There are loads of jobs - but only for those who already have one

Why the rise in vacancies won't help the unemployed.

There was a 21-month high in job vacancies in January - caused by a "reduction in candidate availability", according to Tom Hadley, REC director of policy who spoke to the Telegraph today. "Good news for workers", he concluded.

It is good news for workers - but only for workers. The currently unemployed (who are, for the most part, untrained) are unlikely to benefit from the growth in demand. Workers, on the other hand, will be fought over. Hadley's most telling word, here, is "candidate": it's not that there aren't enough people to fill the jobs - it's just that there aren't enough with the right skills.

The gap between the unskilled unemployed and the skilled employed is starting to become unbridgeable. Despite growing youth unemployment, the Economist reported last December that more than a third of employers worldwide had trouble filling jobs. This is likely to get worse, too. At one end the number of unemployed will continue to expand - unhired and unskilled, and at the other employers will be fighting over the most desirable employees, causing wage inflation in some places.

Last year I wrote about this finding from Mckinsey, which seems to show extra education is a good idea right now, in terms of your future employment prospects. Here's a handy visual guide:

Now is certainly the time to skill up. But they have to be the right kind of skills. There seems to be a disconnect between educators and employers - the sectors crying out for workers (IT, engineering), match the university courses with the empty lecture halls.

How do you address this? Well, one idea is to pour money into apprentice schemes and funded places at technical colleges - which the government is, to some extent, doing. (For example, there's the Employer Ownership Pilot, a 250m funded training scheme for employers).

It's possibly worth mentioning that South Korea are a little ahead of the game here - they have created a series of new "meister" schools - well funded technical colleges that aim to address the country's machine operator and plumber shortage. (The word "meister" is, apparently, an attempt to add kudos to an otherwise lower status education path.)

But what to do while the skills catch up with the potential work force? One option would be to make it easier for employers to recruit talent from abroad - although it's a long and bureaucratic process to get talented workers in from other countries, and the immigration cap isn't helping either. But right now we have shrinking options: perhaps it's time to call for reinforcements.

 
Vacancies abound. Photograph: Getty Images

Martha Gill writes the weekly Irrational Animals column. You can follow her on Twitter here: @Martha_Gill.

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