UK Unemployment falls by less than expected

Graham_Devon

zappahey wrote: »

I know public servants aren't well-respected on this board but, really, that's a bit harsh.

I'm not talking about the public servants.

I'm talking of the "clientel".

chewmylegoff

regardless of the validity of using the claimant count rather than the actual unemployed count, as long as you are comparing like with like, there is still some use to examining the figures.

if the claimant count is increasing at a lower rate, that means that rate of increase of unemployment is also slowing. regardless of what the true number of newly unemployed people is, the fact that it is lower than it has been is a good thing.

although, obviously, unemployment is still getting worse, however you look at it.

mardatha

LOL GD, I think he knows that ! - I am grateful for anything that lets the people see when the wool is being pulled over their eyes. Hopefully the days of govt getting away with bending the truth, are gone.

Graham_Devon

mardatha wrote: »

LOL GD, I think he knows that ! - I am grateful for anything that lets the people see when the wool is being pulled over their eyes. Hopefully the days of govt getting away with bending the truth, are gone.

You obviously didn't hear PM's questions!

Bloody hell, no one could actually understand the figures once Brown had given them out, including, it seems, himself.

Even a labour commentator said "hang on, this doesn't include inflation, or does it, I dont understand" on the radio.

Whichever way you look, any party will have to cut, but Brown was today simply mind baffling everyone with figures which make absolutely no sense and took nothing else into account (not even planned wage increases were taken into account) to say "we will give investment and raise spending"....while at the same time taking everything he had ignored into account to say the tories will cut.

Nice planted questions though from labour MP's such as "how would a 10% cut affect the police and crime".

Sheer mastermind stuff in the art of saying something so confusing that no one even bothers to try and argue as you don't know where to start.

Basically what Brown meant today is cuts will be around 7%. But these are increases and they will not let there be any cuts in expenditure if you go for the party everyone loves and is behind, the labour party.

Jonbvn

dopester wrote: »

It is partly that which worries me about people who don't still don't see STR as a good option...

Sorry but I do not see STR as a good idea for my own circumstances.

Assuming that mortgage interest is equivalent to rent would require us to rent a 4-bed detached house for around GBP150 pcm. Of course we have plenty of equity and a low mortgage rate. However, please refrain from such sweeping statements.:cool:

dopester

Jonbvn wrote: »

Sorry but I do not see STR as a good idea for my own circumstances.

Assuming that mortgage interest is equivalent to rent would require us to rent a 4-bed detached house for around GBP150 pcm. Of course we have plenty of equity and a low mortgage rate. However, please refrain from such sweeping statements.:cool:

OK - but you're dreaming if you don't think such low interest rates aren't accompanied by massive capital loss in value over the course of 12 months, 24 months ect.

Thrugelmir

kennyboy66 wrote: »

The ecomonic migrants is an interesting one, but where are they going to go ?

For eastern Europeans home. As thats where companies are relocating to.

mardatha

Once he gets too fancy then everybody knows full well he's lying through his teeth. Prat.

Thrugelmir

chewmylegoff wrote: »

regardless of the validity of using the claimant count rather than the actual unemployed count, as long as you are comparing like with like, there is still some use to examining the figures.

if the claimant count is increasing at a lower rate, that means that rate of increase of unemployment is also slowing. regardless of what the true number of newly unemployed people is, the fact that it is lower than it has been is a good thing.

although, obviously, unemployment is still getting worse, however you look at it.

Until we reach the bottom who has any idea how many people will become unemployed?

We still have another 12-18 months at least of actual layoffs and redundancies.

To name a couple of as examples, Lloyds and Santander have a few more jobs to shed yet.

Graham_Devon

chewmylegoff wrote: »

regardless of the validity of using the claimant count rather than the actual unemployed count, as long as you are comparing like with like, there is still some use to examining the figures.

if the claimant count is increasing at a lower rate, that means that rate of increase of unemployment is also slowing. regardless of what the true number of newly unemployed people is, the fact that it is lower than it has been is a good thing.

although, obviously, unemployment is still getting worse, however you look at it.

So it's a good positive thing we are seeing the second highest rate in unemployment, becaus it's not the highest?

On that assumption, unless we hit rock bottom in every measure, every single thing is a good thing, including people loosing 80% of their pensions, cus they could have lost 82% and so on.