million, although we need further detail to be certain.  This may mean that forces which currently raise relatively small cash amounts from their precept will be able to raise considerably more if Police and Crime Commissioners have the courage to put up taxes.  

With those caveats, however, this is clearly a much better deal for policing than most commentators (myself included) predicted.  There will be less pressure to reduce officer numbers. Neighbourhood policing, previously under real threat, is likely to remain an important component of the policing model in England and Wales.  This is good news.

However, the police service should not use this financial reprieve as an excuse to duck important reforms.  The reforms that the police have already planned should continue, with any savings reinvested in an improved and more effective service.

It would be a retrograde step for candidates in the 2016 PCC elections to start pledging (as I am certain many will) to ‘protect officer numbers’.  We still need to rebalance the police workforce.   We need more staff with the kind of digital skills required to tackle cybercrime.  We need more crime analysts to help deploy police resources more effectively.  Blanket commitments to maintain officer numbers will get in the way of important reforms.

The argument for inter-force collaboration and, indeed, force mergers does not go away. The new top sliced transformation fund is designed in part to facilitate collaboration, but the fact remains that a 43 force structure no longer makes sense in operational or financial terms.

The police still have to adapt to a changing world. Falling levels of traditional crime and the explosion in online crime, particularly fraud and hacking, means we need an entirely different kind of police service.  Many of the pressures the police experience from non-crime demand will not go away. Big cuts to local government funding and the wider criminal justice system mean we need to reorganise the public service frontline to deal with problems such as high reoffending rates, child safeguarding and rising levels of mental illness.

Before yesterday I thought policing faced an existential moment and I stand by that. While the service has now secured significant financial breathing space, it still needs to adapt to an increasingly complex world. 

Rick Muir is director of the Police Foundation