There are no unemployed people in Britain

[Robin-H]

i didnt say tories, ALL our governments have done it, as i said theres certain unemployed that simply do not get counted, they also change the rules on who can claim the benefits so theres less people on them. I suppose its creative accounting.

 

I didn't mean to imply that you were blaming the Tories, however my original reply was to a comment that did seem to be implying that (since the original topic of conversation was about Hammond).

 

It it is worth repeating that our measure of what constitutes unemployment is set out by the International Labour Organisation, not by any of our governments.

 

They agree to use that definition, but seeing as it is only by using that definition that comparisons between countries can be made, it would not be sensible to use an alternative one.

[onewheeldave]

Which was not the point raised. The claim was that the Tory's were 'fixing' the figures somehow. This is not true.

 

No. Here's what I said-

The figures have, but they're fixed and bear no relation to the actual numbers of unemployed.

Didn't mention the Tory's, or anyone else, just that the figures were fixed.

[Robin-H]

No. Here's what I said-

Didn't mention the Tory's, or anyone else, just that the figures were fixed.

 

Then I'm glad you agree that the Tory's are not to 'blame' (not that there is anything to blame anyone for).

 

The subject stemmed from an accusation that Hammond was trying to make people think that there was no unemployment - this moved onto the unemployment figures being somehow 'fixed', hence why it seemed like the accusation was being levelled at the Tory's.

 

I think that claiming that the figures are somehow 'fixed' at all is rather silly. As I've stated, the definition of unemployment is set by a United Nation Agency. I'm not sure why it would be in their interest to 'fix' the figures?

[Anna B]

Then I'm glad you agree that the Tory's are not to 'blame' (not that there is anything to blame anyone for).

 

The subject stemmed from an accusation that Hammond was trying to make people think that there was no unemployment - this moved onto the unemployment figures being somehow 'fixed', hence why it seemed like the accusation was being levelled at the Tory's.

 

I think that claiming that the figures are somehow 'fixed' at all is rather silly. As I've stated, the definition of unemployment is set by a United Nation Agency. I'm not sure why it would be in their interest to 'fix' the figures?

 

As with most statistics there are different ways of counting the figures. Politicians will always use the one's that are most favourable to their cause and support a particular point of view.

[Chez2]

Well according to our Chancellor there aren't. What a massive plonker, but the Tories have never given a toss about unemployment, seeing it as a "price worth paying" to get inflation down (Norman Lamont).

 

If you saw the interview you will see it has been misquoted. The comment wrongly quoted was about no unemployed touch typists / short hand typists when new technology (computers) came into use not there are no unemployed people.

[Robin-H]

As with most statistics there are different ways of counting the figures. Politicians will always use the one's that are most favourable to their cause and support a particular point of view.

 

The government uses the definition for unemployment because it is the one used by the International Labour Organisation, and so allows for comparison between countries (as it is the definition used in other countries).

[Cyclone]

Maybe because that's not even remotely true.

 

The tables can be found here.

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/labourproductivity

 

Firstly, productivity is measured per person, so the total number employed doesn't really matter.

 

Secondly, productivity is nowhere near an all time low. It has stagnated since the recession, but is still double what is was in the 1970s.

 

That's one measure of productivity, but not a very useful one for this discussion.

GDP per head adjusted for inflation would be a much more sensible measure to use.

[melthebell]

I didn't mean to imply that you were blaming the Tories, however my original reply was to a comment that did seem to be implying that (since the original topic of conversation was about Hammond).

 

It it is worth repeating that our measure of what constitutes unemployment is set out by the International Labour Organisation, not by any of our governments.

 

They agree to use that definition, but seeing as it is only by using that definition that comparisons between countries can be made, it would not be sensible to use an alternative one.

so the government stopped under 18s claiming unemployment benefit a fair few years ago, so they then are not counted in the statistics as being unemployed? yes?

[Robin-H]

That's one measure of productivity, but not a very useful one for this discussion.

GDP per head adjusted for inflation would be a much more sensible measure to use.

 

OK but my comment still stands by using the alternative measure.

 

GDP per head (adjusted for inflation) in 1970 was less than half what it is now. It has more than doubled by using that measure.

 

I'm still unsure how Anna B can claim productivity is at an 'all time low'..

 

 

https://www.economicvoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/ercchart0514.gif

[sgtkate]

Late to the thread, but I have to agree with many others on here saying that his words have been taken hugely out of context, and while I like a laugh at the Tories expense any day of the week, it's just a minor slip of the tongue at most, and given the number of mistakes Dianne Abbott has made, it's a bit of pot/kettle...