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

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