A living wage alone won't stop runaway inequality

As well as boosting pay for low earners, we need to tackle excessive pay at the top.

It is encouraging to see a growing number of businesses and local authorities adopting the living wage and this week's piece by Jeremy Warner, assistant editor of the Daily Telegraph, is proof that the movement has reached far and wide. In his article, Warner considers the adverse effects of low pay but, more importantly, identifies that pay levels are threatening to become more about PR than social justice.

For example, some of the living wage’s most prominent private sector advocates (KPMG, Barclays, HSBC) are unlikely to have a significant number of low-paid staff who would benefit from the policy and many cleaning and catering jobs are still outsourced. Only when we see organisations with large numbers of low-paid staff implementing the living wage will we know that the movement has truly arrived.

Warner also touches on a problem highlighted by the TUC last year: that an increasing proportion of companies’ money is going to profits, rather than wages. And it seems that the shift from wages to profits is hurting those at the bottom of the income scale much more than those at the top.

We cannot ignore the fact that some Goldman Sachs staff (the subject of Warner’s article) are still set to receive average bonus payments of £250,000. This reflects the findings of last year’s Incomes Data Services Directors’ Pay Report, which showed that the average wage rise for FTSE 100 directors was 27 per cent in 2011. With bank bonus season nearly upon us, there are undoubtedly more stories of astronomical rewards in the financial sector to come.

Meanwhile, at the other end of the income scale, the majority are feeling the effects of real-terms reductions in take-home pay (with 2012 seeing an increase in national average earnings of just 1.6 per cent on 2011). The consequent lack of demand does not bode well for the long term health of the economy and, as an increasing number of academics and commentators have illustrated, it is in fact inequality of income  rather than low pay alone, that leads to so many of the economic and social ills we associate with poverty.

It would be naïve, then, to think that we can negate the effects of income inequality merely by promoting policies like the living wage while turning a blind eye to runaway high pay. In order to tackle the negative effects of income inequality, the welcome enthusiasm to promote the living wage must be met with a willingness to tackle pay at the top.

A protestor marches down Market Street during a day of action in support of the Occupy Wall Street movement on December 2, 2011 in San Francisco, California. Photograph: Getty Images.

John Wood is policy and campaigns officer at One Society

Getty
Show Hide image

Is defeat in Stoke the beginning of the end for Paul Nuttall?

The Ukip leader was his party's unity candidate. But after his defeat in Stoke, the old divisions are beginning to show again

In a speech to Ukip’s spring conference in Bolton on February 17, the party’s once and probably future leader Nigel Farage laid down the gauntlet for his successor, Paul Nuttall. Stoke’s by-election was “fundamental” to the future of the party – and Nuttall had to win.
 
One week on, Nuttall has failed that test miserably and thrown the fundamental questions hanging over Ukip’s future into harsh relief. 

For all his bullish talk of supplanting Labour in its industrial heartlands, the Ukip leader only managed to increase the party’s vote share by 2.2 percentage points on 2015. This paltry increase came despite Stoke’s 70 per cent Brexit majority, and a media narrative that was, until the revelations around Nuttall and Hillsborough, talking the party’s chances up.
 
So what now for Nuttall? There is, for the time being, little chance of him resigning – and, in truth, few inside Ukip expected him to win. Nuttall was relying on two well-rehearsed lines as get-out-of-jail free cards very early on in the campaign. 

The first was that the seat was a lowly 72 on Ukip’s target list. The second was that he had been leader of party whose image had been tarnished by infighting both figurative and literal for all of 12 weeks – the real work of his project had yet to begin. 

The chances of that project ever succeeding were modest at the very best. After yesterday’s defeat, it looks even more unlikely. Nuttall had originally stated his intention to run in the likely by-election in Leigh, Greater Manchester, when Andy Burnham wins the Greater Manchester metro mayoralty as is expected in May (Wigan, the borough of which Leigh is part, voted 64 per cent for Brexit).

If he goes ahead and stands – which he may well do – he will have to overturn a Labour majority of over 14,000. That, even before the unedifying row over the veracity of his Hillsborough recollections, was always going to be a big challenge. If he goes for it and loses, his leadership – predicated as it is on his supposed ability to win votes in the north - will be dead in the water. 

Nuttall is not entirely to blame, but he is a big part of Ukip’s problem. I visited Stoke the day before The Guardian published its initial report on Nuttall’s Hillsborough claims, and even then Nuttall’s campaign manager admitted that he was unlikely to convince the “hard core” of Conservative voters to back him. 

There are manifold reasons for this, but chief among them is that Nuttall, despite his newfound love of tweed, is no Nigel Farage. Not only does he lack his name recognition and box office appeal, but the sad truth is that the Tory voters Ukip need to attract are much less likely to vote for a party led by a Scouser whose platform consists of reassuring working-class voters their NHS and benefits are safe.
 
It is Farage and his allies – most notably the party’s main donor Arron Banks – who hold the most power over Nuttall’s future. Banks, who Nuttall publicly disowned as a non-member after he said he was “sick to death” of people “milking” the Hillsborough disaster, said on the eve of the Stoke poll that Ukip had to “remain radical” if it wanted to keep receiving his money. Farage himself has said the party’s campaign ought to have been “clearer” on immigration. 

Senior party figures are already briefing against Nuttall and his team in the Telegraph, whose proprietors are chummy with the beer-swilling Farage-Banks axis. They deride him for his efforts to turn Ukip into “NiceKip” or “Nukip” in order to appeal to more women voters, and for the heavy-handedness of his pitch to Labour voters (“There were times when I wondered whether I’ve got a purple rosette or a red one on”, one told the paper). 

It is Nuttall’s policy advisers - the anti-Farage awkward squad of Suzanne Evans, MEP Patrick O’Flynn (who famously branded Farage "snarling, thin-skinned and aggressive") and former leadership candidate Lisa Duffy – come in for the harshest criticism. Herein lies the leader's almost impossible task. Despite having pitched to members as a unity candidate, the two sides’ visions for Ukip are irreconcilable – one urges him to emulate Trump (who Nuttall says he would not have voted for), and the other urges a more moderate tack. 

Endorsing his leader on Question Time last night, Ukip’s sole MP Douglas Carswell blamed the legacy of the party’s Tea Party-inspired 2015 general election campaign, which saw Farage complain about foreigners with HIV using the NHS in ITV’s leaders debate, for the party’s poor performance in Stoke. Others, such as MEP Bill Etheridge, say precisely the opposite – that Nuttall must be more like Farage. 

Neither side has yet called for Nuttall’s head. He insists he is “not going anywhere”. With his febrile party no stranger to abortive coup and counter-coup, he is unlikely to be the one who has the final say.