A LARGE part of recent political discourse has been about living standards, inflation rates, and wage settlements.

This is hardly surprising, as these are all things that affect each and every one of us day to day.

The pandemic and the war in Ukraine have contributed to a turbulent few years. 

Fortunately, recent figures have shown that the inflation rate has dropped lower than the wage growth rate – for the first time in a while. This should mean that people will begin to feel better off.

In addition, the announcement in the reduction of National Insurance by the Chancellor should also mean that those in work see a rise in their monthly pay packet. 

The Government can put in place policies to help with inflation and wage growth – but they do not have a direct control over these things.

However, two areas where Government policy has had a real and substantial impact are the state pension and the minimum/living wage. 

Since 2010 the Conservative Government has been committed to what is known as the 'triple lock' for the state pension. This has meant an increase in the pension by whatever the largest is of; the inflation rate, the average annual wage increase, or 2.5 per cent.

This has resulted in the state pension rising from £98 per week in 2010 to the new State Pension of £203.85 in 2023 – which is likely to go up to £221.20 next year. This has helped to significantly improve the lives of pensioners and take many out of poverty. 

Another area where the Government has a direct influence is the minimum (or living) wage – which matters tremendously for those on the lowest pay. The minimum wage was £5.93 in 2010, but has grown to a National Living Wage of £11.44 in from April 2024 – heading towards 60 per cent of average wages. A huge boost for those on the lowest pay.

This is very welcome as inflation is especially pernicious for those on the lowest pay, as they are disproportionately affected.

Nevertheless, the minimum should not become the maximum. And I wonder what the naming says about our approach to work. I recently met with a constituent to discuss this. She had an idea that we should be celebrating work and the contribution made by all workers – and certainly those on lesser pay.

Instead of calling it a 'minimum' or 'living' wage it should be recognised for what it is – the results of endeavour and commitment. It should therefore be renamed the 'Workers' Wage'.

We need to see our economy grow – but that must always come alongside seeing our wages grow. Any Government should aspire to make sure that it supports those on the lowest wage as well as those who are dependent on their state pension alone.

And so, whenever the economic outlook starts to look a little bit brighter, the Workers' Wage needs to get that bit more ambitious. This is what I hope to see happen as we begin to emerge from these difficult times.