Five questions answered on the recent fall in unemployment

Down by 57,000 to 2.51 million.

The latest unemployment figures released today from the Office for National Statistics show that unemployment has fallen. We answer five questions on the drop.

How much is unemployment down by? 

According to today’s figures unemployment is down by 57,000 to 2.51 million in the three months to May.

Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants fell in June by 21,200 to 1.48 million – the first fall below 1.3 million for nearly three years.

Regionally, London saw a 16,000 fall in unemployment to 368,000, and the South East saw a 20,000 fall to 286,000.

Overall, the number of people in employment rose by 16,000 to a total of 29.7 million.

How has youth unemployment faired in the statistics?

Very well. Youth unemployment fell by 20,000

Is it all good news?

Not quite. The number of long term jobless has hit a 17-year high, with 915,000 people being out of work for more than a year. This is an increase of 32,000 and the highest total since 1996.

Just over 460,000 people have been jobless for more than two years, the highest figure since 1997, and the number of people classed as economically inactive has also increased in the last three months to 9.04 million, up by 87,000.

What has Employment Minister Mark Hoban said about these latest figures?

"The fall in the number of people claiming out-of-work benefits, together with the news that there are currently over half a million vacancies available in the UK economy, show that there are opportunities out there for those who are prepared to work hard, and who aspire to get on in life," he told the BBC.

What have the experts said?

David Kern, chief economist at the British Chambers of Commerce, speaking to the BBC said: " ...the labour market remains an area of strength for the UK economy.

"There are some areas of concern, however. Long-term unemployment is up, and youth unemployment, while edging down, is still too high. But at a time when the government's austerity plan remains in force and the public sector is shrinking, it is reassuring that the private sector is willing and able to create jobs."

Labour's shadow work and pensions secretary, Liam Byrne, said: "Any shred of progress on jobs is welcome but today's figures show that economic recovery is so weak that pay is plummeting.

"We are now creating jobs ten times more slowly than this time last year and there are more part-timers looking for full time work than ever before."

Photograph: Getty Images

Heidi Vella is a features writer for Nridigital.com

GETTY
Show Hide image

Why Prince Charles and Princess Anne are both wrong on GM foods

The latest tiff between toffs gives plenty of food for thought.

I don’t have siblings, so I was weirdly curious as a kid about friends who did, especially when they argued (which was often). One thing I noticed was the importance of superlatives: of being the best child, the most right, and the first to have been wronged. And it turns out things are no different for the Royals.

You might think selective breeding would be a subject on which Prince Charles and Princess Anne would share common ground, but when it comes to genetically modified crops they have very different opinions.

According to Princess Anne, the UK should ditch its concerns about GM and give the technology the green light. In an interview to be broadcast on Radio 4’s Farming Today, she said would be keen to raise both modified crops and livestock on her own land.

“Most of us would argue we have been genetically modifying food since man started to be agrarian,” she said (rallying the old first-is-best argument to her cause). She also argued that the practice can help reduce the price of our food and improve the lives of animals - and “suspects” that there are not many downsides.

Unfortunately for Princess Anne, her Royal “us” does not include her brother Charles, who thinks that GM is The Worst.

In 2008, he warned that genetically engineered food “will be guaranteed to cause the biggest disaster environmentally of all time.”  Supporting such a path would risk handing control of our food-chain to giant corporations, he warned -  leading to “absolute disaster” and “unmentionable awfulness” and “the absolute destruction of everything”.

Normally such a spat could be written off as a toff-tiff. But with Brexit looming, a change to our present ban on growing GM crops commercially looks ever more likely.

In this light, the need to swap rhetoric for reason is urgent. And the most useful anti-GM argument might instead be that offered by the United Nations’ cold, hard data on crop yields.

Analysis by the New York Times shows that, in comparison to Europe, the United States and Canada have “gained no discernible advantages” from their use of GM (in terms of food per acre). Not only this, but herbicide use in the US has increased rather than fallen.

In sum: let's swap superlatives and speculation for sense.

India Bourke is an environment writer and editorial assistant at the New Statesman.