Don't be fooled by the employment increase

Total unemployment is the highest since 1994 -- under-25s and northerners are bearing the brunt.

No amount of spin can get around the fact that there was bad news yesterday from the Office for National Statistics on the labour market. This was not much of a surprise given that the data from several qualitative surveys has been less than stellar over the past few weeks. The KPMG/Rec Report on Jobs also showed that permanent placements fell for a third month running in December, while temporary billings were also down for the first time in 29 months. The British Chamber of Commerce's Quarterly Survey for Q4 2011 suggested that firms were once again shaking out workers.

Firms reported in the survey over the least few months had employment falling at a faster pace than previously in both manufacturing and services. Expectations for employment over the next few months fell in both sectors, and precipitously so in manufacturing.

The big news was the largely unexpected increase in the unemployment rate; up 0.3 per cent on the quarter and up 0.1 per cent on the month to 8.4 per cent -- the highest it has been since the end of 1996. The total number of unemployed now stands at 2,658,000; the highest it has been since the autumn of 1994. The number of unemployed looks set to hit the three million mark this year, as the economy heads back into recession.

In other news, employment on the quarter was up 18,000 but -- as can be seen from the table -- this was driven entirely by older folks aged 65 and over. The burden of rising unemployment and declinign employment is falling disproportionately on people under age 50.

 

The numbers of youngsters under age 25 who are unemployed now stands at 1,043,000 -- giving an appalling unemployment rate of 22.3 per cent. Forty four per cent of the increase in unemployment on the quarter was accounted for by youngsters.

Some coalition supporters tried to wriggle their way out of this bad news. On his blog, David Smith continued his theme that there isn't really a youth unemployment problem, arguing that:

The rise in youth unemployment looks to be mainly a full-time student phenomenon.

Excluding them, there was an increase of just 8,000 over the latsst (sic) three months. Including them, there was a rise of 52,000.

The numbers on the quarter are below. As in every country in the EU, the youth employment count includes full-time students in part-time jobs, while the youth unemployment count includes full-time students and unemployed searching for part-time jobs.

 

Smith conveniently failed to point out that the increase in employment among those in full-time education entirely explains the overall increase in employment but doesn't exclude them from the overall count. The decline in youth jobs is driven entirely by those who are not full-time students.

Excluding full-time students, there was an decline of just 48,000 over the latest three months. Including them, there was a decline of 28,000.

Sorry, good try David, but you can't have it both ways. Fiddling the figures doesn't work.

Other bad news on the labour market was that:

  1. The number of full-time jobs was down 57,000 on the quarter
  2. There are 590,000 people who have temporary jobs because they can't find permanent jobs
  3. There are a further 1.3 million who have a part-time job because they can't get a full time job
  4. Earnings rose by 2.1 per cent on the quarter and the month, so despite the drop in the CPI this month, workers are still receiving real wage cuts.
  5. Unemployment rates are now in double digits in the North East (12.0 per cent) and Yorkshire and the Humber (10.0 per cent).

In response to all this, Employment Minister Chris Grayling said yesterday:

The overall level of unemployment is, and will remain, a major concern for the government. The latest figures reflect the current challenging economic climate . . . Despite the exceptionally difficult economic circumstances, finding work for the unemployed will remain top of the government's agenda.

Top of the agenda? Doesn't exactly look that way does it, as unemployment heads inexorably upwards? I dread to think what is happening to policies further down the government's agenda!

It remains clear that the government is not finding work for the unemployed. Maybe it's time for a trip to the North East, Chris, to see how well your strategy isn't working?

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

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Tony Blair might be a toxic figure - but his influence endures

Politicians at home and abroad are borrowing from the former prime minister's playbook. 

On 24 May at Methodist Central Hall, Westminster, a short distance from where he once governed, Tony Blair resurfaced for a public discussion. Having arrived on an overnight flight, he looked drawn and puffy-eyed but soon warmed to his theme: a robust defence of liberal globalisation. He admitted, however, to bafflement at recent events in the world. "I thought I was pretty good at politics. But I look at politics today and I’m not sure I understand it."

Blair lost power in the summer of 2007. In the ensuing nine years, he lost reputation. His business ventures and alliances with autocrats have made him a pariah among both the public and his party. A YouGov poll published last year found that 61 per cent of voters regarded Blair as an electoral liability, while just 14 per cent viewed him as an asset. In contrast, John Major, whom he defeated by a landslide in 1997, had a neutral net rating of zero. It is ever harder to recall that Blair won not one general election (he is the only living Labour leader to have done so) but three.

His standing is likely to diminish further when the Iraq inquiry report is published on 6 July. Advance leaks to the Sunday Times suggest that he will be censured for allegedly guaranteeing British military support to the US a year before the invasion. Few minds on either side will be changed by the 2.6 million-word document. Yet its publication will help enshrine Iraq as the defining feature of a legacy that also includes the minimum wage, tax credits, Sure Start, devolution and civil partnerships.

Former leaders can ordinarily rely on their parties to act as a last line of defence. In Blair’s case, however, much of the greatest opprobrium comes from his own side. Jeremy Corbyn inclines to the view that Iraq was not merely a blunder but a crime. In last year’s Labour leadership election, Liz Kendall, the most Blair-esque candidate, was rewarded with 4.5 per cent of the vote. The former prime minister’s imprimatur has become the political equivalent of the black spot.

Yet outside of the Labour leadership, Blairism endures in notable and often surprising forms. Sadiq Khan won the party’s London mayoral selection by running to the left of Tessa Jowell, one of Tony Blair’s closest allies. But his successful campaign against Zac Goldsmith drew lessons from Blair’s election triumphs. Khan relentlessly presented himself as “pro-business” and reached out beyond Labour’s core vote. After his victory, he was liberated to use the B-word, contrasting what “Tony Blair did [in opposition]” with Corbyn’s approach.

In their defence of the UK’s EU membership, David Cameron and George Osborne have deployed arguments once advanced by New Labour. The strategically minded Chancellor has forged an unlikely friendship with his former nemesis Peter Mandelson. In the domestic sphere, through equal marriage, the National Living Wage and the 0.7 per cent overseas aid target, the Conservatives have built on, rather than dismantled, significant Labour achievements."They just swallowed the entire manual," Mandelson declared at a recent King’s College seminar. "They didn’t just read the executive summary, they are following the whole thing to the letter."

Among SNP supporters, "Blairite" is the pejorative of choice. But the parallels between their party and New Labour are more suggestive than they would wish. Like Blair, Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon have avoided income tax rises in order to retain the support of middle-class Scottish conservatives. In a speech last August on education, Sturgeon echoed the Blairite mantra that "what matters is what works".

Beyond British shores, political leaders are similarly inspired by Blair – and less reticent about acknowledging as much. Matteo Renzi, the 41-year-old centre-left Italian prime minister, is a long-standing admirer. "I adore one of his sayings,” he remarked in 2013. “I love all the traditions of my party, except one: that of losing elections."

In France, the reform-minded prime minister, Manuel Valls, and the minister of economy, Emmanuel Macron, are also self-described Blairites. Macron, who in April launched his own political movement, En Marche!, will shortly decide whether to challenge for the presidency next year. When he was compared to Blair by the TV presenter Andrew Marr, his response reflected the former prime minister’s diminished domestic reputation: “I don’t know if, in your mouth, that is a promise or a threat.”

The continuing attraction of Blair’s “third way” to European politicians reflects the failure of the project’s social-democratic critics to construct an alternative. Those who have sought to do so have struggled both in office (François Hollande) and out of it (Ed Miliband). The left is increasingly polarised between reformers and radicals (Corbyn, Syriza, Podemos), with those in between straining for relevance.

Despite his long absences from Britain, Blair’s friends say that he remains immersed in the intricacies of Labour politics. He has privately warned MPs that any attempt to keep Corbyn off the ballot in the event of a leadership challenge would be overruled by the National Executive Committee. At Methodist Central Hall, he said of Corbyn’s supporters: “It’s clear they can take over a political party. What’s not clear to me is whether they can take over a country.”

It was Blair’s insufficient devotion to the former task that enabled the revival of the left. As Alastair Campbell recently acknowledged: “We failed to develop talent, failed to cement organisational and cultural change in the party and failed to secure our legacy.” Rather than effecting a permanent realignment, as the right of the party hoped and the left feared, New Labour failed to outlive its creators.

It instead endures in a fragmented form as politicians at home and abroad co-opt its defining features: its pro-business pragmatism, its big-tent electoralism, its presentational nous. Some of Corbyn’s ­allies privately fear that Labour will one day re-embrace Blairism. But its new adherents would never dare to use that name.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 26 May 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The Brexit odd squad