This has just been published by the FT:
Income inequality increased in the UK in 2018 as benefits cuts hit the income of the country's poorest households and higher wages helped the richest get richer.
The average income for the richest fifth in Britain increased by 4.7 per cent last year according to data released by the Office for National Statistics on Tuesday.
This contrasted with a 1.6 per cent income drop for the poorest fifth. The highest earners benefited from better wages while the poorest households saw a drop in income driven by a fall in cash benefits, according to the ONS.
There is little reason to add more: what we have is increasing income inequality by design in the UK.
That is what none years of Tory government has delivered.
And yes, we do need to be angry. Because dividing society by choice in this way is a crime against humanity.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Also with Labour moving away from the compromise brexit deal stance and opting for pandering solely to the remain side of the tribal divide , the future doesn’t good for the poor. The tories now know through studies that increasing income inequality would just deliver a second win for the leave side, they would use this victory to then smash labour hoping that leave voting labour people are blinkered enough to allow this to happen. It is really upsetting for me to see that everyone has been taken in by the tribalism and forgotten about the real divide in society which hasn’t changed for centuries.
You are presumably aware of the modern day equivalent of the Corn Laws, whom they benefit and which organisation insists that they be centralised.
I feel there is not a compromise which would satisfy each side.
The Leavers voted to have more control -sovereignty they call it- and to be better off. A more emotional stance perhaps?
In theory Brexit would deliver more control but maybe of a negative type (could stop something) but in reality we would be worse off.
The Remainers made a judgement we would be better off with Europe. Some were also influenced by the closer cultural and economic links and the repudiation of narrow nationalism.
A customs union would still leave us in an inferior position to the present situation. A Norway option would keep most of the best features but would still mean we would have no say in making regulations and “pay and obey”. It would be a Brexit In Name Only which would frustrate the leavers and to the remainers, it would mean we voted to disadvantage ourselves to satisfy the prejudices of the Mail and Telegraph readers. At the best we would be equally unhappy.
Agreed.
And BREXIT is the coup d’ grace of this design in my view.
There is no other explanation for the obduracy of May despite Jess Phillips’ emotional and admirable appeal to end the burning injustices May says she wants to end.
The gulf between what May does and says is glaring enough to be insulting.
I’ve generally always subscribed to “follow the money ” ….
In this case I feel that the advent of new EU regulation in various fields … money laundering, tax… was the unspoken reason for many of the more prominent ‘Leavers’ & that this was their major driver….
There’s a typo; none years should read nine years.
Apologies
“There’s a typo; none years should read nine years.”
Typo or Freudian slip ? 🙂
What measurement of inequality are you using?
GINI co-efficient 2010: 36%
GINI co-efficient 2016: 33.2%
First Google hit: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gini-index-wb-data.html
From where I’m standing 33.2 is lower than 36.
For the second time, why not do some reading on why Gini is such a poor measure?
@Jonathan Sanders
Why not try reading these as to why Gini is such a poor measure
http://tinyurl.com/y5xtactc
http://tinyurl.com/yy464y7a
“The data is powerful” says the author.