Has the thread already gone from good news, to LAbour supporters saying it is the wrong type of employment yet. Similar to how it is always the wrong type of growth...
Yes and with good reason. Governments always try to manipulate figures so that they look good. New Labour had a big thing with targets in the public sector. I woud be suspicious about this supposed success based on some of the cynics here.
Re-classifying public sector jobs as private
A rise in self-employment although people still claim large benefits because they don't get much work
People on government schemes that aren't counted as unemployed
If you were around in the 80s you'll know the Tories have form on massaging unemployment numbers.
That includes private sector jobs created by the stroke of a pen. Like the Coalition reclassifying educational bodies as private sector, reduced public sector employment by 196,000 and simultaneously increased private sector employment by 196,000. And it also includes the private sector jobs created by selling the banks back to the private sector. When Labour took over the banks private sector employment fell by about 200,000 and public sector employment simultaneous increased by about 200,000. As the Coaltion has sold the banks back to the private sector that has reduced public sector employment and increased private sector employment. Not all the jobs are new, hundreds of thousands are pre-existing jobs that have been transfered from public sector to private sector.
(More than) Fair point. Let's factor them in.
Not including the banks, the ONS is saying that 196,000 jobs have been reclassified from the public to the private sector. The ONS are still including RBS and Lloyds under the public sector figures. However, the Royal Mail has been reclassified - that's 150,000. One other company has switched from public to private - Direct Line Group, which has 14,500 employees. Adding that all up, that means that 360,500 of growth in private sector jobs under this government are simple transfers from the public to private sector and therefore shouldn't be classified as new jobs.
The net figure is that 1,544,400 new private sector jobs have been created under this government.
As for Labour's record on private sector job creation, I measured it before the jobs in the banks were transferred into the public sector. In other words, the 1.4 million new private sector jobs created under Labour from 1997 to mid 2008 includes any new jobs created by banks before they were subsequently reclassified as public sector jobs.
So, restating: In just under 4 years, 1.544 million private sector jobs have been created under the Coalition Government. That compares to 1.434 million private sector jobs created under Labour from 1997 until their high point of private sector employment in June 2008.
Bet you they don't but if the Tories win the next election - unlikely - interest rates will go up immediately.
Interest rates will go up next summer regardless of who wins the election. It would just be too politically sensitive for the BofE to dare touch them beforehand.
If you look at fixed rate mortgages, the expected increased price has already been factored into the market. Last year I re-mortgaged for 5 years at 3.99%. Now that same product is 4.79%
More encouraging news and does little for the Ed's standard of living crisis rhetoric.
Not when you consider how many of those in full-time employment have a poor standard of living. More people in work is obviously a good thing, but it's not so great if they're still having to resort to benefits to scrape by.
It's only lazy, inactive savers that are being punished. You can get 3%-6% interest if you put your money in the right places, and that is a reasonable return given inflation is low.
In which case, stick interest rates up to at least 4% and lets start seeing decent returns on our savings, so we can spend the returns.
As long as you aren't worried about the hundreds of thousands who could lose their home when it gets repossessed and millions more who will have less disposable income due to mortgage repayments going up.
As long as you aren't worried about the hundreds of thousands who could lose their home when it gets repossessed and millions more who will have less disposable income due to mortgage repayments going up.
My parents had a mortgage rate of well over 10%.
When I got my first mortgage, the rates went between 4.5 and 5.5%.
I borrowed around 3.2 times my salary, even though I was 'encouraged' to 'lie' about my salary and claim 6 times the amount.
The underlying figures show a rise in self employment again.
Given how I made my money, I'm never going to suggest that going it alone is a bad idea, but I know with absolute certainty, having seen it happen, that unemployed are being directed to start up their own business - window cleaning being a popular suggestion- with the promise that tax credits will deal with any shortfall in income should they struggle.
My worry here is that not everyone is suited to running a business, and if as I fear it's seen as a way to show progress it is really just kicking the can down the road.
One million of Britain's lowest paid employees will be classed as "not working hard enough"
Odd that they seem to, once again, link how much a person earns to how "hard" they work, by that 'logic' my parents and grandparents should have been millionaire's and most politicians should be claiming in work benefits, but I digress,
and could find themselves pushed with threats of sanctions to find more income under radical changes to benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions has said
It seems that getting a job 'no matter what' is to no longer be good enough, the goalposts are to be moved yet again, and the unemployed will be punished if they don't take a job, and punished if they DO take a low paid job, (only what I expected from the people who would punish the poorest for having a 'spare' room)
What was that blatant lie again Dave? oh yeah,
"We support those who work hard and try to do the right thing" that's the one,
Perhaps a more truthful statement would be "we support those who earn a lot and don't give a toss how hard they work"..... anyway ....
DWP internal documentsseen by the guardian reveal that people earning between £330 and £950 a month - just under the rate of the national minimum wage for a 35 hour week - could be mandated to attend jobcentre meetings where their working habits will be examined as part of the universal credit programme,
Some of those deemed "not working hard enough" could also be instructed to take on extra training - and if they fail to complete tasks they could be stripped of their UC benefits in a move which Departmental insiders conceded is controversial.
It doesn't actually mention the self employed, but who else other than part-time workers, zero hour contract workers, and the self employed are they talking about?
I repeat since when has how 'hard' a person works had any bearing on how much they earn?
typical Tories the only thing they care about is money, it is the be all and end all behind everything they do.
Let's focus on the claim that more than one million private-sector jobs have been created under the Coalition. First, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), in June 2010 – which is actually the rolling, three-month average of May to July – private-sector employment was 22,826,000, whereas in June 2012 it was 23,896,000, up 1,070,000. What both Messrs Cameron and Osborne failed to tell the Tory tribe was that 196,000 of this increase came about this month because of a statistical change that had nothing to do with job creation, rather box-ticking. Further education corporations and sixth-form college corporations in England were classified to the public sector up to March 2012 and to the private sector from June 2012. 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. They were just making it up. The Coalition has not created one million private-sector jobs since it took office. In fact, 200,000 of the jobs they were claiming already existed in the public sector and they just relabelled them. They should be ashamed of themselves for trying to mislead the public.
The policy was not to raise them when unemployment went below 7% but not to consider it until it does. As it is the inflation figures mean that there is no great pressure to raise them just yet.
Bet you they don't but if the Tories win the next election - unlikely - interest rates will go up immediately.
Interest rates are set by the Bank of England. They are the primary lever used to control inflation.
Inflation is falling and is already well below the BoE's target 2%
The BoE is supposedly independent in this regard. So unless government policy targets for inflation are lowered, there should be no pressure to raise interest rates.
Bet you they don't but if the Tories win the next election - unlikely - interest rates will go up immediately.
It does not take a complete genius to work that one out since mid to late 2015 is the current prediction on rate rises, but heh! that means they will also rise if Labour are the largest party.
So, restating: In just under 4 years, 1.544 million private sector jobs have been created under the Coalition Government. That compares to 1.434 million private sector jobs created under Labour from 1997 until their high point of private sector employment in June 2008.
That's quite a damning number for the last government.
Bet you they don't but if the Tories win the next election - unlikely - interest rates will go up immediately.
Mark said they wouldn't consider a rise until unemployment was below 7% but that wasn't going to be a trigger as it was only one of a number of different considerations.
Odd that they seem to, once again, link how much a person earns to how "hard" they work, by that 'logic' my parents and grandparents should have been millionaire's and most politicians should be claiming in work benefits, but I digress,
This highlights, to me, everything that is currently wrong with the political class and their solutions to our serious problems -Labour would take a different path for sure, but Balls and Milliband are equally clueless as far as I can see.
I think helping people in self employment is great, if that means assisting as they build to self sufficiency, long term that is great, and as a society it benefits us through the tax take and possible future jobs, it is a valid investment. I do worry at them pushing unsuitable people into it as I said, but it is a sound use of funds.
And so what happens, they want rid of it.
Even discounting the self employed, for the vast majority of people who earn little money that is down to their employer. The answer isn't to penalise the poor sod who's got nowt, it is to ensure that employers are not gaming the benefit and workfare systems to get their labor on the cheap.
It is good news but I do think some people on here over-estimate any positive effect that it will have for the Conservatives.
This will depend as to how well paid and how secure the employment is. Someone on minimum wage or in a temporary contract will not suddenly switch their allegience especially if there was a compelling reason for not voting Tory.
The thing is that if the polls stay as they are then Labour will come into a growing economy. I do not see how that is bad for Labour. Maybe they won't muck it up this time.
This highlights, to me, everything that is currently wrong with the political class and their solutions to our serious problems -Labour would take a different path for sure, but Balls and Milliband are equally clueless as far as I can see.
I think helping people in self employment is great, if that means assisting as they build to self sufficiency, long term that is great, and as a society it benefits us through the tax take and possible future jobs, it is a valid investment. I do worry at them pushing unsuitable people into it as I said, but it is a sound use of funds.
And so what happens, they want rid of it.
Even discounting the self employed, for the vast majority of people who earn little money that is down to their employer. The answer isn't to penalise the poor sod who's got nowt, it is to ensure that employers are not gaming the benefit and workfare systems to get their labor on the cheap.
and anyway he never gives a link to the "information" he comes up with so IMO it's not really trustworthy.
whether he ignores you or not, you can still read his post. as for links to his figures, you never put links in when you say things. things such as "this government treating people like lepers" - didn't see a link for that one.;-)
The underlying figures show a rise in self employment again.
Given how I made my money, I'm never going to suggest that going it alone is a bad idea, but I know with absolute certainty, having seen it happen, that unemployed are being directed to start up their own business - window cleaning being a popular suggestion- with the promise that tax credits will deal with any shortfall in income should they struggle.
My worry here is that not everyone is suited to running a business, and if as I fear it's seen as a way to show progress it is really just kicking the can down the road.
This is a little bit iike what happened a few years back, when those made redundant from various councils were redirected to care work in the third sector, to quote the careers adviser "I have no hesitation in recommending that, because there are jobs". No thought to their suitability for the role, which affected both them and potential clients. No thought to the limited earning potential, indeed I heard careers advisers tell them "take a low paid job, you can claim benefits".
The idea that any apparent change in employment numbers upwards and/or across from public to private can inclusively challenge concerns about living standards is absurd.
Comments
Yes and with good reason. Governments always try to manipulate figures so that they look good. New Labour had a big thing with targets in the public sector. I woud be suspicious about this supposed success based on some of the cynics here.
Re-classifying public sector jobs as private
A rise in self-employment although people still claim large benefits because they don't get much work
People on government schemes that aren't counted as unemployed
If you were around in the 80s you'll know the Tories have form on massaging unemployment numbers.
(More than) Fair point. Let's factor them in.
Not including the banks, the ONS is saying that 196,000 jobs have been reclassified from the public to the private sector. The ONS are still including RBS and Lloyds under the public sector figures. However, the Royal Mail has been reclassified - that's 150,000. One other company has switched from public to private - Direct Line Group, which has 14,500 employees. Adding that all up, that means that 360,500 of growth in private sector jobs under this government are simple transfers from the public to private sector and therefore shouldn't be classified as new jobs.
The net figure is that 1,544,400 new private sector jobs have been created under this government.
As for Labour's record on private sector job creation, I measured it before the jobs in the banks were transferred into the public sector. In other words, the 1.4 million new private sector jobs created under Labour from 1997 to mid 2008 includes any new jobs created by banks before they were subsequently reclassified as public sector jobs.
So, restating: In just under 4 years, 1.544 million private sector jobs have been created under the Coalition Government. That compares to 1.434 million private sector jobs created under Labour from 1997 until their high point of private sector employment in June 2008.
In which case, stick interest rates up to at least 4% and lets start seeing decent returns on our savings, so we can spend the returns.
Interest rates will go up next summer regardless of who wins the election. It would just be too politically sensitive for the BofE to dare touch them beforehand.
If you look at fixed rate mortgages, the expected increased price has already been factored into the market. Last year I re-mortgaged for 5 years at 3.99%. Now that same product is 4.79%
Not when you consider how many of those in full-time employment have a poor standard of living. More people in work is obviously a good thing, but it's not so great if they're still having to resort to benefits to scrape by.
Amen to that.
It's only lazy, inactive savers that are being punished. You can get 3%-6% interest if you put your money in the right places, and that is a reasonable return given inflation is low.
As long as you aren't worried about the hundreds of thousands who could lose their home when it gets repossessed and millions more who will have less disposable income due to mortgage repayments going up.
My parents had a mortgage rate of well over 10%.
When I got my first mortgage, the rates went between 4.5 and 5.5%.
I borrowed around 3.2 times my salary, even though I was 'encouraged' to 'lie' about my salary and claim 6 times the amount.
Oh don't worry they are coming for 'us'
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/sep/06/uk-lowest-paid-classed-not-working-enough
Odd that they seem to, once again, link how much a person earns to how "hard" they work, by that 'logic' my parents and grandparents should have been millionaire's and most politicians should be claiming in work benefits, but I digress,
It seems that getting a job 'no matter what' is to no longer be good enough, the goalposts are to be moved yet again, and the unemployed will be punished if they don't take a job, and punished if they DO take a low paid job, (only what I expected from the people who would punish the poorest for having a 'spare' room)
What was that blatant lie again Dave? oh yeah,
"We support those who work hard and try to do the right thing" that's the one,
Perhaps a more truthful statement would be "we support those who earn a lot and don't give a toss how hard they work"..... anyway ....
It doesn't actually mention the self employed, but who else other than part-time workers, zero hour contract workers, and the self employed are they talking about?
I repeat since when has how 'hard' a person works had any bearing on how much they earn?
typical Tories the only thing they care about is money, it is the be all and end all behind everything they do.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/david-blanchflower/david-blanchflower-job-creation-the-numbers-dont-add-up-8211004.html
So have more jobs gone from the public sector into the private sector since 2012 and if so how many ?
Interest rates are set by the Bank of England. They are the primary lever used to control inflation.
Inflation is falling and is already well below the BoE's target 2%
The BoE is supposedly independent in this regard. So unless government policy targets for inflation are lowered, there should be no pressure to raise interest rates.
Interesting statistics on the nature of the change in unemployment
read dave tees' post number 28.
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showpost.php?p=72234105&postcount=28
It does not take a complete genius to work that one out since mid to late 2015 is the current prediction on rate rises, but heh! that means they will also rise if Labour are the largest party.
That's quite a damning number for the last government.
Mark said they wouldn't consider a rise until unemployment was below 7% but that wasn't going to be a trigger as it was only one of a number of different considerations.
This highlights, to me, everything that is currently wrong with the political class and their solutions to our serious problems -Labour would take a different path for sure, but Balls and Milliband are equally clueless as far as I can see.
I think helping people in self employment is great, if that means assisting as they build to self sufficiency, long term that is great, and as a society it benefits us through the tax take and possible future jobs, it is a valid investment. I do worry at them pushing unsuitable people into it as I said, but it is a sound use of funds.
And so what happens, they want rid of it.
Even discounting the self employed, for the vast majority of people who earn little money that is down to their employer. The answer isn't to penalise the poor sod who's got nowt, it is to ensure that employers are not gaming the benefit and workfare systems to get their labor on the cheap.
Which is precisely what is happening.
This will depend as to how well paid and how secure the employment is. Someone on minimum wage or in a temporary contract will not suddenly switch their allegience especially if there was a compelling reason for not voting Tory.
The thing is that if the polls stay as they are then Labour will come into a growing economy. I do not see how that is bad for Labour. Maybe they won't muck it up this time.
Nearly half the new jobs are people reclassifying themselves as self emploted often in one person businesses. Not great jobs for most part if you look
No thanks, I prefer not to he's put me on ignore.
and anyway he never gives a link to the "information" he comes up with so IMO it's not really trustworthy.
whether he ignores you or not, you can still read his post. as for links to his figures, you never put links in when you say things. things such as "this government treating people like lepers" - didn't see a link for that one.;-)
edited: put this government instead of IDS.
This is a little bit iike what happened a few years back, when those made redundant from various councils were redirected to care work in the third sector, to quote the careers adviser "I have no hesitation in recommending that, because there are jobs". No thought to their suitability for the role, which affected both them and potential clients. No thought to the limited earning potential, indeed I heard careers advisers tell them "take a low paid job, you can claim benefits".
The idea that any apparent change in employment numbers upwards and/or across from public to private can inclusively challenge concerns about living standards is absurd.