Is pay going up or down? Both, or neither, depending on the measure you use. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Pay set is to go up, or down, or stay the same – it all depends on how you measure it

We are heading into a so-called “living standards election” – without accurate data on living standards. Different sides will be able to tell whatever story they want.

We can expect to hear an awful lot about the closing gap between pay and inflation over the next few months as, inevitably and thankfully, on some measure we close in on a “cross-over point” where wages overtake price rises.  

But this poses the question: which measure of inflation and, indeed, which measure of pay?

Confusion abounds on this – and this provides the space for different political parties to choose numbers which stand up the story they want to tell about the recovery and living standards. Get ready for a war of competing statistics.

When it comes to pay, average wages (that is, mean pay across the economy or, more accurately, across employees) regularly get reported as if they relate to the experience of a typical worker in the economy. They don’t – they are skewed by whatever is going on at the top of the distribution. For this reason we need to look at median pay – that of the typical worker. While the period since the financial crisis have been marked by relatively even movements in pay across the earnings distribution, the typical experience in recent decades has been for the mean to significantly outpace the median, reflecting growing wage inequality. No one knows for sure how this will pan out during economic recovery, but few would be surprised if the historic relationship resumes.

The trickier issue is the measure of inflation that should be used to deflate trends in wages. And here there is a bit of disarray. This debate may sound nerdy – indeed, it is quite nerdy – but it matters and we are going to hear a lot about all this, so it’s worth reflecting on.

The Retail Price Index (RPI), introduced after WWII,  was traditionally considered the best measure for gauging what was happening to living standards, covering a wider suite of prices (and generally being higher) than the CPI which was introduced in the 1990s to meet the need for international harmonisation. Recently RPI has fallen out of favour. The formula it uses for aggregating prices (the Carli index, if you are into this sort of thing) has been fairly widely criticised and is thought to overstate inflation, leading the ONS to deem that it no longer qualifies as a National Statistic (though that hasn’t stopped the government from continuing to use it in relation to index-linked gilts and bonds).

This has left CPI as the main reported measure for inflation and it is used for uprating benefits, tax credits, pensions and tax thresholds (the government switched from RPI to CPI for uprating benefits from April 2011 and in doing so made a massive saving). But unlike RPI, CPI takes no account of a range of housing costs, such as mortgage interest payments. Arguably, it tells us quite a lot less about living standards.

The controversy about how to measure inflation is such that the UK Statistics Authority has established two reviews including one by the IFS’s Paul Johnson looking specifically at the arguments for using ‘cost of living’ or ‘cost of goods’ concepts in defining inflation. The former concept is likely to have more relevance for households and for the purposes of deflating pay and incomes; the latter is likely to be more useful from a macroeconomic perspective. As things stand, the various measures used in the UK tend to fall somewhere between these two camps.

Just to complicate matters further, two new measures have been already introduced: CPI-H (which adds an owner occupied housing element to CPI) and RPI-J (which maintains the RPI coverage but uses a more reliable formula similar to CPI). But neither of these measures is used by the government in policy formulation so when it comes to official wage projections we are left with the traditional choice between CPI and RPI.

To see how important – and politically relevant – these different measures can be consider this chart.

Source: OBR, Economic and Fiscal Outllook; and Resolution Foundation modelling

The CPI-deflated mean (average) wage projection is taken directly from the OBR’s latest Economic and Fiscal Outlook. It looks pretty rosy in the years ahead – at least compared to the recent past – and has caught the eye of many economic commentators. But it only tells part of the story.

If we want to get a sense of what this might mean for median pay we can adjust the average (assuming, as discussed above, that the relationship between the mean and median over the next few years is the same as that in the decade prior to the financial crisis).

What the chart shows is that if we then adjust this median wage figure for RPI inflation then pay looks set to fall in the years ahead. But if we use CPI it’s set to rise. And if we try and find some middle ground that avoids the narrowness of CPI or the unreliability of RPI, then we could use an imputed projection for RPI-J. (This assumes – imperfectly, but defensibly – that past relationships hold: holding constant the ratio between annual growth in the RPI and RPI-J in the years ahead, reflecting the relative stability of this ratio over the course of the history of the RPI-J). And under this RPI-J measure, pay is set to flat-line. So according to which measure of inflation you use wages are set to rise. Or flat-line. Or fall. Take your pick.

For now, at least, this leaves us in no man’s land. We are heading into a so-called ‘living standards election’ in which different sides will be able to tell whatever story they want about the prospects for wages depending on the measures used (with no official ‘best measure’). Add to this the fact that when it comes to what is happening to household incomes – a far superior measure of living standards – the only accurate data will be more than two years out of date by polling day. Given that some of our key economic measures are misleading and others are out of date, the electorate should stand ready to be bamboozled. Is this really the best we can do?

Show Hide image

Let's seize our chance of a progressive alliance in Richmond - or we'll all be losers

Labour MPs have been brave to talk about standing aside. 

Earlier this week something quite remarkable happened. Three Labour MPs, from across the party’s political spectrum, came together to urge their party to consider not fielding a candidate in the Richmond Park by-election. In the face of a powerful central party machine, it was extremely brave of them to do what was, until very recently, almost unthinkable: suggest that people vote for a party that wasn’t their own.
Just after the piece from Lisa Nandy, Clive Lewis and Jonathan Reynolds was published, I headed down to the Richmond Park constituency to meet local Green members. It felt like a big moment – an opportunity to be part of something truly ground-breaking – and we had a healthy discussion about the options on the table. Rightly, the decision about whether to stand in elections is always down to local parties, and ultimately the sense from the local members present was that it would be difficult  not to field a candidate unless Labour did the same. Sadly, even as we spoke, the Labour party hierarchy was busily pouring cold water on the idea of working together to beat the Conservatives. The old politics dies hard - and it will not die unless and until all parties are prepared to balance local priorities with the bigger picture.
A pact of any kind would not simply be about some parties standing down or aside. It would be about us all, collectively, standing together and stepping forward in a united bid to be better than what is currently on offer. And it would be a chance to show that building trust now, not just banking it for the future, can cement a better deal for local residents. There could be reciprocal commitments for local elections, for example, creating further opportunities for progressive voices to come to the fore.
While we’ve been debating the merits of this progressive pact in public, the Conservatives and Ukip have, quietly, formed an alliance of their own around Zac Goldsmith. In this regressive alliance, the right is rallying around a candidate who voted to pull Britain out of Europe against the wishes of his constituency, a man who shocked many by running a divisive and nasty campaign to be mayor of London. There’s a sad irony in the fact it’s the voices of division that are proving so effective at advancing their shared goals, while proponents of co-operation cannot get off the starting line.
Leadership is as much about listening as anything else. What I heard on Wednesday was a local party that is passionate about talking to people and sharing what the Greens have to offer. They are proud members of our party for a reason – because they know we stand for something unique, and they have high hopes of winning local elections in the area.  No doubt the leaders of the other progressive parties are hearing the same.
Forming a progressive alliance would be the start of something big. At the core of any such agreement must be a commitment to electoral reform - and breaking open politics for good. No longer could parties choose to listen only to a handful of swing voters in key constituencies, to the exclusion of everyone else. Not many people enjoy talking about the voting system – for most, it’s boring – but as people increasingly clamour for more power in their hands, this could really have been a moment to seize.
Time is running out to select a genuine "unity" candidate through an open primary process. I admit that the most likely alternative - uniting behind a Liberal Democrat candidate in Richmond Park - doesn’t sit easily with me, especially after their role in the vindictive Coalition government.  But politics is about making difficult choices at the right moment, and this is one I wanted to actively explore, because the situation we’re in is just so dire. There is a difference between the Conservatives and the Lib Dems. Failing to realise that plays into the hands of Theresa May more than anyone else.
And, to be frank, I'm deeply worried. Just look at one very specific, very local issue and you’ll perhaps understand where I'm coming from. It’s the state of the NHS in Brighton and Hove – it’s a system that’s been so cut up by marketisation and so woefully underfunded that it’s at breaking point. Our hospital is in special measures, six GP surgeries have shut down and private firms have been operating ambulances without a license. Just imagine what that health service will look like in ten years, with a Conservative party still in charge after beating a divided left at another general election.
And then there is Brexit. We’re hurtling down a very dangerous road – which could see us out of the EU, with closed borders and an economy in tatters. It’s my belief that a vote for a non-Brexiteer in Richmond Park would be a hammer blow to Conservatives at a time when they’re trying to remould the country in their own image after a narrow win for the Leave side in the referendum.
The Green party will fight a passionate and organised campaign in Richmond Park – I was blown away by the commitment of members, and I know they’ll be hitting the ground running this weekend. On the ballot on 1 December there will only be one party saying no to new runways, rejecting nuclear weapons and nuclear power and proposing a radical overhaul of our politics and democracy. I’ll go to the constituency to campaign because we are a fundamentally unique party – saying things that others refuse to say – but I won’t pretend that I don’t wish we could have done things differently.

I believe that moments like this don’t come along very often – but they require the will of all parties involved to realise their potential. Ultimately, until other leaders of progressive parties face the electoral facts, we are all losers, no matter who wins in Richmond Park.


Caroline Lucas is the MP for Brighton Pavilion.