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?

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Why are boundary changes bad for Labour?

New boundaries, a smaller House of Commons and the shift to individual electoral registration all tilt the electoral battlefield further towards the Conservatives. Why?

The government has confirmed it will push ahead with plans to reduce the House of Commons to 600 seats from 650.  Why is that such bad news for the Labour Party? 

The damage is twofold. The switch to individual electoral registration will hurt Labour more than its rivals. . Constituency boundaries in Britain are drawn on registered electors, not by population - the average seat has around 70,000 voters but a population of 90,000, although there are significant variations within that. On the whole, at present, Labour MPs tend to have seats with fewer voters than their Conservative counterparts. These changes were halted by the Liberal Democrats in the coalition years but are now back on course.

The new, 600-member constituencies will all but eliminate those variations on mainland Britain, although the Isle of Wight, and the Scottish island constituencies will remain special cases. The net effect will be to reduce the number of Labour seats - and to make the remaining seats more marginal. (Of the 50 seats that would have been eradicated had the 2013 review taken place, 35 were held by Labour, including deputy leader Tom Watson's seat of West Bromwich East.)

Why will Labour seats become more marginal? For the most part, as seats expand, they will take on increasing numbers of suburban and rural voters, who tend to vote Conservative. The city of Leicester is a good example: currently the city sends three Labour MPs to Westminster, each with large majorities. Under boundary changes, all three could become more marginal as they take on more wards from the surrounding county. Liz Kendall's Leicester West seat is likely to have a particularly large influx of Tory voters, turning the seat - a Labour stronghold since 1945 - into a marginal. 

The pattern is fairly consistent throughout the United Kingdom - Labour safe seats either vanishing or becoming marginal or even Tory seats. On Merseyside, three seats - Frank Field's Birkenhead, a Labour seat since 1950, and two marginal Labour held seats, Wirral South and Wirral West - will become two: a safe Labour seat, and a safe Conservative seat on the Wirral. Lillian Greenwood, the Shadow Transport Secretary, would see her Nottingham seat take more of the Nottinghamshire countryside, becoming a Conservative-held marginal. 

The traffic - at least in the 2013 review - was not entirely one-way. Jane Ellison, the Tory MP for Battersea, would find herself fighting a seat with a notional Labour majority of just under 3,000, as opposed to her current majority of close to 8,000. 

But the net effect of the boundary review and the shrinking of the size of the House of Commons would be to the advantage of the Conservatives. If the 2015 election had been held using the 2013 boundaries, the Tories would have a majority of 22 – and Labour would have just 216 seats against 232 now.

It may be, however, that Labour dodges a bullet – because while the boundary changes would have given the Conservatives a bigger majority, they would have significantly fewer MPs – down to 311 from 330, a loss of 19 members of Parliament. Although the whips are attempting to steady the nerves of backbenchers about the potential loss of their seats, that the number of Conservative MPs who face involuntary retirement due to boundary changes is bigger than the party’s parliamentary majority may force a U-Turn.

That said, Labour’s relatively weak electoral showing may calm jittery Tory MPs. Two months into Ed Miliband’s leadership, Labour averaged 39 per cent in the polls. They got 31 per cent of the vote in 2015. Two months into Tony Blair’s leadership, Labour were on 53 per cent of the vote. They got 43 per cent of the vote. A month and a half into Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, Labour is on 31 per cent of the vote.  A Blair-style drop of ten points would see the Tories net 388 seats under the new boundaries, with Labour on 131. A smaller Miliband-style drop would give the Conservatives 364, and leave Labour with 153 MPs.  

On Labour’s current trajectory, Tory MPs who lose out due to boundary changes may feel comfortable in their chances of picking up a seat elsewhere. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog. He usually writes about politics.