Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Unemployment Is Always Higher Under Labour

Today's rise in unemployment is very disappointing, after a couple of months of small falls. It shows just how fragile the supposed recovery is. What is even worse is that both long term unemployment and youth unemployment rates are at their highest ever. Repeat - at their highest ever. Under a Labour government. A LABOUR GOVERNMENT! No wonder they are now third in the polls and have given up all hope of winning the election.

Labour supporters hate it when I remind them of this fact, but it is inescapably true. Every single Labour government has ended its term of office with unemployment higher than when it came in. This one is no different.


Lola said...

One day the working man will realise just how he's been shafted by Socialism in all its guises and rise up and extract his revenge in blood - I sincerely hope.

Alasdair said...

Whereas unemployment would be lower if the Tories had been in and refused to rescue the banks or inject the stimulus?

Unemployment is high because of the economic crisis, and in fact, Labour action on the economy means it's lower than it might have been.


The unanswered question for me is 'why aren't the Tories over the horizon and out of sight' given Blair n' Broons trashing of UK plc?

Why haven't Cameron and Osborne shredded the Broon and his disastrous economic policies? What are they scared off? Or, I should say, what have they been scared about?

All this stuff about 'sharing the proceeds of growth'! Bollocks. They must have known for a long time that the UK is sinking in debt. Why didn't they point this out instead of shilly shallying around with a 'let's keep all options open' policy.

It beggars belief that the polls register any votes for Labour after their catastrophic mishandling of the economy. As ever, unemployment rises when they are in charge.

I am a natural Tory voter as I believe individuals make much wiser choices than governments.

I think Cameron and his team have got their strategy all wrong. The electorate are not idiots. We all know the economy and our pensions are utterly shagged.

Hugging huskies is all very well but it's allowed the impostor Clegg and the Liberal loonies to take centre stage. That's the last thing the country needs.

Anonymous said...

Not only does every single Labour government leave office with unemployment higher than when they came to power but also with both the deficit and debt higher as well.

However high their ideals (and I don't think that necessarily their motives are bad) Labour always represent train crash government, this one worse than ever.

Penfold said...

Don't believe the stats Iain.

Labour have been manipulating the figures for a decade. You can be guaranteed that thousands, if net tens, of NEETS and others are all on training courses and that Job Centre's around the UK are looking at any excuse to sign people orff.

Stats and LieBour are rather like the Politburo saying that production was up and that the Ukraine was enjoying unknown levels of prosperity and riches whence in the middle of a famine.

Alfie said...

It's a fact of life - Labour needs a core of people kept in need - because if these people ever get out of need then they stop voting Labour.

Jason said...

That's a bizarre comment Iain, considering the Tories' economic policies have been tried out already in Ireland. They shredded the economy. Why should anyone believe the Tories wouldn't make unemployment dramatically proportionately worse than they did last time? The evidence suggests they would.

Anonymous said...

"Today's rise in unemployment is very disappointing, after a couple of months of small falls."

Unemployment has not fallen. What has fallen is the number of people claiming benefits - it does not mean that they got jobs, it could equally well mean that they have "transferred" to the list of "economically inactive". The rises in this group, over the last months, almost certainly means that this is the case.

Joe Middleton said...

What surprises me is that no matter how long you have worked everyone is only guaranteed six months guaranteed unemployment benefit. After that point it becomes means tested and a couple potentially suddenly becomes £256 a month worse off if the other person works more than 24 hours. It doesn't matter if the partner earns a low wage. Considering we are in the midst of an economic depression I believe that the unemployed should receive benefit for longer. Also if you are willing to do a training scheme to help retrain for other work then benefits should be paid for the duration of the scheme. Under Labour you are lucky to get ten pounds which wouldn't cover bus fares never mind lunch! What is the point of paying large amounts of national insurance for years if when you need it no help is available? Labour inherited this system from the Tories and it is to their shame that they have never changed it. The Conservatives would undoubtedly make it even harsher given their record when last in office. What a choice!

Anonymous said...

Labour voters are found among people who are benifit seekers. keep them unemployed, and bring in more immigrants and bingo, there you get Labour voters.

Roger Thornhill said...

"Under a Labour government. A LABOUR GOVERNMENT"

Ah, yes, shades of Kinnock!


Where do you think all this "stimulus" comes from, eh? Pixies? Sooner or later the wealth of the productive sector will be hit and so they will spend less and unemployment will rise. QE is theft and subsidy and stimulus are vain attempts to buck the Market.

Northern Crock should have gone under, but as it was an employer in the Northern Soviet, it was rescued. Barclays did not need state help, HSBC likewise and was in rude health, Lloyds if left alone also and if Nat West did not have the misfortune to be bought by RBS it would have survived too.

Ok, so all four high St banks are ok and what does that leave us with? Arse covering, Scottish vanitybanks and the Bradford and Bingley. Giants. Not.

Caro said...

My son-in-law (university graduate, successful professional career) has been unemployed since last May. He has recently taken a part time job in a shop on the minimum wage - the first sniff of any employment in all that time. So he no longer appears in the unemployment figures but his employment problems continue. How many are in the same boat?

His experience also woke me up to the injustices of the benefits system. He did not start receiving JSA until some time after he was made redundant. He was never once offered a job interview or retraining. However, when he (honestly but foolishly) informed the Job Centre that he would be away for 2 weeks on his (pre-booked) honeymoon, they immediately stopped his JSA and it took weeks to get it back. He got no help with rent because my daughter is in employment but her salary plus his JSA was not enough to pay their rent, food and other essential bills. They were on the point of having to move from their one bedroom rented flat when he at last found part time work.

The drain on their resources of his long term unemployment has set back by years any plans for buying their own home or starting a family. They would actually have been better off if they had just irresponsibly produced a child anyway and my daughter had then jacked her job in. Their rent would have been paid and a whole range of benefits would have kicked in.

The Grim Reaper said...

Very true. Indeed, I am now thoroughly looking forward to seeing statistics within weeks of Call Me Dave and his majestic government taking charge that show a record high in the number of people in employment.

Where's my medicine?

Anonymous said...

The Telegraph web site just blandly reports the figures. No comment at all. Pathetic.

Jimmy said...

Utter bilge. In the depths of worst global turndown since 1929 it's still lower than it was under the tories and considerably lower than it would have been had Gideon Wallpaper's voodoo economics been implemented.

Besides haven't you seen your new poster campaign? they're not unemployed they're just lazy. apparently. Funny how people always seem to be lazier under the tories.

Victor, NW Kent said...

Almost everybody knew that the reported decrease in unemployment [which included Christmas] was just a blip.

Alasdair [Darling or Campbell?] makes a bald statement that things would have been worse but fro Labour's policies. How can he possibly know that? The only "proof" is the script that Labour Ministers work from when such questions are asked, or even if they aren't.

cassandra said...

Bailing out the carpet bagging banksters will come to be known as the biggest ever blunder by any government in history.
The UK would have rid itself of the rubbish in the banking system and it wouldnt have cost a penny whereas we are now staring at national bankruptcy and sooner than anyone realises. When the fallout of rescuing the banksters hits it will hit like a bloody express train.
The UK muppet political classes built a nation on debt, we borrowed as house prices rose and we felt prosperous for a while.
The propserity was an illusion and a con by the likes of Brown and his Goldman Sachs carpet bagger friends.
The bubble was only meant to last just as long as it took Brown to position himself as leader by ousting B£iar, it all went pear shaped because Brown was a coward and bottled calling the election and the economy tanked earlier than planned.
The coming disaster is so large and so scary that people have done what people always do, like a rabbit causght in the headlights they freeze and we in the UK seem to be in some kind of national coma unable to face what we all know is bearing down on us.

Dont panic Mr Mannering said corporal Jones as he ran round in circles.
There is no saviour and there will be no happy ending and there will be no easy way out or even any way out whatsoever.
We all like to indulge in the fantasy that the recovery is under way not least the cynical politicians but the truth is that our nightmare is just beginning, we stand before the tsunami some of us knowing that is was coming for some time but nobody would listen not least the political classes, now we face disaster and still we hope for rescue by the very political classes that lead us to this point!
Truth time folks, there aint gonna be no rescue, no white knight or great leader will lead us to a better future, buy gold and tradeable goods,stock up on food and look after the ones you love.
If we had any sense we would be taking out the banksters and hanging them off London bridge. for what they have done.

The Purpleline said...

Welcome to 1974 Labour have delivered massive debt and inflation about to spiral out of control.

Stagflation is here with rising unemployment & low very low growth. The Volcano effect will lower GDP by 0.1 so expect a close shave on return to zero or negative.

Osborne needs to state that if elected his budget wil be on the lines of greece, he will explain the true position of the debt levels and insist on an inquiry into Treason at the Treasury.

We have been a nation of Lions led by an incompetent buffoon.

The Purpleline said...

All parties base their economic assumptions on Growth and return to growth levels of 3%.

What is there plan B?

What if growth does not return as I suspect, with the amount of debt we have hanging over our heads, growth will be low very low.

Anonymous said...

If Lab/LD get in unemployment will be even higher as Lab/LD tax jobs through increasing National Insurance.

Spenny said...

Lola said:

"One day the working man will realise just how he's been shafted by Socialism in all its guises and rise up and extract his revenge in blood - I sincerely hope."

Can we introduce a new 'law' akin to Godwin's Law, whereby political developments not even remotely related to Socialism are considered to be 'Socialist'. "Lola's Law" has a nice ring to it.

Sobers said...

Purely anecdotal I know but there seems to be less traffic around my way. I live on a major cross country A road, one that allows you to cut up from the M4 to the M40. I have noticed recently that traffic is way down. I think the economy (the real economy, not the bloated govt sector) is on its knees.

I am convinced we are in for a second lurch downwards in the economy fairly soon. The govt has stopped QE, and cannot restart it without frightening the bond market and decimating sterling. I think there will be a funding crisis before the end of the year, precipitating a further crash in GDP. We are in the eye of the storm - a Phoney War if you like. The real nasty stuff is yet to come.

Grand_Inquisitor said...

An explanation for the fact that overall unemployment is still rising whilst the number on Job Seekers Allowance is falling is that JSA is only paid for 6 months. After that, only those without other means can continue in the welfare payout system.

The result is that those who lost their jobs six or more months ago and who still have savings are dropping out of the JSA claimant totals, while still not getting a job.

Evidently "Labour isn't working".

Libertarian said...


Ha ha ha what a muppet you'll believe anything the socialists tell you . Look around you Australia, Canada, China and South East Asia didn't even have a recession let alone "the worst global turndown since 1929" Brown caused the hit in the UK and the Fed ( by following exactly the same policy) in the US.

Those people of working age in the UK without a full time job now number 9.8 Million people ( source ONS January 2010 report)

I've no idea what the tories intend but I'll tell you this anyone in the "working" class that votes for Brown's Labour party has to be the ultimate turkey celebrating Christmas.

Anonymous said...

Britain is not working and will not work with Libdem-Lab coalition.

Not a sheep said...

So long as Gordon Brown is out of office and Ed Balls unemployed I will be a happier man.

Anonymous said...

Don't get me wrong, I think the public sector should be cut to the bone, but doesn't Dave's strategy to begin cutting the deficit immediately inevitably mean more job losses under the Tories? And if it doesn't mean more job losses under the Tories then claims that you are going to seriously tackle the deficit are laughable.

I think you are on very dodgy ground attacking Labour on unemployment.

Anonymous said...

@ Alfie 11:49 AM
"It's a fact of life - Labour needs a core of people kept in need - because if these people ever get out of need then they stop voting Labour."

Yes, but also all of the parties need to keep some folks out of work: we live in a capitalist economy, and they'd be failing in their duty to business if they didn't maintain a cheap(ish) supply of labour.

Elby the Beserk said...

Unemployment rate, rural areas, ages 16 to 24 - 40% (that's FORTY. But then. Labour hate the countryside, we know that).

Economically inactive.

8 million plus. (That's EIGHT).

Elby the Beserk said...


Yes. My stepdaughter who is a couple of months unemployed is filling in time working in a charity shop. Another lass there is working there -unpaid - for 16 hours a week. This as a result of the fact that she has been unemployed for 6 months. So the "job or training" promised her by Brown is - working in a charity shop.

Fine in itself - but how, pray, will this further her desire to do real work.

Bastards. And that Clegg is a sly one as well. Steer well clear is my suggestion.

Mind you, I'm not sure that after the damage this moron has done to the economy this pat decade plus, that we can afford "full employment" any more, as the only way we can have it is through en ever more bloated public sector. With all that goes with that.

It may well be that the shit has hit the fan. I am not sure at all that Brown has not in fact broken the UK beyond repair. And that is not just economically, but socially and politically as well. The man is a traitor to his country.

Simon Gardner said...

If Harriet Harman becomes leader of the Labour party I’m off to join the campaign straight away.

Anonymous said...

Looks like anecdote is misleading in this case - overall consumption of petrol+diesel is up 2.96% in March 2010 versus March 2009 and overall oil consumption is up 5.79% (although there's probably an element there of restocking with heating oil after the hard winter). See the official figures from HMRC at :

Elby the Beserk said...

@John Spence

Ahah. You know, it's odd the number of "socialists" who when you tell them that the most oppressive and murderous rules in the planet's history have all been "socialist", they always say Ah - but those "socialists" weren't real "socialists", you see

The thing about "socialists" is that each "socialist" thinks that he or she is the only one who really knows what "socialism" is.

What they all ignore, however,is that ultimately it is a means of oppression of the people by a ruling bureaucratic elite. This elite rapidly becomes unaccountable, and then disaster happens. Often bloodshed, even more often, economic catastrophe, which is precisely what the moron Brown has wrought upon us. Good "socialist" that he is.

Make what you like of that. I should run that past CiF some time, and await the howls of outrage. (Titters quietly to himself)

p smith said...

You can forget the outlier ComRes poll. Mori's figures out today 32-28-32 (Con-Lab-Lib) confirm the established pattern. Harris have it 31-26-30.

While ordinarily I would be the first to say that "this will fade", I genuinely think the rules of the game have changed in this election fuelled not least by the personality politics engendered by Blair and aped by his protege, Cameron. Clegg is simply the newest and freshest personification of "change", shallow as that may be.

Carping about unemployment figures? Just the same old politics Iain...

The King of Wrong said...

There will always be some people out of work because the job market is not perfectly efficient: locations of jobs vs locations of people people means reduced liquidity, and employers pay more than the minimum their employees would work for - because an employee right on the cusp of leaving is a costly liability.

Oh, and the fact that there's now a minimum wage means that a certain tranche of the workforce can never be profitably employed because their work is worth less than the minimum wage.