LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

That's fine though because it would have been worse under Labour. For one thing we'd still be dragged down by a vast free trading bloc and unable to do free trade deals with New Zealand.

Fair point.

One quirky stat from looking at inflation and earning growth: Earnings have grown slightly faster (0.2% real pa) since we left the EU whilst being flat in real terms in the post-GFC to pre-Brexit phase.

Not statistically significant, but counter-intuitive, perhaps.

I guess you can choose a time range that suits your purposes, but do you agree that wages are not stagnant now? Otherwise the point might have been phrased along the lines of 'wages used to be stagnant in the past'.

I'm talking about now and the ONS data says they the current annual growth in wages generally is around 6%. Would you call that stagnant?

2% in real terms.

I agree that everyone earning more money is generally good for individuals and the economy. My major problem is how do you propose we fund it (genuine question)?

I run a small manufacturing business, to pay my staff more I need to either generate more sales or increase prices, neither of which are really feasible. Ours is a niche product and our turnover is pretty consistent year on year. I suspect many small businesses across the UK are in a similar position.

When you step up to larger businesses, the greatest concentration of profit generated goes to shareholders or exec salaries, not evenly distributed amongst the workforce. Unless there is a significant change in culture then we will continue with fewer people earning even greater sums, not more people taking a proportionate increase.

Politicians will say grow the economy. But again, how and where, and how is this going to actually grow wages for the majority of people?

I do agree that real wages need to increase, I just haven't seen anyone offer a credible plan in the UK as yet.

I mean, 1 quarter in 40 isn't the stellar performance you think it is.

And you need to put it in context of wider wage growth across the world where 2% isn't all that good.

Loooooool.

The thing with graduate employer is that it is actually a cost. Graduates need training and companies swap this for their future potential. I'd probably choose to pay someone with two years' experience £60k rather than pay a graduate £35k.

I'd agree with that. My son got his masters in engineering last summer and got a job paying in the mid-30s, he's the highest paid of his friends. I think he's good at his job and will be rewarded, he got a decent Christmas bonus having only been there 3 months and I would expect him to get a reasonable rise as it seems he's proving his worth.

I just find it interesting that there is so much dissatisfaction at being paid an above average salary to receive training.

Because poverty only exists for the aged.

Pension incomes are higher than they've ever been versus working incomes and working age poverty has risen 58% over the last 10 years, so forgive me for thinking this govt has strongly favoured pensioners - all the more remarkable that Sunak gets booed for it.

As I read somewhere else, "The boomerocracy will eat its own children".

Absolutely nuts - they should be f*cking grateful. They won't have it so good again!

You're fighting a losing battle, some pensioners in the South East are millionaires due to the houses they've lived in for 50 years increasing massively in value and some pensioners have gold plated final salary schemes ergo an entire generation is loaded and as they hate younger people they deserve lots of bad stuff happening to themor something like that.