Five questions answered on… the fall in UK unemployment

Unemployment is at its lowest number for over a year. We answer five questions on the falling unemployment rates.

How much has unemployment fallen by?

Unemployment has fallen by 49,000 to 2.51 million in the three months to September. This has reduced the jobless rate from 7.9 per cent to 7.8 per cent.

The Office of National Statistics (ONS) said almost all of this fall was due to a decline in youth unemployment.

How has this affected the long term unemployed?

It hasn’t actually. Those who are long term unemployed – for a year or over – has increased by 12,000 for the quarter to September 894,000.

While 43,000 people have been out of work for more than two years, up by 21,000.

How many people are currently working part-time only?

According to the ONS there are 8.1 million people in part-time employment, up by 49,000 and nearly a record high.

If unemployment figures have dropped, has the amount of people claiming unemployment benefits also fallen?

Oddly, no. The number of people claiming unemployment benefits has risen by 10,100 last month to 1.58m, which is the highest level since July and the biggest monthly rise since September last year.

In regards to this, Martin Beck at Capital Economics, told The Telegraph:

Indeed, the timelier claimant count measure of unemployment rose by 10,000 in September, while August's fall was revised to a small rise, which suggests that the labour market may be beginning to weaken as the Olympics effect fades.

What has the employment minister said about these latest figures?

Mark Hoban, the Employment Minister, told the BBC:

This is another good set of figures. We've seen the number of people in work increase by 100,000 and youth unemployment is below a million again.

Adding:

There are still some real challenges out there. We still need to tackle... long-term unemployment.

Photograph: Getty Images

Heidi Vella is a features writer for Nridigital.com

Photo:Getty
Show Hide image

There's something missing from our counter-terrorism debate

The policy reckoning that occured after the 2005 terrorist attacks did not happen after the one in 2016. 

“Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department, says Wernher von Braun.” That satirical lyric about Nazi rocket scientists has come to mind more than few times watching various tech giants give testimony in front of the Home Affairs Select Committee, one of the underreported sub-plots of life at Westminster.

During their ongoing inquiry into hate crime in the United Kingdom, committee chair Yvette Cooper has found a staggering amount of hate speech being circulated freely on the largest and most profitable social media platform. Seperately, an ongoing investigation by the Times has uncovered how advertising revenue from Google and YouTube makes its way straight into the coffers of extremist groups, ranging from Islamist extremists to white supremacists and anti-Semites.

One of the many remarkable aspects of the inquiry has been the von Braunesque reaction by the movers and shakers at these tech companies. Once the ad revenue is handed out, who cares what it pays for? That’s not my department is the overwhelming message of much of the testimony.

The problem gains an added urgency now that the perpetrator of the Westminster attacks has been named as Khalid Masood, a British-born 52-year-old with a string of petty convictions across two decades from 1982 to 2002. He is of the same generation and profile as Thomas Mair, the white supremacist behind the last act of domestic terrorism on British shores, though Mair’s online radicalisation occurred on far-right websites, while Masood instead mimicked the methods of Isis attacks on the continent.  Despite that, both fitted many of the classic profiles of a “lone wolf” attack, although my colleague Amelia explains well why that term is increasingly outmoded.

One thing that some civil servants have observed is that it is relatively easy to get MPs to understand anti-terror measures based around either a form of electronic communication they use themselves – like text messaging or email, for instance – or a physical place which they might have in their own constituencies. But legislation has been sluggish in getting to grips with radicalisation online and slow at cutting off funding sources.

As I’ve written before, though there  are important differences between these two ideologies, the radicalisation journey is similar and tends to have the same staging posts: petty criminality, a drift from the fringes of respectable Internet sub-cultures to extremist websites, and finally violence.  We don’t yet know how closely Masood’s journey follows that pattern – but what is clear is that the policy rethink about British counter-terror after the July bombings in 2005 has yet to have an equivalent echo online. The success of that approach is shown in that these attacks are largely thwarted in the United Kingdom. But what needs to happen is a realisation that what happens when the rockets come down is very much the department of the world’s communication companies. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.