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.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

On Brexit, David Cameron knows exactly what he's doing

It's not a dead cat - it's about disarming the Leave campaign. 

If you’re explaining, you’re losing. That’s the calculation behind David Cameron’s latest entry into the In-Out (or Remain-Leave in new money) battle. The Prime Minister has warned that were Britain to leave the European Union, the migrant camp at Calais – popularly known as “the Jungle” – could move to Britain. But Eurosceptic campaigners have angrily denounced the remarks, saying that there’s little chance of it happening either way.  

Who’s right? My colleague Henry Zeffman has written a handy explainer of the ins and outs of the row, but the short version is: the Eurosceptic campaigners are broadly right.

But the remarks are very far from a gaffe by Downing Street or Cameron, and they aren’t a “dead cat” strategy – where you say something offensive, prompting a debate about that instead of another, trickier issue – either.

Campaigners for Remain have long been aware that immigration remains their glass jaw. The line wheeled out by Cameron has been long-planned. Late last year, senior members of the In campaign discussed what they saw as the danger points for the campaign. The first was a renegotiation that managed to roll back workplace rights, imperilling the support of the Labour party and the trade unions was one – happily avoided by Cameron’s piecemeal deal.

That the deal would be raked over in the press is not considered a risk point. Stronger In has long known that its path to victory does not run through a sympathetic media. The expectation has long been that even substantial concessions would doubtless have been denounced by the Mail, Telegraph and Sun – and no-one seriously expected that Cameron would emerge with a transformative deal. Since well before the general election, the Prime Minister has been gradually scaling back his demands. The aim has always been to secure as many concessions as possible in order to get an In vote – but Downing Street’s focus has always been on the “as possible” part rather than the “securing concessions” bit.

Today’s row isn’t about deflecting attention from a less-than-stellar deal, but about defanging another “risk point” for the In campaign: border control.

Campaign strategists believe they can throw the issue into neutral by casting doubt on Leave’s ability to control borders any better. One top aide said: “Our line is this: if we vote to leave, the border moves from Calais to Dover, it’s that simple.” They are also keen to make more of the fact that Norway has equally high levels of migration from the European Union as the United Kingdom. While In will never “own” the issue of immigration, they believe they can make the battle sufficiently murky that voters will turn to the areas that favour a Remain vote – national security, economic stability, and keeping people in their jobs.

What the row exposes, rather than a Prime Minister under pressure is a politician who knows exactly what he’s doing – and just how vulnerable the lack of a serious heavyweight at the top makes the Leave campaign(s). Most people won't make a judgement based on reading up the minutinae of European treaties, but on a "sniff test" of which side they think is more trustworthy. It's not a fight about the facts - it's a fight about who is more trusted by the public: David Cameron, or Iain Duncan Smith, Chris Grayling or Priti Patel? As one minister said to me: "I like Priti, but the idea that she can go against the PM as far as voters are concerned is ridiculous. Most people haven't heard of her." 

Leave finds itself in a position uncomfortably like that of Labour in the run-up to the election: with Cameron able to paint himself as the only option guaranteeing stability, against a chaotic and muddled alternative. Without a politician, a business figure or even a prominent celebrity who can provide credibility on the level of the Prime Minister, any row about whether or not Brexit increases the chances of more migrants on Britain’s doorsteps helps Remain – and Cameron. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog. He usually writes about politics.