Job figures are horrendous but hardly a surprise

This was always an ideological attack on the state and the young are going to have to pay.

The ONS data release on the labour market this morning was horrendous. Unemployment jumped to 8.1 per cent, up 0.4 per cent on the quarter. The total number of unemployed hit 2.57 million, which is the largest quarterly increase since the three months to July 2009. Nearly 900,000 have been unemployed for at least a year and 425,000 for at least two years. The unemployment rate is now in double digits in the north east (11.3 per cent) and in London (10 per cent).

The number of people in employment aged 16 and over fell by 178,000 on the quarter and by 47,000 on the year to reach 29.10 million. This is the largest quarterly fall in the number of people in employment since the three months to July 2009.

The number of people working part-time fell by 175,000 over the quarter to reach 7.78 million. This is the largest quarterly fall in the number of part-time workers since comparable records began in 1992. Inactivity was also up and wage growth remains benign.

Most worrying was the rise in youth unemployment, which is now at 991,000. Next month, it surely will hit the million mark, as the cohort who left schools, colleges and universities fail to find jobs. Plus, of the 17,000 increase in the claimant count, 9,900 was among 18-to-24-year-olds.

The youth unemployment rate was 21.3 per cent over the three months between June and August 2011, an increase of 1.6 per cent on the previous quarter. Worst of all, a quarter of a million youngsters under the age of 25 have been unemployed for at least a year. Long spells of unemployment while young can create permanent scars.

The rise in youth unemployment is hardly a surprise, given the government abolished the Future Jobs Fund and the Educational Maintenance Allowance and reduced the number of university places. This coalition appears to be dead set on creating a lost generation. I first started warning that this was coming in 2009 and the Labour government responded and successfully got youth unemployment down, so the blame for the rise rests entirely at the coalition's door.

Interestingly, the ONS also reports an alternative measure of youth unemployment. This measure, which was introduced in its April 2011 data release, measures the youth unemployment rate "excluding people in full-time education". According to this measure, there were 721,000 unemployed 16-to-24-year-olds between June and August 2011.

This alternative measure of youth unemployment was introduced by ONS back in Spring 2011 in response to pressure from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Iain Duncan Smith, who argued that this was the most appropriate measure to focus on. Youth unemployment among 16-to-24-year-olds increased by 74,000; the number of unemployed who were not in full-time education increased by 78,000.

Yes, that's right; it increased by 78,000. Unsurprisingly, we have heard little on this measure today.

In response, the Employment Minister, Chris Grayling, said:

It is clear that we are seeing the effect of the international economic crisis on the UK labour market. That's why, last week, we announced the right-to-buy housing scheme to support growth and today we are offering more support for jobseekers as sector-based work academies come on stream, combining real training, work experience and a guaranteed interview. Our new work programme is now up and running and offers people who have lost their jobs flexible, tailored support to get back into jobs and stay there.

I guess Grayling has to blame somebody but his comments are not credible. Unemployment is rising because of the government's failed austerity programme, plus a front-loaded public-sector job cull. Take responsibility -- tailored support doesn't work when there aren't any jobs. Guaranteed interviews will not work when, according to your data, there are 2.5 million unemployed and only 500,000 vacancies.

The work programme is already an expensive failure because there is insufficient demand in the economy, simple as that. Feeble excuses don't wash.

This inept coalition has no strategy for jobs or growth and its austerity plan is lowering growth fast and destroying jobs, as I have been warning for a while. This is as good as it gets, because unemployment is expected to rise inexorably from here for many more months and, based on current policies, it is hard to see where it stops.

George Osborne and his team believed in expansionary fiscal contractions, which mean that cuts in public spending allow the private sector to blossom. There was no believable empirical evidence to support such a contention and it hasn't worked.

I understand from my sources that cabinet members are close to panic as they have no idea what to do now -- the slowing economy has taken them entirely by surprise.

This was always an ideological attack on the state and the young are the ones who are going to have to pay.

David Blanchflower is economics editor of the New Statesman and professor of economics at Dartmouth College, New Hampshire

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

No, straight couples don't face marriage discrimination

The couple are right in law, but their complaint is ill-judged and tone-deaf. 

The Court of Appeal has struck down the case of a heterosexual couple - Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan seeking to have a civil partnership. The couple in question say they are the victims of discrimination. Are they right?

The legal question is more complex than the headlines. The government’s position is that they are waiting and seeing what the introduction of equal marriage means for the future of civil partnerships. Either civil partnerships will cease to be an option for same-sex couples or they will be extended to everyone. Judges were divided as to whether or not they should leave it for the government to decide that, or if civil partnerships should be extended to heterosexual couples. They opted to leave it to parliament, albeit by a narrow margin.

Legally, the judges agree, that the state of affairs creates a system where the law treats heterosexual and homosexual couples differently, and that this should be ended. And as far as the law is concerned, I agree. But emotionally and morally, the case of Steinfeld and Keidan stick in my craw.
Let’s remember why civil partnerships were created: to allow same-sex couples to access some of the legal protections extended to heterosexual couples in a way that could pass through the Houses of Parliament without being bogged down in too many battles with religious conservatives.

The rights that are not extended to civil partners include: a prohibition on religious readings, music or symbols. They cannot take place in religious venues, regardless of the beliefs of the owners’ rights. And people in a civil partnership cannot describe themselves as “married” on legal documents. There is no provision for separation as a result of adultery.

The rights not enjoyed by married couples in civil partnerships are: the ability to have private ceremonies without witnesses present. The reason why heterosexual marriages include provision for witnesses is the existence of forced heterosexual marriages in the United Kingdom, a rare example of a legal distinction based upon the sexuality of a couple that is grounded in fact, not prejudice or mumbo-jumbo. There is still no recognition for adultery in same-sex relationships in English law, whether you are married or in a civil partnership.  Equal marriage still has yet to be extended to Northern Ireland.

But if you are a heterosexual couple and you want to have a civil union that eschews religious messages, or patriarchal tropes, from being walked down the aisle by your father to the presence of a white wedding dress, you can. If you dislike the phrase “husband” or the word “wife”, you can use whatever word you like, in a social and a legal context. Don’t forget, too, that the courts have ruled recently in favour of couples in longstanding partnerships outside of marriage being able to access pension and other survivor benefits.

So while there is discrimination as a matter of law, it is hard to see how there is discrimination as a matter of fact for heterosexual couples. There is, however, a continuing discrimination towards homosexual couples in the divorce courts and in Northern Ireland.

It seems particularly ill-judged to claim discrimination while using the courts to gain access to an institution created as a pathway to the rights you already enjoy and can freely access, crowdfunding £35,000 along the way, particularly while there is still genuine marriage inequality between heterosexual and homosexual couples. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.