Unemployment FALLS for second month in a row

Rochdale_Pioneers

Graham_Devon wrote: »

To answer your question about "why is unemployment lower".

The new 6 month rule, perhaps?

Skews the figures nicely, so labour did do well there.

I never quote Uk government statistics if I can avoid it. Thatcher notoriously changed the measure of unemployment 30 odd times downward, and as you note Labour haven't stuck to the same measure either.

But what you can do is look at the International Labour Organisation stats which compares like with like.

And what it shows is unemployment:
UK 7.8%
Italy 8.2%
EU 9.4%
France 9.9%
US 10.1%
Ireland 12.6%
Spain 19.2%

Make whatever partisan comments you like about stats being manipulated by Labour and I will do the same about the Tories. Or we can cut all that nonsense and look at the impartial facts gathered using international standard methodology. And the facts are clear - UK unemployment is lower.

Thrugelmir

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

The Tories are on record as saying that the deficit needs to be cut as the first priority, that the government is too timid and that the Tories would hold an emergency budget allowing for cuts in the 10/11 financial year. So thats the cuts bit. They're against tax rises in the form of NI and the new top rate, so I'd be surprised to see tax rises. And growth only comes if the economy recovers. Which according to the IMF it won't do if you cut deeply.

So we have the quandry of which Tory policy we believe to me the correct one. Osborne's one of big cuts and quickly, or Cameron's one following his visit to Davos of cut not as big or quickly. Either way they propose to cede economic management to the credit rating agencies - they want deeper cuts quickly so thats what the Tories will have to deliver.



And as unemployment is a lagging index it will be a while before it recovers whoever wins the election. But why is unemployment now substantially lower than it was in both the last recessions and the "boom" inbetween them? Why is it substantially lower than in the Eurozone or America. Labour have obviously done something right, or we'd have hit the 4m level that so many predicted as we entered recession.

And why would the Tories have to reverse these policies? Why do they have to throw half a million public sector workers on the dole as keeps being threatened? And the effects of that according to some economists would be to add another one and a half million private sector employees on the dole as the public sector cuts contract the economy. Doing these things costs more than not doing them. You cannot slash public sector jobs to cut the deficit - you'll increase it.

So that policy is ideologically driven not economically. The same policy was around before we entered recession and hasn't changed.



I did answer that. We took the IMF loan because we weren't willing to devalue the pound and thus hit the currency reserves held by commonwealth countries. We didn't spend all the funds the IMF made available anyway, and after the loan was offered the Treasury mysteriously discovered that they had made an error in calculating the hole in public finances.

And for economists pressing for cuts, yes, they all are. Its not cut vs don't cut thats the issue, its when and by how much. Look, Cameron went to Davos and was told explicitly by the gathered gaggle of economists and the IMF that to cut too fast too deep would imperil British recovery. Which is why he has tried to soften that policy. Yes, the markets want us to cut the deficit faster. But as I said above they won't threaten our AAA status and are going to be too distracted watching the collapse of the Euro to worry about a British deficit coming down slightly slower than they want.

Mean while in the real world announced today.

Nottinghamshire council plan puts 1,000 jobs at risk


An extra 1,000 jobs could be lost at Nottinghamshire County Council as part of a "modernisation programme". The council plans to cut back operations with increased technology, reduced management and fewer buildings.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/8521323.stm


This is the thin end of the wedge. The jobs created by New Labour aren't so recession proof as they may seem.

Rochdale_Pioneers

Thrugelmir wrote: »

This is the thin end of the wedge. The jobs created by New Labour aren't so recession proof as they may seem.

Who said they were recession proof?

Thrugelmir

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Who said they were recession proof?

We've had a period of low unemployment, which is in a sense illusory. As the very jobs created ( "public sector") depended on the tax revenues generated in the main by a very sucessful finance sector.

Now the lack of investment in the creation of sustainable "real" jobs will come home to roost.

Public sector jobs have been regarded as immune to cuts for many years. I'm aware of a significant local public sector employer investigating the possibility of reducing headcount by 10% by 2011/2012. As its unable to change the pay structure itself. Another own goal it woud appear from the current Government.

Graham_Devon

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Make whatever partisan comments you like about stats being manipulated by Labour and I will do the same about the Tories. Or we can cut all that nonsense and look at the impartial facts gathered using international standard methodology. And the facts are clear - UK unemployment is lower.

Sorry, but earlier you were saying it was lower than the last recession.

Now I have bought up a valid point about the 6 month rule, you are now saying "the facts are it is lower" and completely changing what you were comparing it to before?

Rochdale_Pioneers

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Sorry, but earlier you were saying it was lower than the last recession.

Now I have bought up a valid point about the 6 month rule, you are now saying "the facts are it is lower" and completely changing what you were comparing it to before?

I'll have to have a dig around but the ILO data for the early 90s is kicking around somewhere. You'd be surprised as to how little a difference the various tweaks to the claimant count have made - people are either unemployed or they're not, and fiddling with the methodology can only disguise the numbers for a short time before the unemployed not counted pop up again.