Will Labour benefit from falling unemployment?

Most expected unemployment to stand at three million by now

It was amusing to watch premature headlines such as "Jobless rate soars to 2.5 million" swiftly amended this morning, after new figures showed that unemployment has actually fallen by 7,000 to 2.46 million.

This time last year, most economists were predicting that unemployment would hit three million by early 2010, so clearly the government's fiscal stimulus has had some effect. The much-derided VAT cut, for instance, is estimated to have raised real consumption by 1.2 per cent.

Labour can plausibly claim that this would not have been the case had the Tories been in power. Will Hutton recently calculated that under a low-spending Tory government, nearly half a million more people would have lost their jobs.

The government can also point out that the labour market has begun to recover more quickly than in previous recessions. Labour has published a new interactive map showing how unemployment is lower in every region compared to the recession of the 1990s.

It isn't all good news for the government. The number in full-time employment fell 113,000 to 21.2 million in the three months to November, while those in part-time jobs grew by 99,000 to 7.7 million. Moreover, the number of economically inactive people, including students, the long-term sick and the retired, has reached a record high of 8.046 million.

All the same, Labour can probably expect a modest poll boost as economic confidence increases. But the argument that the government prevented the recession from turning into a depression is not, as Barack Obama is finding, one that will necessarily resonate with voters. While the electorate blames governments for economic failure, it rarely credits them with recovery.

 

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Wikipedia.
Show Hide image

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not refuse to condemn the IRA. Please stop saying he did

Guys, seriously.

Okay, I’ll bite. Someone’s gotta say it, so really might as well be me:

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not, this weekend, refuse to condemn the IRA. And no, his choice of words was not just “and all other forms of racism” all over again.

Can’t wait to read my mentions after this one.

Let’s take the two contentions there in order. The claim that Corbyn refused to condem the IRA relates to his appearance on Sky’s Sophy Ridge on Sunday programme yesterday. (For those who haven’t had the pleasure, it’s a weekly political programme, hosted by Sophy Ridge and broadcast on a Sunday. Don’t say I never teach you anything.)

Here’s how Sky’s website reported that interview:

 

The first paragraph of that story reads:

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been criticised after he refused five times to directly condemn the IRA in an interview with Sky News.

The funny thing is, though, that the third paragraph of that story is this:

He said: “I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

Apparently Jeremy Corbyn has been so widely criticised for refusing to condemn the IRA that people didn’t notice the bit where he specifically said that he condemned the IRA.

Hasn’t he done this before, though? Corbyn’s inability to say he that opposed anti-semitism without appending “and all other forms of racism” was widely – and, to my mind, rightly – criticised. These were weasel words, people argued: an attempt to deflect from a narrow subject where the hard left has often been in the wrong, to a broader one where it wasn’t.

Well, that pissed me off too: an inability to say simply “I oppose anti-semitism” made it look like he did not really think anti-semitism was that big a problem, an impression not relieved by, well, take your pick.

But no, to my mind, this....

“I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

...is, despite its obvious structural similarities, not the same thing.

That’s because the “all other forms of racism thing” is an attempt to distract by bringing in something un-related. It implies that you can’t possibly be soft on anti-semitism if you were tough on Islamophobia or apartheid, and experience shows that simply isn’t true.

But loyalist bombing were not unrelated to IRA ones: they’re very related indeed. There really were atrocities committed on both sides of the Troubles, and while the fatalities were not numerically balanced, neither were they orders of magnitude apart.

As a result, specifically condemning both sides as Corbyn did seems like an entirely reasonable position to take. Far creepier, indeed, is to minimise one set of atrocities to score political points about something else entirely.

The point I’m making here isn’t really about Corbyn at all. Historically, his position on Northern Ireland has been pro-Republican, rather than pro-peace, and I’d be lying if I said I was entirely comfortable with that.

No, the point I’m making is about the media, and its bias against Labour. Whatever he may have said in the past, whatever may be written on his heart, yesterday morning Jeremy Corbyn condemned IRA bombings. This was the correct thing to do. His words were nonetheless reported as “Jeremy Corbyn refuses to condemn IRA”.

I mean, I don’t generally hold with blaming the mainstream media for politicians’ failures, but it’s a bit rum isn’t it?

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Daniel Hannan. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.

0800 7318496