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.

Getty Images
Show Hide image

Should London leave the UK?

Almost 60 per cent of Londoners voted to stay in the EU. Is it time for the city to say good by to Brexit Britain and go it alone?

Amid the shocked dismay of Brexit on Friday morning, there was some small, vindictive consolation to be had from the discomfort of Boris Johnson as he left his handsome home in EU-loving Islington to cat-calls from inflamed north London europhiles. They weren’t alone in their displeasure at the result. Soon, a petition calling for “Londependence” had gathered tens of thousands of names and Sadiq Khan, Johnson’s successor as London mayor, was being urged to declare the capital a separate city-state that would defiantly remain in the EU.

Well, he did have a mandate of a kind: almost 60 per cent of Londoners thought the UK would be Stronger In. It was the largest Remain margin in England – even larger than the hefty one of 14 per cent by which Khan defeated Tory eurosceptic Zac Goldsmith to become mayor in May – and not much smaller than Scotland’s. Khan’s response was to stress the importance of retaining access to the single market and to describe as “crucial” London having an input into the renegotiation of the UK’s relationship with the EU, alongside Scotland and Northern Ireland.

It’s possible to take a dim view of all this. Why should London have a special say in the terms on which the UK withdraws from the EU when it ended up on the wrong side of the people’s will? Calling for London to formally uncouple from the rest of the UK, even as a joke to cheer gloomy Inners up, might be seen as vindicating small-town Outer resentment of the metropolis and its smug elites. In any case, it isn’t going to happen. No, really. There will be no sovereign Greater London nation with its own passport, flag and wraparound border with Home Counties England any time soon.

Imagine the practicalities. Currency wouldn’t be a problem, as the newborn city-state would convert to the euro in a trice, but there would be immediate secessionist agitation in the five London boroughs of 32 that wanted Out: Cheam would assert its historic links with Surrey; stallholders in Romford market would raise the flag of Essex County Council. Then there is the Queen to think about. Plainly, Buckingham Palace could no longer be the HQ of a foreign head of state, but given the monarch’s age would it be fair to turf her out?

Step away from the fun-filled fantasy though, and see that Brexit has underlined just how dependent the UK is on London’s economic power and the case for that power to be protected and even enhanced. Greater London contains 13 per cent of the UK’s population, yet generates 23 per cent of its economic output. Much of the tax raised in London is spent on the rest of the country – 20 per cent by some calculations – largely because it contains more business and higher earners. The capital has long subsidised the rest the UK, just as the EU has funded attempts to regenerate its poorer regions.

Like it or not, foreign capital and foreign labour have been integral to the burgeoning of the “world city” from which even the most europhobic corners of the island nation benefit in terms of public spending. If Leaver mentality outside the capital was partly about resentment of “rich London”, with its bankers and big businesses – handy targets for Nigel Farage – and fuelled by a fear of an alien internationalism London might symbolise, then it may prove to have been sadly self-defeating.

Ensuring that London maintains the economic resilience it has shown since the mid-Nineties must now be a priority for national government, (once it decides to reappear). Pessimists predict a loss of jobs, disinvestment and a decrease in cultural energy. Some have mooted a special post-Brexit deal for the capital that might suit the interests of EU member states too – London’s economy is, after all, larger than that of Denmark, not to mention larger than that of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland combined – though what that might be and how that could happen remain obscure.

There is, though, no real barrier to greater devolution of powers to London other than the political will of central government. Allowing more decisions about how taxes raised in the capital are spent in the capital, both at mayoral and borough level, would strengthen the city in terms of managing its own growth, addressing its (often forgotten) poverty and enhancing the skills of its workforce.

Handing down control over the spending of property taxes, as set out in an influential 2013 report by the London Finance Commission set up by Mayor Johnson, would be a logical place to start. Mayor Khan’s manifesto pledged to campaign for strategic powers over further education and health service co-ordination, so that these can be better tailored to London’s needs. Since Brexit, he has underlined the value of London securing greater command of its own destiny.

This isn’t just a London thing, and neither should it be. Plans are already in place for other English cities and city regions to enjoy more autonomy under the auspices of directly elected “metro mayors”, notably for Greater Manchester and Liverpool and its environs. One of the lessons of Brexit for the UK is that many people have felt that decisions about their futures have been taken at too great a distance from them and with too little regard for what they want and how they feel.

That lesson holds for London too – 40 per cent is a large minority. Boris Johnson was an advocate of devolution to London when he was its mayor and secured some, thanks to the more progressive side of Tory localism. If he becomes prime minister, it would be good for London and for the country as a whole if he remembered that.  

Dave Hill writes the Guardian’s On London column. Find him on Twitter as @DaveHill.