Unemployment down, inflation down..

[WeX]

Wrong, the Thatcher government started this and positively encouraged it with the miners to conceal the real unemployment figures?

 

How is my statement wrong? Did Labour not do this? Did I say Labour started it?

 

---------- Post added 19-02-2014 at 22:46 ----------

 

funnily enough one quick google brings up plenty of reputable sources in the past day saying unemployments actually risen to 7.2%

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=unemployment+up&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&gws_rd=cr&ei=OgEFU9LuLIXD7AbYiYHIBw

 

but dont let that get in the way of the right wingers back slapping the good old tory party

 

This is a good article about how there is some confusion.

 

http://ampp3d.mirror.co.uk/2014/02/19/is-unemployment-up-or-down-the-numbers-explained/

[whiteowl]

Good article Wex. So maybe the title of this thread should be :

"Unemployment down (maybe), Inflation down (maybe - RPI actually went up) but feel free to put you fingers in your ears and believe whichever political persuasion you believe in"

 

Hope there's no character limit on titles

[Anna B]

I'm interested in this as those who are on Sanction are still signed on. I notice a lot of blogs that make this claim but none I have read have given any firm evidence of this.

 

Labour dumped swaths of the population into incapacity benefit, marooning them without any hope of getting back into employment.

 

The tory's are putting these people back into the workforce and penalising those who are not making an effort to find work, but that's a whole other discussion and I have no wish to hijack this thread.

 

I'm also interested to know what percentage of people are sanctioned at any one time, but I've never seen any figures on this, although I would have thought there would be some, and that they are relevant to the employment figures.

 

My guess then, is that they are deliberately not shown as they would not do the Tories any favours.

 

The ITV news announced that the unemployment figures were down, but the number of jobseekers were up. How does that work?

 

Oh - and wages have gone up apparently. Anybody noticed? I suspect they've included the MPs 14% rise and the bankers fat wodge which climbs every year. That would be enough to distort the figures.

[Vague_Boy]

Inflation is also down where it should be too

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26239631

 

That is the CPI figure, which excludes gas, electric, food and housing costs.

 

So it's effectively useless you're a politician or an employer setting wage rises.

 

From the same link:

 

Inflation as measured by the Retail Prices Index rose to 2.8% from 2.7% in December

 

The RPI figure is the one that used to be quoted as the inflation figure until 2003.

 

As both these figures are subject to manipulation by successive governments, the real rate of inflation (the one you see when prices in the supermarket go up) is somewhat higher.

 

Official inflation data ‘misleading’ public on real price rises

[Doom]

There's little doubt that the statistics are looking better and better, but it will only matter to me when I personally see some visible evidence of it, until then I'll just assume it's all the foreigners in the South East who are enjoying a nice revival.

 

Regards

 

Doom

[WeX]

Good article Wex. So maybe the title of this thread should be :

"Unemployment down (maybe), Inflation down (maybe - RPI actually went up) but feel free to put you fingers in your ears and believe whichever political persuasion you believe in"

 

Hope there's no character limit on titles

 

Personally, when the Labour supporting Mirror (not unlike the Guardian) newspaper cant find any firm evidence to say what the government is saying is 100% wrong, then you can be pretty sure what is being released is pretty accurate.

[Bob England]

I'm also interested to know what percentage of people are sanctioned at any one time, but I've never seen any figures on this, although I would have thought there would be some, and that they are relevant to the employment figures.

 

My guess then, is that they are deliberately not shown as they would not do the Tories any favours.

 

The ITV news announced that the unemployment figures were down, but the number of jobseekers were up. How does that work?

 

Oh - and wages have gone up apparently. Anybody noticed? I suspect they've included the MPs 14% rise and the bankers fat wodge which climbs every year. That would be enough to distort the figures.

 

Sorry about this I am out of UK and a bit out of touch, what does sanction mean?

[Obelix]

I'll let Anna give you the beating my breast isn't it awful routine about how it is a death sentence for all and shouldn't be allowed.

 

In brief, if you don't look for work, or don't turn up for interviews etc, you lose your benefits. First offence is 13 weeks of no benefits, then it's 26 weeks for a second offence, and then I think about three years should you manage to screw up three times in a year.

 

 

Simple answer of course is not to screw up, but I think that the sanction periods are a little excessive. However those are the rules.

[Bob England]

I'll let Anna give you the beating my breast isn't it awful routine about how it is a death sentence for all and shouldn't be allowed.

 

In brief, if you don't look for work, or don't turn up for interviews etc, you lose your benefits. First offence is 13 weeks of no benefits, then it's 26 weeks for a second offence, and then I think about three years should you manage to screw up three times in a year.

 

 

Simple answer of course is not to screw up, but I think that the sanction periods are a little excessive. However those are the rules.

 

Thanks for that, sounds reasonable to me.

[Anna B]

Sorry about this I am out of UK and a bit out of touch, what does sanction mean?

 

The government has introduced sanctions to unemployment benefits.

 

If anyone fails to meet very exacting criteria for claiming benefits, they can be sanctioned, in other words, have their benefits stopped for any length of time the job centre decide on (there may well be an official tarrif that jobcentres have to adhere to but I'm not sure.)

 

The problems lie in what the jobcentre decides is an infringement of 'the rules.'

 

The internet is awash with tales of benefits being stopped for the most trivial of reasons; eg being minutes late to sign on, even with a perfectly valid reason, or not having applied for enough jobs, the number of which seems to be at the total discretion of the jobcentre person and often ridiculous, or the jobseeker not having the paperwork to prove it, in fact causing any sort of minor discrepancy that the jobcentre deems a problem. Any objection will only result in further sanctions.

 

So numerous and so petty are some of the reasons for stopping benefits that some people suspect the jobcentres have covert targets that they have to meet in order to reduce the number of people claiming benefits, thus allowing the government to make grandiose claims about unemployment falling.

 

People on sanctions, which can last as long as six months, are left high and dry with nothing to live on. They have to beg for food at places like foodbanks.

 

As you say, it sounds reasonable, but like many things with this government, the way it's being put into practice isn't. There are a number of threads on here about it, so judge for yourself.