Was struck by something today. Having heard the encouraging news that unemployment has fallen by 7,000, suggesting that the previous fall was not an anomaly but in fact a sign of a trend that we all hope continues, a tweet from @UKLabour flashed up on my screen. It linked to a Jobs Interactive Map, a fascinating comparative tool which allows us to see the difference in unemploylent figures between the most recent recession and the Tory recession of the 90s. The map is a glaringly obvious vindication of Gordon Brown and the Labour Party's tough action. Proving that investing in people, public services and job creation schemes is the best way to tackle a recession. That unemployment and risking the future of this generation, and future ones by proxy, is not and never can be a price worth paying.
I would like to make clear for any readers unsure about which party's policies on recession and recovery really work, that in EVERY SINGLE PART OF THE COUNTRY unemployment was worse under the last Tory recession than the most recent one.
Now this post may sound like a collection of soundbites, I really don't mean it to. Although I don't apologise for it. These facts should be on the tip of everyone's tongues, at the forefront of their minds, and should be guiding their hand when they get into the ballot box on polling day. It is not by chance that there are 450,000 more people in work than experts predicted at the time of the budget. It's not luck. It's the result of fast, decisive action in the face of financial collapse. ATM machines within 2 hours of being empty is no joke, as Gordon said on Saturday at the Fabians Conference, this past year has been the greatest possible rebuttal to those who say Government is always the problem. But then, I suppose it depends on which Government...
I would like to make clear for any readers unsure about which party's policies on recession and recovery really work, that in EVERY SINGLE PART OF THE COUNTRY unemployment was worse under the last Tory recession than the most recent one.
Now this post may sound like a collection of soundbites, I really don't mean it to. Although I don't apologise for it. These facts should be on the tip of everyone's tongues, at the forefront of their minds, and should be guiding their hand when they get into the ballot box on polling day. It is not by chance that there are 450,000 more people in work than experts predicted at the time of the budget. It's not luck. It's the result of fast, decisive action in the face of financial collapse. ATM machines within 2 hours of being empty is no joke, as Gordon said on Saturday at the Fabians Conference, this past year has been the greatest possible rebuttal to those who say Government is always the problem. But then, I suppose it depends on which Government...
7 comments:
The employment figures are good news, but not unexpected since economists were saying that if the Brown/Darling plan was not implemented then unemployment would soar. The Tories moan about the effect of the stimulus on the deficit but what they do not acknowledge is that the vast majority of our North Sea oil revenues in the 80s was spent on unemployment benefits rather than spent on jobs. I don't have the figures, but it would be interesting to see how much Maggie spent on keeping people unemployed compared to the cost of QE.
The interesting thing is that the oil revenues only started flowing into the Treasury at the start of the first Thatcher term (if Callaghan had had those revenues in 1978 then the Winter of Discontent probably would not have happened). Should "President" Cameron get elected he won't have an immediate ready stream of money like that. Although there is a "kind of" equivalent in the assets of UKFI (the government agency that owns the banks). At some point the assets of UKFI will be sold, and they may be sold at a profit (or may not, but even so, they will free up billions). If the deficit has been cut by then (as both Darling and Osborne say they will do) then that would be a possible source of cash. And a possible source of cash before the 2015 election - finance for a Tory tax cut.
Pedantry... but, the map shows those claiming unemployment benefits, rather than unemployment. The claimant figure was about 3m (ie lots) in 1992 and is about 1.5m now. In 1992 the unemployment figure was still about 3m (lots), and today it is 2.46m (quite a lot).
The discrepancy in the 2009 figs is largely due to restructuring of the benefits system, rather than there being substantially fewer people out of work.
was just about to reply to the last comment, but the author has now deleted it!
very interesting points Richard> I completely agree. Gordon Brown and Darling have invested in people in order to try and grow our way out of recession. This is now showing short term gains, in falling unemployment through job creation, but, and perhaps more importantly, the longer term impact of ensuring investment in younger people continued through recession will be profound.
Let's just hope people can see beyond the Tory deficit scare mongering
Ellie,
Have you seen this article at LeftFootForward?
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/01/unemployment-shows-quick-rebound-for-labour-market/
The graph shows the change in unemployment rate over time of the last three Tory recessions and the current recession. The amazing thing is that unemployment has dropped so quickly this time. It really is very obvious from this that the Brown/Darling stimulus has had a significant effect. The worrying thing is that if Cameron/Osborne get into power there is a real risk of a "double dip" and the unemployment rate will start to look more like the Thatcher recession in the 80s.
I love this continued talk of "growing your way out of recession" as a means to wipe out the huge budget deficits under Labour.
To do that, over the next 5 years the economy would have to grow about 30%. It simply isn't going to happen.
As for unemployement? Under Labour, industrial production has fallen ~11%, whereas under the previous Tory government it fell 3.3%. Check bloomberg if you don't believe me. What has happened under Labour is a massive expansion of the state (and as I hope you are aware, no-one who works for the state is a NET taxpayer).
You might have slightly lower unemployment now (even that is questionable given how it is accounted for) btu by running such massive defecits, Labour has stored up trouble for the future.
Like it or not, there will be cuts, and state employees will lose their jobs.
Have a nice day now.
Post a Comment