Savers should stop whinging about low interest rates when millions of Britons can't afford to save anything

The Bank of England's governor Mark Carney has been getting it in the neck over the impact of his low interest rate policy. It might be very much worse for everyone without it, and the interests of savers shouldn't be the Government's priority anyway

Staying put: Bank of England Governor Mark Carney

Bad luck savers, your bette noir is staying put at the Bank of England, at least for the next couple of years.

While governor Mark Carney has his critics in the City - what central banker doesn’t - his decision to continue in post until 2019 was largely greeted with sighs of relief. But not from those championing the plight of savers, notably a vocal corps of Conservative backbenchers. For them, Mr Carney has become something of a bogeyman given the Bank’s policies under his tenure.

It is high time for them to stop their whinging.

It is true that it isn’t much fun for savers right now, as I can testify from personal experience. I’m among their number.

But the fact of the matter is that we live in a country where 16m people have no meaningful savings of any kind.

These people are not feckless. They are not ne’er do wells. The overwhelming majority of them work, but in jobs that pay something near to poverty level wages.

The former Chancellor George Osborne appeared to recognise the problem, embarking on a process of increasing the minimum wage, while rebranding it as the National Living Wage. However, that it is not, and the rebranding exercise was a cynical one on the part of Mr Osborne.

The real Living Wage is paid as part of a voluntary scheme backed by the Living Wage Foundation. It is calculated based on what people need to earn to afford a decent basic standard of living, as opposed to merely being paid just about enough to get by. Sometimes.

Quite a few businesses (more than 3,000) back it, not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because there is a compelling economic reason to do so. Paying it results in better quality work, less absenteeism, and less staff turnover.

You may have read yesterday that it is set to rise by 20p an hour to £8.45 an hour, or by 35p to £9.75 an hour in London. However, by contrast, in August we reported that nearly 200 employers were named and shamed for failing to pay the minimum wage of just £7.20 an hour.

That’s not the end of it, either. Many low waged workers are on zero hours contracts, and so can’t be sure they will get the hours they need to barely get by. Some of them will be classified as “self employed” by their employers such that they earn even less than the minimum wage, which was what last week’s tribunal against taxi tech company Uber was all about.

Uber is by no means alone. Many of its drivers, people in similar situations, those just earning something close to the minimum wage, they all of them are among what has become known as “the working poor”.

Now here's the question: where should the priority of Government lie? With those earning enough to put a little aside. Or with those working in jobs that fail to pay enough to meet their basic needs to the extent that they end up hock to exploitative payday lenders when unexpected bills come in?

I am aware that lots of savers work hard, and even do without so they are able put money away every week. Their thrift is commendable and it is a shame that it is not being better rewarded. Eventually, however, it will be. The current economic environment will not last forever and at least they’ve not had to put up with much in the way of inflation to erode their capital. Mr Osborne also helped them by making saving tax free for most people.

Their current plight pales by comparison to those who work hard and do without just to put food into their children’s mouths. People for whom having savings is just a distant dream.

Their situation, and in fact the situation of many savers, might worse still if the economy were allowed to slide. Better to be employed than it is to be unemployed. Britain’s benefits are nothing like as generous as right wing tabloids would have you believe.

There might have been a lot more unemployed people had the Bank of England under Lord King, when the policies of ultra low interest rates and printing money were embarked upon, not intervened to steady the economy in the wake of the financial crisis of 2008 (arguably he didn't act quickly enough). And had Mr Carney not continued the process.

No one knows for certain, but it’s interesting to note that, outside of a few low rent backbenchers and their friends, people aren’t exactly queuing up to find out. All the more so given the self inflicted wound of Brexit. A lot of savers voted for that. Those that did have only themselves to blame for their plight, because the economy may very well need more propping up in the weeks and months to come.