The New Deal was set up a decade ago with the intention of alleviating youth unemployment, which stood at 14.4%. Since then the government has poured billions into the scheme and trumpeted its success. Youth unemployment now stands at 14.5%. A success indeed.
Hattip to Fraser Nelson for the figures.
UPDATE: Fraser Nelson has more HERE.
what a surprise!!
ReplyDeleteIf your unattributed statistic is true Iain are you going to consider what the rate would have been WITHOUT the interventions?
ReplyDeleteProvide a reliable source for your stats first. And no, CCHQ will not do.
Ah, Fraser Nelson. Who is that? Where's the link?
ReplyDeleteYes, read all of the post first Chris you idiot.
ReplyDeleteOr preferably just slither back to your own blog and leave us alone.
I don`t see how " New Deal ", could ever have made any difference paying a load of people who are virtually unemployable themselves to sit around chatting to sections of society with no incentive to work whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteAs far as “What it would have been like without New Deal” is concerned, that’s hardly fair . There can be no doubt that the proliferation of obligations and expenses consequent on employment have made it very difficult to offer jobs . Those who are trained in the private sector are on insecure terms. If you throw enough of our money at anything there would be some small effect taken in isolation but Labour Policy is to blame for the problem
Meanwhile we look across to the slush poured onto the client public sector with bitter anger.
. I love the way he takes credit for the growth in the economy ( worst in the anglosphere ). What would it have been like without him is a bit more pertinent.
Chris Paul, as ususal, you display your political ignorance. Fraser Nelson is political editor of the Spectator. The figures are in his column this week.
ReplyDeleteOK Iain. 1. Did you add the citation? I didn't see it and a link in the text is the protocol. And 2. Why no link to the source in the small print?
ReplyDeleteYour characteristic put down meanwhile displays your lack of 'listening' skills.
I'd like you to attribute your sources properly so their authority and even handedness can be assessed by readers, and to make them links.
Journalist 101.
Remind me Iain, did Gordon sell our gold or rob our pension funds to pay for this scheme?
ReplyDeleteNewmania: "I love the way he takes credit for the growth in the economy ( worst in the anglosphere ). What would it have been like without him is a bit more pertinent. "
ReplyDeleteExactly.
And consider this.. what would have happened if "weellll alllrright" had won in '92?
I'd have KILLED for an alternative 1992 election outcome where Kinnock won.
(Sometimes, I get so excited, I actually bang one out fantasising about it)
It'd have been pure gold to watch the demented muppets try and wrestle with the ERM crisis 6-months later. They'd have fucked it up even more - been blamed for the deepening the recession, raising taxes, negative equity.. the whole god-damn lot. Any credibility they'd regained with the electorate in the late 80s would have been totally - and permenantly - destroyed.
They'd have been out of power for another 15-20 years.
No Blair, No Brown, No Campbell and no Chris "knob jockey" Paul getting all upset about the fact that someone has the cheek to suggest NuLab might actually be a pretty f*cking sh1t government.
Ah, Bliss.
Chris Paul, if you want to see the original , buy the bloody Spectator. Or even, dare I say it, go to their website. You really are pathetic.
ReplyDeleteChris Paul,
ReplyDeleteWhy will CCHQ 'not do'? Are researchers not meant to find out useful information now?
Chris Paul,
ReplyDelete...is the protocol
Are you still here? No, any blog is written by the blogger in their own style. Some are better written and more interesting than others, which is why I read this one every day and I looked at yours once.
I'd like you to...
And I'd like to wake up next to Jennifer Aniston every morning.
I think you were reading Idiot 101 rather than Journalist 101. Easy mistake to make.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI've been to their fucking website Iain and these ever so valid statistics do not leap out at me. Post a link. Why do you allow your fucking sock puppets to post their ridiculous offensive crap?
ReplyDeletePS I hear that "fucking" is allowed on here now?
PPS Did you add the citation after posting?
I'm not sure the original "New Deal" ,by Franklin D Roosevelt in the US ,worked either. After initial success unemployment rose again - it took Britain spending and borrowing and begging to buy arms in the early 1940s to get their economy rolling again.
ReplyDeleteChris, they are not my sock puppets. They are people who, like me, are fed up with your inane ravings on this site. If you really cannot find Fraser Nelson's article then I despair for you. I didn't link to it because I read the print version. I am not your researcher.
ReplyDeleteDidnt Frank Field himself say similar stuff in his Reform document produced recently? - http://www.reform.co.uk/website/home.aspx
ReplyDeleteWhy do you get so angry Iain. The poor guy's only asking for a link.
ReplyDeleteWell my understanding of 18 years of tory kakistocracy was that unemployment was a good thing, and that 3 million unemployed was the sign of a vibrant fast moving economy. So surely New Labour is ever so slightly better than the tories.
ReplyDeleteThe New Deal is one of the best examples of a New Labour policy (one of Brown's little pet schemes), take a nice contrite headline grabbing aspiration which allows you to micromanage redistribution and throw £millions at it. 10 years later bugger all has changed but it still comes in handy when reeling of those Stalinist factory figures.
ReplyDeleteGreat example of that old tory slogan
"Labour isn't working"!
Glass House, if you are a regular reader of this blog you will know what Chris Paul's tactics are. If you read his own blog you will see that around a third of the stories he writes surround some imaginary thing he thinks I might have got wrong. Why on earth doesn't he write about politics in general rather than his slightly bizarre ramblings about me and my blog.
ReplyDeleteI gave the source of the statistics in the original article. If he's too lazy to look the article up on the Spectator website I'm not going to waste any more time on him!
More Vulgar- Interesting isn’t it . In fact Brown stooge Martin Bright asks in the New Statesman today "What if Neil Kinnock had not held his Sheffield rally?"
ReplyDeleteI imagine the Conservative Party would have imploded with indiscipline on Europe and its various other peccadilloes given a free run.
Iain - I have seen that figure about a few times recently I would be curious as to its ultimate provenance.Not that I am suggesting it is questionable I think it is probably Governement sourced. I wouldn`t recommend buying the Spectator to my worst enemy , god knows why I still do. Prospect is the best magazine out.
Dearest Iain
ReplyDeleteI do not spend a third of my valuable blog space on your ramblings. I have cut down. Even gave up completely for a while.
But it pisses me off how careless you are, how infrequently you apologise or correct mistakes, how you relate to women's equality, and your double standards on comment editing with some pretty sick drivel being allowed through.
The links everyone wants are here. Comments welcome. I don't think much of the DWP's Job Centre service myself and thought your unattributed figures too kind.
The hard figures have GONE UP c 20% or so not stood still. Largely through a bulge in the demographics. The article is not about New Deal it is about how Gordon is going to win next time.
Neither of the links I give have the original provenance of the figures.
Best wishes, your adoring fan
Chris Paul
PS Did you add the citation after publishing?
As I've said elsewhere, Chris Paul is a village idiot and a national joke.
ReplyDeleteIs that good enough Iain? Lol.
Chris, your PS makes my point. You see a conspiracy behind everything. The citation was in the original post, which a cursory visit to Bloglines would no doubt confirm.
ReplyDeleteYou say:"But it pisses me off how careless you are, how infrequently you apologise or correct mistakes, how you relate to women's equality, and your double standards on comment editing with some pretty sick drivel being allowed through."
There are plenty of occasions when I have apologised for getting something wrong - but no, I am not going to research them for you.
And what on earth do you mean about Women's equality? Justify that please. You can't.
And as for comments, you'd like me to censor more, would you? Interesting.
Iain: You are not even your own researcher, judging on past performance...
ReplyDeleteChris Paul, Labour of Love answer these questions:
ReplyDelete1) How many economically inactive people of working age were there on 1st May 1997 and on 1st May 2007?
2) How much was welfare spending as a proportion of GDP on 1st May 1997 and on 1st May 2007?
3) How many more public servants are there now than there were ten years ago?
4) What proportion of the jobs created since 1st May 1997 have been in the public sector?
We may find the answers interesting.
Chris Paul’s weirdly inverted adoration of the Dale reminds me of an incident in Dean Martin’s life
ReplyDeleteFan:-Oh Mr. Martin I have so much respect for you
Deano -Save a little for yourself pally
I blame the parents.
Ian,
ReplyDeleteSurely after 10 years of NuLabour, you can't deny that the benchmark for kakistocracy has moved on from citing the Tories?
For those not familiar with the term
Kakistocracy, rule by the least-able or least-principled of citizens, is a form of government in which the people least qualified control the government...
Chris Palsy does a fine job of reminding me why I really should not get homesick for Manchester.
ReplyDeleteA provicial shithole full of small minded bufoons.
newmania/more vulgar than a vulcans vulva why are you writing to yourself using both your identities?
ReplyDeleteMr Paul,
ReplyDeleteOur soon to be gone PM has never stopped going on about how unemployment has fallen during his time in office. Without further information one assumes that this effect is spread fairly evenly across the unemployed.
But the figures Iain quotes seem to indicate that within a specific group, one especially targetted by an expensive programme, unemployment has not fallen. These individuals have therefore have done less well than the rest of the unemployed.
Please tell us by what measure the programme can be judged a "success". I'm sure we'd really love to know.
Marquee Mark,
ReplyDeleteI'm betting Gordon Brown will raise the bar on kakistocracy even higher. Steve Bell's Gordon as a big baby in a pooh-filled nappy may well have created the perfect image of the "kakistocracy"...
JHL
ReplyDeleteNewmania is not Vulcan's Vulva. I am. Put an end to these scurrilous rumours at once.
I am also Mutley the Dog and The Hitch and Guido Fawkes is my invention as well. Did you like the actor I paid to go on Newsnight for me?
Isn't it odd that so many East Europeans manage to find gainful employment in the UK though!?!
ReplyDeleteSo Iain, would the Conservative Party scrap the "[Old] New Deal"?
Would the Conservatives reduce benefits to make work pay?
ed, if you really are all of those people then can we get JHL to butcher a few to thin down the number of postings on this thread :-)
ReplyDeleteChris Paul is just a moron and a troll. The only person I loathe on here is the axe-murderer.
Add another 12,000 to that list soon, with the junior doctors recruitment. Patricia Hewitt might have ended some of it, but there are still only 10,000 jobs and 22,000 juniors (plus the European doctors who can also apply).
ReplyDeleteSee my blog today for story of how now junior doctors are being told to lie so hospitals appear to meet European Working Time Directives - http://racheljoyce.blogspot.com/
snafu,
ReplyDeleteAnecdotal evidence says that welfare reform apparently worked in the US.
I would be more than happy to meet JHL to prove that I am all these people. I might wear my medieval head and neck armour just in case though.
ReplyDeleteChris Paul:
ReplyDeleteDon't be a prat all your life, take a day off, for God's sake. Just do yourself and everyone else a favour, read the blog, get off your girly bottom and do a bit of research. Please don't expect Iain or anyone else to constantly wet-nurse you and change your nappies. If you don't know how to use Google (or any other search engine) I'm sure your remedial teacher will be able to help.
And, while we're at it, it would be quite nice if you could learn what 'on topic' actually means.
"If your unattributed statistic is true Iain are you going to consider what the rate would have been WITHOUT the interventions?"
ReplyDeleteRegardless of the accuracy of Iaian's statement, how about the government sods off and stops spending people's money on other people's problems? What is it with you lefties and your desire to interfere?
No!! I'm Spartacus!
ReplyDeleteJailhouselawyer..
Chris Paul..
Tim Ireland..
Three little pricks who aspire to be three massive COCKS.
Why don't you three meet up at the weekend and have a session of group masturbation whilst crying out the names of your favourite sockpuppets?
Go on. You'd enjoy it.
"More Vulgar- Interesting isn’t it . In fact Brown stooge Martin Bright asks in the New Statesman today "What if Neil Kinnock had not held his Sheffield rally?"
ReplyDeleteI imagine the Conservative Party would have imploded with indiscipline on Europe and its various other peccadilloes given a free run. "
Interesting Monsieur Newman.
Personally, I think having this debate in opposition would have been far more preferable to having it in government. The margin of defeat would surely have been small and a new leader would have(surely) taken over from Major, so after 1993/1994 I'd have thought the party would have been fairly united.
Also, the Europe debate was largely resolved by 1997 - helped by the debacle of ERM and Maastrict. The Europhiles lost.
Downside: We'd probably have had Portillo as PM (although maybe he wouldn't have turned into the embittered, sniping, to$$er he is now, had he not lost his seat in 97)
Of course I completely agree with you Vulcan's Vulva/Hitch/Guido
ReplyDelete:-)
> Anecdotal evidence says that welfare reform apparently worked in the US.
ReplyDeleteIndeed it does - I gave the figures on Monday in New Deal's Woeful Failure. The question is, what precisely should Conservatives be doing here? Anyone care to have a stab at any of the three specific questions I raised there?
Chris, I accept the figures sound made-up but tragically for Britain's youth they are not. I have just blogged the full explanation (and source) for that line in my column here - http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/
ReplyDeleteFraser - I don't think that Chris cares. He's more interested in shooting the messenger(s).
ReplyDeleteFraser
ReplyDeleteThe aim of the New Deal was always *long term* youth unemployment, no? Check the speech Brown gave in '98 announcing the policy (treasury website).
Youth unemployment (short and long term) has risen sharply over the past 18 months. But this doesn't mean that long term unemployment has also - and it is long term unemployment that the new deal set out to tackle.
I have no idea what the figures are for long term youth unemployment, but if you could find those then you (and Iain) would be in a far stronger position that the New Deal is "not a success".
BUT THEYVE CREATED 2.5 MILLION NEW JOBS!!! unfortunately they are all taken by economic migrants thus forcing more young people, single parents and older people into the welfare trap. this is basic economics, not a racist point.
ReplyDeletehow can you expect to get 5.3 million off the dole or income support when you have a never ending supply of cheap migrant labour???
This very issue shows how utterly stupid brown is, not the economic genius some say. We have an economy founded on public debt as he borrows billions via PFI, to keep it off the balance sheet, and a bloated public sector combined with a mountain of private debt and consumption fuelled by the housing asset bubble- not exactly a sparkling record.
jilted john said...
ReplyDelete"how can you expect to get 5.3 million off the dole or income support when you have a never ending supply of cheap migrant labour???"
Exactly. Young foreign exploiters of the British economy can put up with shit wages and conditions, living in communal dormitories, and be able to send home sufficient money to enable them to buy a flat when (and if) they go home. How can, and why should, British workers of any age have to live like that?
Plus, in the USA, for example, there are employers willing to employ people. In the UK there is an army of 'personnel' charlatans dedicated to dreaming up ever more ludicrous reasons for not employing people.
On top of which we gleefully 'welcome' 'Roma' from the Balkans and give them (according to Channel 4 news) more money each week just for food then a single unemployed British person gets for food, gas, electricity, phone, al-beeb, clothes, and household appliances. As one of those 'Roma' put it 'Why should we go home when Britain pays us to stay?'.
And by the way, this New Deal sucks stuff was indeed being talked about by Frank Field this very week. Something about the English unemployed being permitted only two weeks benefit before being shot so as to free up resources for more immigrants - I may have got those last details slightly confused.
This post is quite embarrassing for you Iain.
ReplyDeleteHere's how to reduce youth unemployment:
ReplyDelete1. Improve schools by giving heads total discretion to expel troublemakers and layabouts.
2. Abolish the minimum wage, maternity leave, paternity leave and employment tribunals.
The first suggestion would make youth more employable and the second would remove some of the disincentives to employment.
There you are! I've solved it. Let me know if you have any other little problems.
Trumpeter Lanfried: And in the 1930s when, presumably, school heads had total discretion to expel troublemakers and layabouts, and there was no minimum wage, maternity leave, paternity leave and employment tribunals, presumably there was no unemployment. What twat logic you have, but I suppose you think it's right, hand on heart.
ReplyDeleteanonymous [6.53 PM] I would not have advocated my policies in the 1930s when the underlying structural problems were very different.
ReplyDeleteOur heavy industries were dying, the USA was in the grip of the great depression, there were no welfare scroungers, there was very little crime and very little immigration.
Yes. I do believe in the policies I advocate. But not "hand on heart." Allowing the heart to dictate economic policy is the great weakness of socialism.
Trumpeter Lanfried said...
ReplyDelete"Here's how to reduce youth unemployment:
1. Improve schools by giving heads total discretion to expel troublemakers and layabouts.
2. Abolish the minimum wage, maternity leave, paternity leave and employment tribunals."
Sounds almost like the 'golden years' of Thatcher and mass unemployment. Some people are just in love with the misery of others.
anonymous [10.00 PM] I am not in love with the misery of others. I hate unemployment. I remember my grandmother's horror at the hunger strikes before the Great War: "Grown men, with no boots on their feet!" So you and I are on the same side.
ReplyDeleteI just think fiscal rewards for unemployment, dumbed down education and restrictive employment laws are making the problem worse. And the statistics suggest I'm correct in that belief.
However, I hold out little hope of persuading you since your post includes the magic mantra "Thatcher". This word is like the crucifix with which they used to confront vampires. The ultimate weapon which puts an end to all controversy.