Osborne called it wrong on private sector employment

New figures show that the private sector isn't making up for public sector job losses.

New figures show that the private sector isn't making up for public sector job losses.{C}

In November 2010, George Osborne told the House of Commons that private sector job creation would "far outweigh" the job losses in the public sector. The Chancellor, an adherent of the theory of expansionary fiscal contraction, assumed that a bloated public sector was "crowding out" pirvate sector growth.

But today's employment figures tell a different story. Osborne's fiscal contraction has turned out to be, well, contractionary. In the last three months, 67,000 public sector jobs have been lost but just 5,000 private sector jobs have been created. The number of public sector jobs lost in the last year (276,000) now exceeds the number of private sector jobs created (262,000). As a result, unemployment has reached levels not seen for 17 years. There are now 2.64m people (8.3 per cent) out of work, including 1.03m young people. Youth unemployment is now 22 per cent, above the eurozone average of 21.4 per cent.

Over the course of this parliament, the Office for Budget Responsibility still expects private sector job creation to outweigh public sector job losses. By 2017, it forecasts that there will be 1.7 million more private sector jobs and 710,000 fewer public sector jobs. But given that the OBR has already had to raise its forecast for public sector job losses by 310,000, I wouldn't put too much faith in those figures. If the government wants to prevent unemployment hitting three million, it should call a halt to its job cuts now.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

YouTube screengrab
Show Hide image

“Trembling, shaking / Oh, my heart is aching”: the EU out campaign song will give you chills

But not in a good way.

You know the story. Some old guys with vague dreams of empire want Britain to leave the European Union. They’ve been kicking up such a big fuss over the past few years that the government is letting the public decide.

And what is it that sways a largely politically indifferent electorate? Strikes hope in their hearts for a mildly less bureaucratic yet dangerously human rights-free future? An anthem, of course!

Originally by Carly You’re so Vain Simon, this is the song the Leave.EU campaign (Nigel Farage’s chosen group) has chosen. It is performed by the singer Antonia Suñer, for whom freedom from the technofederalists couldn’t come any suñer.

Here are the lyrics, of which your mole has done a close reading. But essentially it’s just nature imagery with fascist undertones and some heartburn.

"Let the river run

"Let all the dreamers

"Wake the nation.

"Come, the new Jerusalem."

Don’t use a river metaphor in anything political, unless you actively want to evoke Enoch Powell. Also, Jerusalem? That’s a bit... strong, isn’t it? Heavy connotations of being a little bit too Englandy.

"Silver cities rise,

"The morning lights,

"The streets that meet them,

"And sirens call them on

"With a song."

Sirens and streets. Doesn’t sound like a wholly un-authoritarian view of the UK’s EU-free future to me.

"It’s asking for the taking,

"Trembling, shaking,

"Oh, my heart is aching."

A reference to the elderly nature of many of the UK’s eurosceptics, perhaps?

"We’re coming to the edge,

"Running on the water,

"Coming through the fog,

"Your sons and daughters."

I feel like this is something to do with the hosepipe ban.

"We the great and small,

"Stand on a star,

"And blaze a trail of desire,

"Through the dark’ning dawn."

Everyone will have to speak this kind of English in the new Jerusalem, m'lady, oft with shorten’d words which will leave you feeling cringéd.

"It’s asking for the taking.

"Come run with me now,

"The sky is the colour of blue,

"You’ve never even seen,

"In the eyes of your lover."

I think this means: no one has ever loved anyone with the same colour eyes as the EU flag.

I'm a mole, innit.