It may be too late to save the UK economy from recession

Today has seen a flood of bad economic news. The Autumn Statement may be too little, too late.

I am really hoping that one of these mornings I am going to wake up to some good economic news. But today was definitely not that day. The continuing flow of bad news on top of bad news is something we are all now becoming accustomed to.

I can only imagine how Vince and George feel every day when they open the economics and business pages of the newspapers. I did think it was time to try to be optimistic but I could find zero good news on the economics front; sorry. Neither Papendreou nor Berlusconi's resignations appear to have calmed the market's nerves.

Today started with an email from REC/KPMG's report on Jobs showing that the number of permanent placements had gone into negative territory. Recall that the latest labour market estimates from the ONS showed that employment had fallen over the last quarter by 178,000. So this is very bad news as it suggests that the labour market is headed downwards fast. Unemployment is set to rise again and there is every likelihood that youth unemployment will hit the million mark very soon.

No wonder there are thousands of youngsters on the streets of London, to this point protesting peacefully, about the government's lack of a credible higher education policy or any strategy to deal with rising youth unemployment.

But the bad news continued to flood in all morning. First there was the ONS publication of August's trade in goods deficit revised from £7.8bn to £8.6bn, but the deficit then widened further in September to £9.8bn - the biggest on record.

Second the CBI cut its growth forecast for 2011 to 0.9 per cent from 1.3, and for 2012 to 1.2 from 2.2 per cent, which is slightly more optimistic than NIESR's estimate yesterday of 0.8 and 0.9 per cent - recall that the OBR expects 2.6 per cent in 2011 and 2.8 per cent in 2012.

Third, the ICAEW/Grant Thornton Business Confidence Monitor showed business confidence has collapsed - companies are as gloomy about the outlook now as they were in the depths of the recession. The slump in sentiment pointed to a 0.2 per cent drop in GDP in Q42011.

And finally, we mustn't forget Italy - their 10 year bond yields were up 66bp at 7.37 per cent at noon today which is in bailout territory. Spanish yields were also up at 5.7 per cent. Greek yields are already over 25 per cent while 10 year Portuguese yields are over 11 per cent. This suggests the eurozone is heading into recession which hurts the UK economy which also now seems headed that way. Q42011 and Q12012 look likely to have negative GDP growth, which is consistent with a technical definition of a recession.

So the headwinds continue to gather. The Autumn Statement at the end of the month looks like it is going to be too little too late to prevent the UK economy going back into recession. I did warn them.

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

Getty
Show Hide image

How tribunal fees silenced low-paid workers: “it was more than I earned in a month”

The government was forced to scrap them after losing a Supreme Court case.

How much of a barrier were employment tribunal fees to low-paid workers? Ask Elaine Janes. “Bringing up six children, I didn’t have £20 spare. Every penny was spent on my children – £250 to me would have been a lot of money. My priorities would have been keeping a roof over my head.”

That fee – £250 – is what the government has been charging a woman who wants to challenge their employer, as Janes did, to pay them the same as men of a similar skills category. As for the £950 to pay for the actual hearing? “That’s probably more than I earned a month.”

Janes did go to a tribunal, but only because she was supported by Unison, her trade union. She has won her claim, although the final compensation is still being worked out. But it’s not just about the money. “It’s about justice, really,” she says. “I think everybody should be paid equally. I don’t see why a man who is doing the equivalent job to what I was doing should earn two to three times more than I was.” She believes that by setting a fee of £950, the government “wouldn’t have even begun to understand” how much it disempowered low-paid workers.

She has a point. The Taylor Review on working practices noted the sharp decline in tribunal cases after fees were introduced in 2013, and that the claimant could pay £1,200 upfront in fees, only to have their case dismissed on a technical point of their employment status. “We believe that this is unfair,” the report said. It added: "There can be no doubt that the introduction of fees has resulted in a significant reduction in the number of cases brought."

Now, the government has been forced to concede. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Unison’s argument that the government acted unlawfully in introducing the fees. The judges said fees were set so high, they had “a deterrent effect upon discrimination claims” and put off more genuine cases than the flimsy claims the government was trying to deter.

Shortly after the judgement, the Ministry of Justice said it would stop charging employment tribunal fees immediately and refund those who had paid. This bill could amount to £27m, according to Unison estimates. 

As for Janes, she hopes low-paid workers will feel more confident to challenge unfair work practices. “For people in the future it is good news,” she says. “It gives everybody the chance to make that claim.” 

Julia Rampen is the digital news editor of the New Statesman (previously editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog). She has also been deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.