Yes doesn't sound quite right given large recessions since 1780.

I'd be interested in seeing the source for this claim.

Average earnings certainly performing poorly and inequality an issue irrespective.

They are real in the same way that average wages in 1600 was 2 groats and now they are £509. But such a comparison tells you little

In economic terms they are nominal as opposed to real. Or if you'd prefer current as opposed to constant. Either way you should not be using those figures to infer anything about standards of living. Really.

No, I didn't say that though. I queried those figures. I don't believe that's the case in nominal or real terms.

I was pointing out that your figures were nominal and not real wage figures and it's real figures which matter in this context.

What is clear is that real wages have not recovered since the GFC for average workers and that this is a genuine problem. Austerity has exacerbated the impact of the GFC enormously. Inequality and low levels of productivity are the two biggest structural problems for our economy.

Comparing a number in 2016 vs a number some years earlier is only relevant if you take inflation into account. Your numbers don't. Taking inflation into account gives real wage figures, which show average real wages have still not recovered since GFC, most of which time the Tories have been in government. i.e. you had more purchasing power then compared with now. You could turn your cash into more in the way of housing, food, clothing etc.

Inflation 2000 to 2016 is around 56%. So £509 under the Tories in 2016 and £306 under Labour in 2000. £306 plus 56% is £477. So still £32 a week better off under the wicked Tories.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

We shall see. But I think you'll be disappointed.