Cameron misleads parliament on jobs figures
The PM falsely claimed that 500,000 private-sector jobs had been created since the election.
By George Eaton Published 12 October 2011 18:29One of David Cameron's favourite myths is that half a million private-sector jobs have been created "since the election". He repeated it at today's PMQs. Unfortunately for the Prime Minister, the data tells a different story.
Since March 2010, private sector employment has risen by 575,000 but Cameron's use of the phrase "since the election" means that any figures from before 6 May are irrelevant. However, to complicate matters, the Office for National Statistics figures in question straddle the election, covering 1 April to 30 June. But the fact that private-sector employment has risen by just 264,000 since June 2010, means that, as Channel 4's Cathy Newman has previously noted, Cameron's claim only holds good if we assume that 236,000 jobs were created between 6 May and 30 June. The ONS doesn't publish month-by-month figures but the data that we do have suggests that the majority of job creation in Q2 2010 took place before the election. The ONS's "experimental" labour force figures show that 129,000 jobs were created in April 2010 but that 89,000 were lost in June.

Cameron and George Osborne have consistently claimed that private-sector job creation will "far outweigh" the job losses in the public-sector. But in the last year, 240,000 public-sector jobs have been lost and 264,000 private-sector jobs have been created, a net increase of just 24,000 [see graph]. Worse, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development [CIPD] has predicted that 610,000 public-sector jobs will be lost by 2016, 210,000 more than forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility [see Box 3.6 on p. 73 of the OBR's Economic and Fiscal Outlook].
You don't need to be a statist social democrat to be troubled by this prediction. Every public-sector job that is cut costs the state around £8-10,000 in benefits and lost taxes. The CIPD, hardly a hotbed of radicalism, has called for the government to halt its public sector job cuts until the private sector has recovered. If Osborne wants to avoid even worse unemployment figures, he should follow their advice.
P.S. Don't miss our special Plan B package in tomorrow's issue. Nine of the world's top economists, including Noble Prize winner Christopher Pissarides, Jeffrey Sachs and Robert Skidelsky present George Osborne with their alternatives to austerity.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists




















11 comments
When you lose genuine wealth creating jobs, and increase state employment you finally reached a point were you lose the ability to sustain state employment, we have long surpassed that point.
Wealth creating jobs i.e. manufacturing jobs hardly exist anymore.Service industry jobs just recirculate money,with a general drift upwards.How have this government managed to turn public workers into the enemy in the minds of the public? If they are better off than those in the private sector, it only demonstrates that the private sector is enjoying increased profits on the backs of poorly treated workers scared to loose their jobs.
Flassbuck - assuming you are right (a fairly generous concession in your case), then please explain exactly why it is preferable for an individual citizen to be exploited by a private organisation that typically, as this weeks figures show, syphon profits off to tax havens rather than work in the employ of their own country?
Of course, you're delighted for them to do so when they're in the army, killing swarthy foreigners or having their legs blown off. Then state employment is just dandy, eh?
Look, its all about social connections! Cameron never got a job without someone in high places putting in a good word for the boy. And him with a First. Boris may have been an Eton scholarship lad(not chap) but he never reached his true potential. Kind of guinea pig! Even got the boot from his job. Still, Boris has the lovable rogue charisma. David - look behind the mask - establishment type" one of theirs.
Level Down
They have blamed the snow, the cold, the heat, bank holidays, the royal wedding and the Euro zone for the bad performance of the economy and unemployment. Maybe Father Christmas will be next on their list!
http://bit.ly/mYKIHA
Cameron consistently lies at PMQs. Why does Labour allow him to get away with it?
Spanish unemployment--21%
Spanish youth unemployment--48%
Higher in Greece, higher in most of europe than the UK- ... lower rates here than everywhere in europe, same as german...
mmm wonder what the workers are gonna think when this is the 'level' of argument on offer?
The PM seems to make lots of "mistakes" like this .. funny how they're always in his favour.
Parliamentary privilige seems to mean 'lie, lie, lie' to Tories.
Surely there must be some kind of mechanism for holding them to account beyond a GE?
Cameron also said the government was doing all it could to help small business yet at the end of this month Business Link which provides workshops and advice for people thinking of starting their own businesses will see it's budget cut dramatically meaning that the workshops and advice will be replaced by a website. Hoe exactly is that going to help small businesses?
camercon is a liar and has always been a dishonest liar
I hope the liam fox thing runs and brings both of them down
"Every public-sector job that is cut costs the state around £8-10,000 in benefits and lost taxes."
You idiot... public sector so-called jobs cost the public much more than that to fill the pockets of the public so-called workers.
You can't give someone thousands of pounds a year then take a little back in tax and try and say that makes economic sense. You fail.