Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Drink Driving, Don't Risk It!

Christmas Gift Guide

Bill Jamieson: True figures of unemployment are masked by numbers in government sponsored programmes

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 16 July 2009
IF there are green shoots of recovery, they are well hidden in these latest unemployment numbers.
The claimant count shows a smaller than feared 23,800 rise in June, to 1.56 million or 4.8 per cent. It is the smallest monthly increase for more than a year.

The International Labour Organisation (ILO) measure shows UK unemployment up by a record
281,000 over the three months to May to 2.4 million or 7.6 per cent. Scotland's ILO count shows unemployment up 73,000 over the year at 179,000 or 6.7 per cent.

Which is right? The claimant count reflects the number of over-18s claiming the Jobseekers' Allowance. The ILO numbers are a survey-based estimate of those who are jobless, irrespective of whether they claim benefits.

Says economist Philip Shaw at Investec Securities: "We suspect that the claimant count is becoming an increasingly unreliable indicator of unemployment. Individuals are taken off the claimant count when they move into other government sponsored programmes such as the New Deal when they are still effectively unemployed, thus biasing the claimant count down."

Are claimants finding jobs? It hardly seems likely. Job vacancies are at a record low.

"The monthly claimant count", says Mr Shaw, "is painting far too optimistic a picture of the labour market. The ILO numbers are far more representative … we are forecasting that these will continue to rise to just under three million by Q2 next year."

And economists for once are agreed on the trend: unemployment is heading relentlessly up, with three million now firmly in sight over the next year.

Charles Davis, economist at the Centre for Economics and Business Research says: "It is hard to see how employment could not still have a significant way to drop, especially in the public sector where the reality of a major deterioration in the public finances had yet to hit bottom at all.

"Unemployment is likely to break through three million in 2010 and continue rising until 2011."

And as long as the jobless total continues to climb, it is hard to see how consumer spending and house market activity can provide much of a boost. The figures also confirm a disconcerting picture of a 'Two Nations' Britain: one where employment continues to grow in the public sector while the private sector is experiencing a severe contraction.

Public-sector employment rose by 15,000 on the previous three months and by 285,000 on a year ago. In the private sector employment fell 286,000 from December 2008 and is down 683,000 from a year ago.

This sense of 'Two Nations ' is reinforced by the higher level of pay rises in the public sector (3.5 per cent) . By contrast, many workers in the private sector (average pay rise 1.9 per cent) have had to accept pay cuts or shorter hours.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 15 July 2009 9:20 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Bill Jamieson
 
1

For Scotlands Future,

Vote for the SNP 16/07/2009 07:18:39
"We suspect that the claimant count is becoming an increasingly unreliable indicator of unemployment. Individuals are taken off the claimant count when they move into other government sponsored programmes such as the New Deal when they are still effectively unemployed, thus biasing the claimant count down."

All the more reason for this Westminster government to use them.
2

The Saltire,

16/07/2009 11:13:01
None of them are right. The true figure will always be hidden unless it shows the government in a good light.
Same goes for all other so called government data and statitistic tables. All of them will only reflect what the governement wants them to reflect otherwise they wont produce or publish them at all.
3

Geomac 1,

Scotland 16/07/2009 11:54:56
What about all the shysters on so called disability benefit?
4

Ronald Penman,

16/07/2009 12:08:59
"True Figures Masked..."

No Sh*t Sherlock?

Hasn't it been hilareous listening to the "great and the good" pontificating over the reasons for this anomoly, when all thats afoot is the NEW LABOUR scum doing what they do best; misleading, lying, and practicing duplicity with the Country.
5

Eve,

Scotland 16/07/2009 12:39:25
#2 The Saltire: So true. There must be so much missing data in all.

#3 Geomac 1,: Think you'll find that a large chuck of those people genuinely can't work. Sometime it's because they aren't able to, others it's because they (The likes of Government, Job helping organisations) wont supply the support they need to work either because it's to expensive or because they need a support worker who was possible no doubt capable of doing the job on their own. Therefore most employers wouldnae see any benefit from employing them.

Really Geomac Think of all the people who fit in to this category. The likes of people with Learning disabilities, Early on sight dementia, would face certain Health and Safety issues as there more likely to need constant reminders.

Then there's people who are almost crippled or in constant pain, with the likes of MS, people who were seriously injured at work and Cretan types of arthritis.

There are also people who are on something like that may be it's the same thing BUT it's only a temporary situation because they are suffering from really bad stress or depreciation. These people can sometime tend to move backwards and forwards from job seeker to benefits for being ill, if they weren't in employment during their spell of poor health.

When you take these people in consideration it has to only about 10% of claimants that are shysters as you say.

Though if you want to see for sure you could always look at the amount people claiming and compare it with estimated percentage of the population that have ore are suffering from conditions that qualify for it.
6

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 16/07/2009 16:14:47
If 90% of recent incapacity benefit claimants failed the test how many of the existing 2.7M or so payees are at it?

This excess layer of fat could easily add (back of fag packet calc here) around 8-9% to the strictly Job Seeker Allowance total of 4.8%. So let's have the truth - it's nearer 13% isn't it? And this suits Broon from the viewpoint of getting the idle vote. It suits him too to selectively present the unemployed rate as 4.8% for presentational look-good reasons. It is tantamount to lying and an attempt to deceive voters into thinking things are much better than they really are.

Think why immigration has been uncontrolled - someone has to do the work and immigrants are more likely to vote Labour - win-win for Labour lose-lose for the taxpayers and other voters! No wonder we're bankrupt. We can't keep on dishing out the kind of money Broon has over the last 12 years. Time for radical cuts and getting backsides off sofas.
7

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 16/07/2009 16:17:09
Oh yes - forgot the massive numbers who have been unemployed in the public sector often in non-jobs specially created by Broon to inflate votes. So add a few more percent on for wastefully employed.
8

Alan B,

16/07/2009 21:34:58
#Eve

Labour have abused disability benefit to hide the unemployed. They have added 1.5million people to disability in a decade. We do not have 1.5 more people ill and worthy of disability than a decade ago. And remember then labour were claiming the tories were using disability/incapacity to hide unemployment. Which they did but to a much lesser degree.

What labour have done is near evil. As the abuse of incapacity/disability will have to be cleared up sometime and the genuine persons on these benefits will be scared and worried as a future government weeds out those who are just long term unemployed.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.