The Tories are still lying about "a million" new private sector jobs

The party still won't admit that Cameron is including 196,000 posts reclassified from the public sector.

Earlier this week, I explained why David Cameron is misleading voters when he claims that "one million" private sector jobs have been created since the coalition took office (as he did in his conference speech and at this week's PMQs). Cameron's figure deceptively includes 196,000 further education and sixth form college posts reclassified from the public sector in March; the real figure is a less impressive 874,000 (1,070,000 minus 196,000). As the Office for National Statistics stated in its most recent release:

These educational bodies employed 196,000 people in March 2012 and the reclassification therefore results in a large fall in public sector employment and a corresponding large increase in private sector employment between March and June 2012.

When Conservative MP Claire Perry nevertheless trotted out the stat on last night's Question Time, I called her out on it. In response, the Tory Treasury team tweeted:

Yet the only way that the Tories can achieve a figure of a million, whilst excluding the reclassified posts, is by measuring the rise in private sector employment since quarter one of 2010. In other words, by using pre-election data from April and May 2010 (resulting in a figure of 1,377,000). This would be allowable if Cameron referred to "private sector job creation since March 2010" (noting, perhaps, how Alistair Darling's fiscal stimulus aided job creation), but he doesn't. In his speech to the Conservative conference, he said:

Since this government took office, over one million new jobs have been created in the private sector.

Despite the Tories' protestations, it's clear that Cameron is misleadingly including the 196,000 posts transferred from the public sector. For one thing, if he isn't, why doesn't he use the figure of 1,377,000?

After promising a new era of accuracy and transparency in statistics, the Tories have lamentably failed to deliver.

David Cameron at the Conservative conference in Birmingham earlier this month. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

What do Labour's lost voters make of the Labour leadership candidates?

What does Newsnight's focus group make of the Labour leadership candidates?

Tonight on Newsnight, an IpsosMori focus group of former Labour voters talks about the four Labour leadership candidates. What did they make of the four candidates?

On Andy Burnham:

“He’s the old guard, with Yvette Cooper”

“It’s the same message they were trying to portray right up to the election”​

“I thought that he acknowledged the fact that they didn’t say sorry during the time of the election, and how can you expect people to vote for you when you’re not actually acknowledging that you were part of the problem”​

“Strongish leader, and at least he’s acknowledging and saying let’s move on from here as opposed to wishy washy”

“I was surprised how long he’d been in politics if he was talking about Tony Blair years – he doesn’t look old enough”

On Jeremy Corbyn:

"“He’s the older guy with the grey hair who’s got all the policies straight out of the sixties and is a bit of a hippy as well is what he comes across as” 

“I agree with most of what he said, I must admit, but I don’t think as a country we can afford his principles”

“He was just going to be the opposite of Conservatives, but there might be policies on the Conservative side that, y’know, might be good policies”

“I’ve heard in the paper he’s the favourite to win the Labour leadership. Well, if that was him, then I won’t be voting for Labour, put it that way”

“I think he’s a very good politician but he’s unelectable as a Prime Minister”

On Yvette Cooper

“She sounds quite positive doesn’t she – for families and their everyday issues”

“Bedroom tax, working tax credits, mainly mum things as well”

“We had Margaret Thatcher obviously years ago, and then I’ve always thought about it being a man, I wanted a man, thinking they were stronger…  she was very strong and decisive as well”

“She was very clear – more so than the other guy [Burnham]”

“I think she’s trying to play down her economics background to sort of distance herself from her husband… I think she’s dumbing herself down”

On Liz Kendall

“None of it came from the heart”

“She just sounds like someone’s told her to say something, it’s not coming from the heart, she needs passion”

“Rather than saying what she’s going to do, she’s attacking”

“She reminded me of a headteacher when she was standing there, and she was quite boring. She just didn’t seem to have any sort of personality, and you can’t imagine her being a leader of a party”

“With Liz Kendall and Andy Burnham there’s a lot of rhetoric but there doesn’t seem to be a lot of direction behind what they’re saying. There seems to be a lot of words but no action.”

And, finally, a piece of advice for all four candidates, should they win the leadership election:

“Get down on your hands and knees and start praying”

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.