George Osborne arrives at Lancaster House for a UK/China Financial Forum in London on June 18, 2014. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Falling wages show why the Tories aren't benefiting from the return of growth

GDP may be rising, but wage growth is at its lowest level on record. There is no recovery for most voters. 

When wages briefly drew level with inflation earlier this year, some claimed that the "cost-of-living-crisis" (in Labour's phrase) was over. The Tories argued that wages were a "lagging indicator" and that higher output would translate into higher salaries. As George Osborne remarked after the publication of the GDP figures in October 2013, "If Britain is growing then the finances of Britain’s families will start to grow." 

But today's earnings stats show that the reverse, dismayingly, is true. Total pay fell in nominal terms by 0.2 per cent between April and June, compared to inflation of  1.9 per cent. The fall is partly accounted for by last April's deferral of bonuses to benefit from the abolition of the 50p tax rate, which artificially boosted wage growth. But even if bonuses are stripped out, regular pay rose by just 0.6 per cent (1.3 per cent below inflation), the lowest figure since comparable records began in 2001 (although it is worth noting, as Duncan Weldon does, that real wages are not the same thing as living standards). 

The economic upside is the jobs boom. Unemployment fell by 132,000 to 2.08 million (6.4 per cent), the lowest level since the final quarter of 2008, while employment rose by 167,000 to 30.6 million (73.0 per cent), within touching distance of the record figure of 73.1 per cent achieved in February 2005.

But as Labour has long warned, far too many are in trapped in low-wage, low-skill jobs that don't pay them enough to achieve an adequate standard of living. Today's figures don't include the self-employed (responsible for almost half of the rise in employment over the last year) whose earnings have fallen at an even faster rate. 

On a political level, the figures help explain why the Tories have yet to receive the polling dividend that many expected from the recovery. While GDP is rising, wages are not, leaving many feeling no better off. Worryingly for the Conservatives, private polling by Labour shows that as growth accelerates, voters have become more concerned with issues such as living standards (on which Labour leads) and less concerned with issues such as the deficit (on which the Tories lead). With just nine months to go until the election, Osborne is running out of time to translate economic gains into political ones. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Wikipedia.
Show Hide image

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not refuse to condemn the IRA. Please stop saying he did

Guys, seriously.

Okay, I’ll bite. Someone’s gotta say it, so really might as well be me:

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not, this weekend, refuse to condemn the IRA. And no, his choice of words was not just “and all other forms of racism” all over again.

Can’t wait to read my mentions after this one.

Let’s take the two contentions there in order. The claim that Corbyn refused to condem the IRA relates to his appearance on Sky’s Sophy Ridge on Sunday programme yesterday. (For those who haven’t had the pleasure, it’s a weekly political programme, hosted by Sophy Ridge and broadcast on a Sunday. Don’t say I never teach you anything.)

Here’s how Sky’s website reported that interview:

 

The first paragraph of that story reads:

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been criticised after he refused five times to directly condemn the IRA in an interview with Sky News.

The funny thing is, though, that the third paragraph of that story is this:

He said: “I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

Apparently Jeremy Corbyn has been so widely criticised for refusing to condemn the IRA that people didn’t notice the bit where he specifically said that he condemned the IRA.

Hasn’t he done this before, though? Corbyn’s inability to say he that opposed anti-semitism without appending “and all other forms of racism” was widely – and, to my mind, rightly – criticised. These were weasel words, people argued: an attempt to deflect from a narrow subject where the hard left has often been in the wrong, to a broader one where it wasn’t.

Well, that pissed me off too: an inability to say simply “I oppose anti-semitism” made it look like he did not really think anti-semitism was that big a problem, an impression not relieved by, well, take your pick.

But no, to my mind, this....

“I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

...is, despite its obvious structural similarities, not the same thing.

That’s because the “all other forms of racism thing” is an attempt to distract by bringing in something un-related. It implies that you can’t possibly be soft on anti-semitism if you were tough on Islamophobia or apartheid, and experience shows that simply isn’t true.

But loyalist bombing were not unrelated to IRA ones: they’re very related indeed. There really were atrocities committed on both sides of the Troubles, and while the fatalities were not numerically balanced, neither were they orders of magnitude apart.

As a result, specifically condemning both sides as Corbyn did seems like an entirely reasonable position to take. Far creepier, indeed, is to minimise one set of atrocities to score political points about something else entirely.

The point I’m making here isn’t really about Corbyn at all. Historically, his position on Northern Ireland has been pro-Republican, rather than pro-peace, and I’d be lying if I said I was entirely comfortable with that.

No, the point I’m making is about the media, and its bias against Labour. Whatever he may have said in the past, whatever may be written on his heart, yesterday morning Jeremy Corbyn condemned IRA bombings. This was the correct thing to do. His words were nonetheless reported as “Jeremy Corbyn refuses to condemn IRA”.

I mean, I don’t generally hold with blaming the mainstream media for politicians’ failures, but it’s a bit rum isn’t it?

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Daniel Hannan. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.

0800 7318496