The black marks on the government's inequality record

Half way through the parliamentary term, how is the government doing? Not too well, writes One Society's Larissa Hansford.

At the half way point of the Coalition Government's term, debate rages over top pay, low pay and the persistently vast gulf between the two.

The trend to an expanding pay gulf is one that right and left alike have denounced. Front page headlines express outrage over the £1.32m payout to theformer director-general of the BBC, influential multinational board members call for a pay cap on corporate bonuses, and studies show that pay for top bosses rose an average of 10 per cent in 2011. Meanwhile £5m people are living at below living wage pay, with both Boris Johnson and Ed Milliband, backing an expansion of the scheme.

In the midst of so many calls for a reduction in the UK pay gulf, how have the Government performed on these issues? A new report by One Society, The Coalition Government and Income Inequality: The half term report, indicates that their record is wanting. It finds not only that inequality has not been reduced, but concludes that Coalition polices are actually likely to produce an increasing gap between the richest and the rest, at the same time as average incomes fail to keep up with the rising cost of living.

A One Society report on fair pay in Local Authorities showed how much progress has been made in the public sector over the last few years in addressing its inequalities. However, the private sector points out the report, where pay ratios are much more extreme, has largely escaped notice. The much reported "shareholder spring" led to just six substantial protest votes over extortionate pay at the top. BIS (The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills) proposals to increase shareholder power have failed to incorporate important stakeholders such as company employees. Proposals on binding pay votes have been watered down and there has been no significant action on issues such cash bonuses and simplification of pay packages.

At the lower end of the payscale, the two year public sector pay freeze and the upcoming two year below-inflation pay rise have put pressure on already low public sector salaries. Not only does this have a direct impact on inequality, but along with increasing costs of living, has serious implications for living standards. Increased costs of childcare, transport and cuts to tax credits have all played their part in this.

When they stood in the general election, inequality was a major concern for both coalition parties. The Conservative manifesto called for a society in which “wealth and opportunity must be more fairly distributed”. The Liberal Democrats meanwhile decried the fact that “Britain [is] one of the most unequal societies in the developed world, where ordinary people struggle to make ends meet.”

With 74 per cent of people believing that income inequality is too high and even CEOs beginning to recognise they are probably overpaid, it is clearly still a highly relevant issue to the electorate. On top of this, No. 10's favourite think tank recently warned that the Conservative Party are still seen as the party of the rich.

"Excessive" levels of income inequality are not only unpopular, but, as the One Society's report sets out, they are also inefficient. Growing evidence shows that large pay differentials stunt economic growth and cause instability. It also highlights the harmful effect that inequality has on our communities, our health and our environment.

For all these reasons, argues the report, political parties who want to be taken seriously in the next general election will have to outline a plan of action to tackle the UK's unacceptable levels of income inequality. Left and right alike must sit up and take notice of the harmful effect of extreme wealth disparities, and the significant impact that government policy could have in addressing them.

Marking the scorecard. Photograph: Getty Images

Larissa Hansford is a Campaign Assistant at One Society.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

What Jeremy Corbyn gets right about the single market

Technically, you can be outside the EU but inside the single market. Philosophically, you're still in the EU. 

I’ve been trying to work out what bothers me about the response to Jeremy Corbyn’s interview on the Andrew Marr programme.

What bothers me about Corbyn’s interview is obvious: the use of the phrase “wholesale importation” to describe people coming from Eastern Europe to the United Kingdom makes them sound like boxes of sugar rather than people. Adding to that, by suggesting that this “importation” had “destroy[ed] conditions”, rather than laying the blame on Britain’s under-enforced and under-regulated labour market, his words were more appropriate to a politician who believes that immigrants are objects to be scapegoated, not people to be served. (Though perhaps that is appropriate for the leader of the Labour Party if recent history is any guide.)

But I’m bothered, too, by the reaction to another part of his interview, in which the Labour leader said that Britain must leave the single market as it leaves the European Union. The response to this, which is technically correct, has been to attack Corbyn as Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland are members of the single market but not the European Union.

In my view, leaving the single market will make Britain poorer in the short and long term, will immediately render much of Labour’s 2017 manifesto moot and will, in the long run, be a far bigger victory for right-wing politics than any mere election. Corbyn’s view, that the benefits of freeing a British government from the rules of the single market will outweigh the costs, doesn’t seem very likely to me. So why do I feel so uneasy about the claim that you can be a member of the single market and not the European Union?

I think it’s because the difficult truth is that these countries are, de facto, in the European Union in any meaningful sense. By any estimation, the three pillars of Britain’s “Out” vote were, firstly, control over Britain’s borders, aka the end of the free movement of people, secondly, more money for the public realm aka £350m a week for the NHS, and thirdly control over Britain’s own laws. It’s hard to see how, if the United Kingdom continues to be subject to the free movement of people, continues to pay large sums towards the European Union, and continues to have its laws set elsewhere, we have “honoured the referendum result”.

None of which changes my view that leaving the single market would be a catastrophe for the United Kingdom. But retaining Britain’s single market membership starts with making the argument for single market membership, not hiding behind rhetorical tricks about whether or not single market membership was on the ballot last June, when it quite clearly was. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.