Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
If we vote for Brexit what happens
Comments
-
Opinium for the Observer.
Remain 44 (+1)
Leave 42 (+1)
(YouGov, online)
Remain: 42% (-1)
Leave: 43% (+1)0 -
Seems odd unemployment is so much higher with record numbers in employment and record participation rates.....
unfortunately the way unemployment statistics are presented makes the average newspaper article misleading.
For instance one ONS page showsLooking at unemployment by how long people have been out of work and seeking work, for October to December 2015 there were:
950,000 people who had been unemployed for up to 6 months, 26,000 more than for a year earlier
252,000 people who had been unemployed for between 6 and 12 months, 48,000 fewer than for a year earlier
488,000 people who had been unemployed for over 12 months, 150,000 fewer than for a year earlier
So what looks to be about 1.7 million unemployed is actually approximately 0.95 million temporarily unemployed for 6 months or less. There is then a group of about 0.25 million who are unemployed for 6-12 months. Only about 0.7 million people in the whole of the UK are unemployed for more than 6 months.
I would suggest using that figure as the unemployment figure would be far far more useful and representative both in good times and bad.
So UK unemployment is not 1.7 million or 5.1% its actually closer to 0.7 million or about 2.1% unemployed for more than 6 months. The newspapers and the government should quote this 2.1% unemployment figure or maybe even the 1.3% unemployed for 12 months or more. Or best of all quote all 3. BBC headline: Unemployment is 5.1% but 2.1% if we exclude those who will find work in the next 1-26 weeks and or 1.3% for long term unemployed
The difference is just churn where it takes people 1-6 months looking for work and they by in large do find it. If you look at the data and fast forward 6 months you would find the 0.95 million unemployed for less than 6 months becomes 0.25 million unemployed for 6-12 months. Or some 75% of the recent unemployed find work in 6 months or less.
Its even better if you are aged 25 or over as the youth unemployment rate is higher0 -
Sage opinion on the likes of the Daily Politics show is that Team Remain have handled this campaign badly, throwing too many stats at the public far too early.
It's actually hardening public attitude against all these figures!
So what's Hamish's solution?
Throw yet more stats at everyone!
Hamish, you've got this badly wrong mate. They need to recognise the lack of control of immigration is something which concerns the public. Simpy deflecting discussion on the issue won't work.0 -
Seems odd unemployment is so much higher with record numbers in employment and record participation rates.....
Long term unemployment in the UK is only about 1.3% and by long term it means for 12 months or more.
I spent a few mins trying to find the uk employment rate for 12 months or more and the only link I found was for data in 1993-2003 which clearly shows long term unemployment falling and short term rising. This basically means more churn in the workforce ie fewer jobs or life more stages where people change industry or company.
I think its likely this is just a continuation of the decade long trend in 1993-2003
also youth unemployment is higher than the general population but they are more likely to find a job quicker again this may simply indicate high churn in jobs for the young which makes a lot of sense. So when we see youth unemployment at twice the level of adults it might suggest they are just changing jobs more frequently.0 -
Sage opinion on the likes of the Daily Politics show is that Team Remain have handled this campaign badly, throwing too many stats at the public far too early.
It's actually hardening public attitude against all these figures!
So what's Hamish's solution?
Throw yet more stats at everyone!
Hamish, you've got this badly wrong mate. They need to recognise the lack of control of immigration is something which concerns the public. Simpy deflecting discussion on the issue won't work.
To be fair we won't know if the economic focus has worked or not until we see the results after the election.
I thought the Conservative campaign in the last GE was terrible but in the end the results proved me wrong.
Polling on this generally looks too close to call, and the immigration issue was always going to be a big problem for the Remain camp with a large section of the general public, no matter how they campaigned.
At a really simplistic level this was always going to be largely an Economy v Immigration election and that still looks to be the case.0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Far from it.
The Treasury projects 4 quarters of recession with a 3.6% fall in GDP and an additional 820K people losing their jobs- The Treasury has admitted its forecasts are fixed under political pressure.
- The last time the Treasury forecast an economic shock was if the UK left the Exchange Rate Mechanism. All its predictions were hopelessly wrong.
- The Treasury failed to predict the last recession and championed the fact its error was supported by the Bank of England, the IMF and the OECD.
- George Osborne admits the independent OBR was set up because Treasury forecasts were simply not believed anymore.
If I don't reply to your post,
you're probably on my ignore list.0 -
I would suggest using that figure as the unemployment figure would be far far more useful and representative both in good times and bad.
There is of course value in providing a more detailed analysis than one single figure.
However, discounting one subset because you believe it is 'temporary' is only useful if it is a true anomaly. In this case, it is not. It is a consistent grouping and although the individuals counted in it will change more frequently than the other two groups, one would expect the overall number in that group to be relatively consistent.
Not reporting it would be misleading. For example, assume 11,000 BHS staff are made redundant. That is a significant number who would under your proposal not be included in unemployment statistics until whatever percentage hit the six month mark. That is despite them being eligible for unemployment benefit from day 1.
Second example. A person unemployed for 2 years is counted. They get a job but leave it within a week. The next month they are still unemployed, but are no longer counted.
Filtering statistics so you get a more 'appropriate' measure is all very well, but half the time it's the parts that you've filtered out that can tell you the more important story.0 -
...
At a really simplistic level this was always going to be largely an Economy v Immigration election and that still looks to be the case.
The government can't even explain why non-EU migration is much higher than Cameron's total migration target.
A Labour MP on the radio on Thursday night could not even offer any migration target.
It's not a reassuring stance to admit you either can not hit targets or don't actually have targets on something which is clearly important to people.
Maybe emigration is too low, but they never touch upon this. There are few policies aimed at encouraging Brits to go seek more work abroad. Encouraging more Brits to actually study abroad would see more of them taking up positions outside the UK I think.0 -
The government can't even explain why non-EU migration is much higher than Cameron's total migration target.
A Labour MP on the radio on Thursday night could not even offer any migration target.
It's not a reassuring stance to admit you either can not hit targets or don't actually have targets on something which is clearly important to people.
Maybe emigration is too low, but they never touch upon this. There are few policies aimed at encouraging Brits to go seek more work abroad. Encouraging more Brits to actually study abroad would see more of them taking up positions outside the UK I think.
These days if you don't have a soundbite for it, which can be explained in a sentence or so, then politicians just tend to bluff there way through it.
Remain have been doing it with immigration, and Leave with the Economy.
Personally I think the idea of an immigration target is pointless anyway, something I'd expect to find in the 5 year plan of Soviet era Russia rather than the UK.
If have no issues with controls to make sure that economic migrants can support themselves and their families and aren't a burden to the society they are moving to, but setting targets of absolute numbers seems counterproductive, if businesses start being held back by shortages of key workers should they have to lobby the government and wait until they accepted the issue before getting a relaxation of the number.
Do you include returning British citizens from overseas in the numbers, do they get locked out as well if we have already hit our quota of net movement for the year?0 -
The EU meanwhile are desperately trying to control the numbers of migrants from Africa and the Middle East.
They might have shut off the Turkey route. Now they are talking about 'carrot and stick' with countries like Lebanon and African states.
Clearly they have 'targets' in mind.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343K Banking & Borrowing
- 250K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.6K Spending & Discounts
- 235.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards