Claimant count fall by 32,300, Unemployment holds at 7.8%

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I have to disagree here.

We are not past the election yet. Major shake ups after that.

I thought all party's have already said their will be no sweeping cuts.

So do you think they will make around 1m unemployed out of the public sector this year?

I really can not see why anyone would debate now we are not past the worst in unemployment as no one is predicting unemployment to hit 3M now?

Perhaps someone will indicate the amount of pubic sector jobs likely to go this year so we can actually evaluate it rather than saying their is going to be an election. (again and again and again)

Your edit
As for the contracts GD they are usually competitive tender for X years. Can they afford to break them?

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

I thought all party's have already said their will be no sweeping cuts.

So do you think they will make around 1m unemployed out of the public sector this year?

I really can not see why anyone would debate now we are not past the worst in unemployment as no one is predicting unemployment to hit 3M now?

Perhaps someone will indicate the amount of pubic sector jobs likely to go this year so we can actually evaluate it rather than saying their is going to be an election. (again and again and again)

To your first line. I simply do not believe a word of it. Not when they are already factoring in cuts.

To your second paragraph, I never said this year or put a timeframe on it. I just said I don't think we are past the worst. If you had have said "well past the worst now for THIS YEAR" I wouldn't have said what I did.

But you just said well past the worst, to which I disagree. And that's all it is, I just disagree, there is no malice or anything else involved in it. I just think we will see big cuts over a period of time.

As for your edit:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/8569552.stm

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I never said this year or put a timeframe on it.

Perhaps I misunderstood you use of this years election.;)

As for your edit GD

A Plymouth MP has urged the government not to cut staff at the city's Royal Navy armaments depot.
It is feared about 60 jobs could go at the Ernesettle depot, which supplies weapons to ships at Devonport Dockyard.

Sorry GD it made me LOL as i thought you were going to show me 5,000+ jobs at risk. Bad news but perhaps if you looked at what happened in the private sector you will realise cuts in the public sector will not be near what has happened there.

Kohoutek

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b2e66232-31ab-11df-9ef5-00144feabdc0.html

However, the fall has been achieved at the expense of large numbers of people leaving the labour force. The number of those classed as economically inactive shot up by 149,000 in the quarter to January to a record level of 8.16m, or 21.5 per cent of the workforce, driven largely by an increase of 98,000 in the number of students.

The number of people employed fell by 54,000 on the quarter to 28.86m, a rate of 72.7 per cent, the lowest since 1996.

Long-term unemployment, measured by the total of people out of work for more than 12 months, rose by 61,000 to 687,000, the highest level since 1997.

boomerangs

Kohoutek wrote: »

The number of those classed as economically inactive shot up by 149,000 in the quarter to January to a record level of 8.16m, or 21.5 per cent of the workforce,

Now that is interesting. So the true unemployment rate is 21.5%. And even that figure is probably fiddled. It just shows you can't believe a word the government says.

ses6jwg

boomerangs wrote: »

Now that is interesting. So the true unemployment rate is 21.5%. And even that figure is probably fiddled. It just shows you can't believe a word the government says.

Economically inactive, who comes under that?

Pensioners?
Kids?
Long-term unemployed?
Income support claimants?
Disability benefits?

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

As for your edit GD

Sorry GD it made me LOL as i thought you were going to show me 5,000+ jobs at risk. Bad news but perhaps if you looked at what happened in the private sector you will realise cuts in the public sector will not be near what has happened there.

Oh christ. Everything but everything needs explaining.

I was just giving you one story, I should of made that clear. This is a supply chain. If that part of the supply goes, so do loads of other jobs.

"The union Unite said on Monday that although talks were at a "very early stage", there were plans to reduce staff "significantly"."

It's not just the 60 jobs. That's just one small part of a big picture.

I was just using a simple example as to how things are waiting for the election.

boomerangs

ses6jwg wrote: »

Economically inactive, who comes under that?

Pensioners?
Kids?
?

Err..no. The figures only relate to people of working age.

HammerSmashedFace

boomerangs wrote: »

Now that is interesting. So the true unemployment rate is 21.5%. And even that figure is probably fiddled. It just shows you can't believe a word the government says.

As I've said, although the figures are manipulated, 21.5% unemployment is pushing it a bit:D, there are plenty of people who are housewives/husbands, students, genuine disability issues etc...

Like I say the main issue is nobody knows what the true figure is because governments have lied and fiddled for so long. The one thing that you can be sure of is that it is significantly higher than the government figures suggest.

Really2

boomerangs wrote: »

Err..no. The figures only relate to people of working age.

Perhaps the OP should have said early retirement and students. Also stay at home Moms.