Official: London & South East are overly reliant on public sector spending

One of the myths put about by the Home-Owner-Ists in London & the South East is that public sector spending cuts (to the extent there actually will be any) will reduce their house prices less than in 'the regions' because 'the regions' are overly reliant on public sector spending, i.e. that the proportion of public sector workers is lower in London & the South East.

Firstly, the ratio for London is the same as anywhere else: around one-in-four people are employed by the government or local councils (it might well be lower in the rest of the South East, of course).

Secondly, as today's Evening Standard explains:

Public sector wages in the capital are far higher on average than other parts of the country, just over £34,000 compared to slightly less than £26,000. Individuals who get more generous pay rises and are on the highest salaries are set to be the biggest losers from the reforms.

RMT general secretary Bob Crow warned: "The Hutton pension plans will hit public sector workers in London particularly hard because wages tend to be higher."

Jonathan Baume, general secretary of the FDA*, which represents senior public sector workers, added: "Clearly there is a big impact on London because of the concentration of public services."

So even if the ratio of public sector-to-private sector is slightly lower, average salaries are considerably higher (all the tens of thousands of Whitehall mandarins earning seven figure salaries), and the total amount spent is probably as much as anywhere else.

So there.

* Rather hilariously, if you follow the hyperlink in the article to the FDA, it cross references you to articles about the US Food & Drug Administration, and not the rather pretentiously named civil servants' lobbying group the First Division Association (who by rights ought to be called Premiership Association by now).