While worker pay and UK growth stagnates, the corporate oligarchy has skyrocketed by 20% in a year
Financial Times Stock Exchange 100 Index — otherwise known as FTSE 100—shows that the share value of the top 100 UK companies has leapt by 20% in a year. Meanwhile, overall UK growth has stagnated at 1.3% in 2025 and real terms worker pay is largely lower than in 2008.
Economic inequality
The FTSE 100 is a corporate oligarchy because it’s largely remained the same over the past decade. Only an average of 125 companies have rotated in and out of the FTSE 100 over this period.
Since the index was launched in the 1980s, only 500 companies have had a place in it. That’s despite massive advancement in tech and other sectors.
The UK economy could be made up of a healthy blend of small-medium businesses. Meanwhile, the government could take strategic public ownership of essentials— including pharmaceuticals—and provide housing at cost price. If that were the situation, the fluctuation in the FTSE 100 would be much higher.
Instead, it has long been dominated by a revolving door of the same profiteering companies. And it’s stock market value has leapt by 55% in the past five years.
Increase in bosses pay
The top executives of FTSE 100 companies have been substantially and vertically rewarded for the increase in stock price. Last year, the boss of Lloyds Bank received a 20% pay increase, while the boss of NatWest had a 35% pay increase.
It is worth noting that due to the economic shocks of the unlawful US-Israel war against Iran, some of the largest multinational oil companies like BP and Shell—part of the top FTSE 100—may stand to benefit from rising oil prices. Meanwhile, average citizens are left to foot the bill of rising energy bills.
Wealth concentration
Corporate capitalism is about maintenance of existing wealth and power rather than a truly competitive and diverse economy. Small and medium size enterprises receive between just 2% and 5% of lending from banks, despite making up 60% of private sector jobs.
With that in mind, a mixed economy of common and private ownership could be much more fruitful than the dominance of a few large corporations. The government can strategically invest in the economy and, to a degree, plan what resources and expertise will become necessary. It’s clear that AI and automation (the fourth industrial revolution) would be highly beneficial.
Featured image via the Canary/Unsplash
Comments 2
Leave a Reply
The Canary
PO Box 71199
LONDON
SE20 9EX
Canary Media Ltd – registered in England. Company registration number 09788095.
For guest posting, contact [email protected]
For other enquiries, contact: [email protected]
© Canary Media Ltd 2026, all rights reserved | Website by Monster | Hosted by Krystal | Privacy Settings
There’s no reason for corporations to exist, and massive private enterprises stand in direct conflict to freedom and liberty, they’re unaccountable and undemocratic (in the genuine meaning of the term not the contemporary, distorted, elected dictatorship). Small orivate businesses may be ok to some extent, whth sufficient regulation and worker power, but as businesses expand they exert an influence on social organisation that restricts others’ choices. As businesses expand, so should democratic involvement and control, and not just from within the business since the whole of society has an interest in what happens within it. We could evrn expand that beyond borders since societies affect each other. The private sector occupies land and resources and people’s time and energy, so everyone has an interest in what they do, and thatvrealky should come with a powerful influence over them. Because samall businesses can be as toxic as larger ones, just over a smaller jurisdiction.
There’s no reason for corporations to exist, and massive private enterprises stand in direct conflict to freedom and liberty, they’re unaccountable and undemocratic (in the genuine meaning of the term not the contemporary, distorted, elected dictatorship). Small private businesses may be ok to some extent, with sufficient regulation and worker power, but as businesses expand they exert an influence on social organisation that restricts others’ choices. As businesses expand, so should democratic involvement and control, and not just from within the business since the whole of society has an interest in what happens within that society. We could even expand that beyond borders since societies affect each other. The private sector occupies land and resources and people’s time and energy, so everyone has an interest in what they do, and that really should come with a powerful influence over them. Because small businesses can be as toxic as larger ones, just over a smaller jurisdiction.