The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Syndicate contentRSS

Osborne is misleading voters on employment

The Chancellor's claim that "800,000 new jobs" have been created since the election is a myth.

Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne. Photograph: Getty Images.
Contrary to George Osborne, 800,000 private sector jobs have not been created since the election. Photograph: Getty Images.

One of George Osborne's favourite boasts is that 800,000 new private sector jobs have been created since the election. Last week, after the release of the stunningly bad GDP figures, he claimed that "We’ve made progress over the past two years in cutting the deficit by 25 per cent and creating over 800,000 new jobs." He was at it again in Saturday's Metro, writing that "we've seen the benefits already of our pro-business approach. Unemployment has been falling, where in other countries like the US it has risen. Over 800,000 new jobs in the private sector have been created." The Treasury repeated the claim on Twitter.

Similarly, at Prime Minister's Questions on 11 July, David Cameron declared: "It was under this government that we got 800,000 more private sector jobs"

It's an impressive figure but, unfortunately for Cameron and Osborne, it's also completely false. According to the most recent ONS figures, private sector employment has risen by 843,000 since March 2010 but, as Osborne wants you to forget, the coalition wasn't elected until May. If we look at job creation since then, we find that the increase is actually 529,000, with a concurrent loss of 393,000 public sector jobs (who said that the cuts aren't happening?)

Yet the 800,000 figure appeared unchallenged in almost every paper and on every news channel over the weekend. With the economy now smaller than it was at the time of the election and 4.5 per cent below its 2008 peak, Osborne's desire to massage his record is understandable. But while he can make as many wrong-headed arguments for austerity as he likes, he should not be allowed to mislead voters with bogus statistics.

Update: I've just written to the UK Statistics Authority requesting that they ask Cameron and Osborne to retract the claim.

13 comments

Red Rain's picture

80% of all new jobs created under the previous Labour government went to foreign born workers. The majority of new social housing built under the previous Labour government were allocated to newly arriving immigrants and many a bogus asylum seekers. Labour said only a few thousand Eastern Europeans would enter the country seeking employment 3 million did, who's telling the porkies? Unemployment is soul destroying particularly for the young and the middle aged. Labour enter office with 4 million unemployed or claiming one kind of state benefit or another after 13 years. Labour left office with that same figure: that's quite an achievement but we did get the minimum wage with infact perversely forced down the wages of the poorest in society but that's another story.

JustaGuy's picture

Please can anyone site where we can get the data on:

How many of these new jobs are part time (Anything under 35 hours a week)?

How many of the UKs total jobs are now part time? (seeing as I'd throw many of these into the underemployed bracket)

What is the proportion of Part time to full time across age, gender and social class?

If all we get is net figures of "Has some kind of Job" then we're utterly screwed in the dark... "Net employment" is as useless as "Net GDP"... Both of which are celebrated as becons of fact in our political and economic perceptions...

If GDP is up... - or down... How about Median and Mean saleries... These should always be reported next to GDP... If 10% of the country make five times more.... And 90% of the country makes a little less, GPD goes up and we all celebrate...

Holloweg's picture

Are you seriously suggesting that 320,000 jobs were created between March and May?

Really? Don't expect a call-back from the Treasury.

john zims's picture

Were there any figures that Gordon Brown didn't massage?

john zims's picture

Where was all the concern when Gordon Brown was routinely massaging figures?

john zims's picture

Where was all the concern when Gordon Brown was routinely massaging figures?

Indu Pendent's picture

One of Ed Balls favorite myths is that Labour's borrowing was the result of the banking collaspe.

But Labour borrowed and spent £600bn of which it borrowed £350Bn before 2008 and the backing crisis.

Both cant be right .... Ed Balls and the facts.

matthew fox's picture

I remember your first myth Insatew, according to you, Osborne borrowed only £100 Billion in his first year. Then again, you missed the target by £50 Billion.

Then we had the debacle of Labour appeasement of Hitler, do you remember that old bean?

Indu Pendent's picture

Matt

see you've crawed out of your (fox) hole. Was it dark in there or may be you out to try for an Olympic gold in the "not answering any questions" event?

Matt happy to take your figures -- the coalition following the Plan A agreed by Miliband and Balls has borrowed £150Bn. Labours orginal Plan B was to borrow over 5 years £250Bn on top of whatever the coalition borrowed. Do you think Osborne will do as big a U turn as Balls and Miliband when they jetisonned Labours economic policies?

You never did say much you think the coalition should increase borrowing by. Part of your Olympic training ?

matthew fox's picture

As someone who has always out(fox)ed you Inastew, your such a bad loser.

I know your not happy to take my figures, due to them be factual, not really your forte is it Inastew.

Plan A, the much vaunted plan to eliminate deficits within 5 years, do you remember that gag.

With you ignoring the recent awful PSNCR figures, the talk of £150 Billion overshoot of Plan A is pretty dishonest, you will have to add billion upon billion to that figure, not just this fiscal year, but 2013/14 and 2014/15.

Then Osborne will have to tell the country how much is going to borrow post 2014/15, £50 Billion, £100 Billion ?

The coalition is borrowing because revenues are down, and they are pushing up the welfare bill.

Is this your definition of success?

Indu Pendent's picture

Matt
£100bn here, £50Bn there ... foxy you are sounding as blase as a Labour chancellor preparing a treasury forecast.

"the talk of £150 Billion overshoot of Plan A is pretty dishonest"

What ever the figures are ... add £250 Bn and thats what Labour originally committed to. So the coalition are creeping closer and closer to Labours original starting point target which Labour would have hugely bust. You certainly are a bit complicated .... on the one hand you criticise the coalition for getting closer to Labours targets but on the other you condone Labour for setting worse targets than the coalition will actually achieve.

BTW when is the big event (when you answer a question).

mike hartley's picture

The other thing that gets me is this - and I'd love someone, anyone, in the press to follow it up:

What proportion of these 'new' private sector jobs are just public sector jobs that have been outsourced - i.e. 'public' police jobs transferred to G4S, or NHS jobs transferred to Virgin Healthcare?

Indu Pendent's picture

Probably not as many outsourced jobs that have been cut as government contracts have dried up

Latest tweets