Jobs galore

 

Yesterday’s unemployment figures make good reading.  The  number of people on out of work benefits is down 781,000 since 2010. Youth unemployment is down 177,000 since the General Election. The number of  long term unemployed is down 45,000.

Since May 2010 the UK economy has created  1,800,000 additional jobs. Three quarters of these are full time. The unemployment rate has fallen from 8% to 6.4%, and the workforce has expanded. Some people have decided to rejoin or join the workforce who did not have jobs before but were not claiming unemployment benefits. Migrants have arrived and also found jobs. I seem to remember Labour predicting Coalition policies would lose us a net one  million jobs. They will need to revise their forecast and their economic strategy based on it.

Over the last year employment is up by a  massive 820,000. The majority of these jobs have gone to people already settled here, though migration from the rest of the EU remains substantial at 187,000.

The general economic policy has helped create an economy with an impressive capacity to generate more employment opportunities. The welfare reforms are helping get many more people back into work, including people who have been out of work for a long time. That is to be welcomed.

Labour and the critics were left pointing out that pay growth at 0.6% (excluding bonuses) is still low, and lower than price inflation at 1.7%. We would all like to see higher pay for those working hard in lower paid jobs who have not had recent pay rises. As the recovery continues more should be able to experience higher pay, from rising productivity, and greater success for their companies. We need to remember that the 0.6% is an average. If the economy generates more lower paid jobs that will bring the average down. If the decline of North Sea output and the exporting of top end financial jobs continues, that removes some very highly paid people which also lowers the average.

Overall the jobs news  is good news. People moving from benefits to work will be better off. When more jobs are created more people have the chance to work the longer hours they want or to gain promotion to a better paid job. Growth in the economy creates more opportunity which in turn allows more families to earn a better standard of living. The best news is there are now 400,000 fewer workless families than at the time of the last election.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

107 Comments

  1. Mark B
    Posted August 14, 2014 at 5:13 am | Permalink

    I have never believed in any of the government figures. Especially those so close to an election.

    • libertarian
      Posted August 14, 2014 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

      Luckily Mark B you don’t have to believe the government figures.

      I work in the industry and have access to real time job data and I’m NOT a tory voter or supporter. I’ve been telling anyone who will listen that the job market has been this way and growing for the last 3 years. In fact the problem we currently face is skills shortages especially in STEM skills. Oh and just so everyone knows NONE of this rise or improvement is due to anything the coalition has done, if anything their policies have slowed it down a little.

      There are specific things that have occurred which has caused the rapid growth in employment and jobs and NONE of them are to do with the current or indeed previous government but in spite of them.

      Our politicians of ALL parties haven’t got a clue about any of this. They are still living in a past where they continue to implement policies which make it harder to employ people not easier. The markets have moved on though, the pattern of employment and careers has changed rapidly and in different ways.

      Employment will continue to rise

      • Bazman
        Posted August 14, 2014 at 6:07 pm | Permalink

        Employers claim sustained training is required when most of the poverty pay jobs are ­relatively unskilled.
        Designate the post an “apprenticeship” and a firm buys a pair of hands for as little as £2.68 per hour, which is less than the £3.72 minimum wage for 16 and 17-year-olds and £5.03 for 18-to-20s.
        The self-serving propaganda spouted by Cameron & Co on TV and in the House of Commons is a million miles from the grim reality for many Britons: low pay, insecurity and the constant fear of the sack.
        Deluded Tories and aloof highly-paid commentators claim breadline, temporary, part-time work is better than no job. It is not and if you think it is you are wrong. Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne’s boast the economy is back to where it was before the 2008 financial crash is untrue if measured per head. The population’s expanded and we’re poorer as a nation. The fall in earnings under the ConDem coalition during this Parliament will be the biggest since 1880.

        • libertarian
          Posted August 14, 2014 at 9:06 pm | Permalink

          Bazman

          Your post is completely unrelated to anything I posted. The reason for that is that you have no argument .

          You have tried to once again put words in my mouth that I haven’t said and quite frankly its a pathetic inditement of socialist debate

          You either missed or as its you ignored or didn’t read the bit where I said the present government have done nothing to help

          As it happens I agree with you about the unrealistic wage rates for apprenticeships which is why they’ve taken so long to take off. More and more employers now realise the value of apprenticeships and are prepared to pay better rates of pay. The norm for most apprenticeships in the South East is now £100- £200 per week. However still large numbers of apprenticeship jobs are unfilled.

          Bazman you have proved conclusively you know nothing about the job market just like the politicians you so slavishly follow. Some of us actually work at the coal face and deal with this every day ( and don’t start your childish “you work at the job centre” schtick again ) As I’ve told you before I own a series of Job Portals and data mining companies that specialise in the employment market.

          You can post of much of your drivel as you like it doesn’t change the reality . We as a country are heading for big problems as we have a large and growing skills shortage problem.

          • Bazman
            Posted August 16, 2014 at 6:33 am | Permalink

            That is why you keep showing me agency jobs then.

      • Mark B
        Posted August 15, 2014 at 5:26 am | Permalink

        Oh I know all about governments, and how they like to take the credit when things go wrong, and how, when it does not, it is always someone else’s fault.

        They should all take a leaf out of this man. My inner Guru.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_James_Cowperthwaite

      • Andrew
        Posted August 15, 2014 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

        Libertarian, perhaps the UK could issue a special class of visa aimed at attracting Russian graduates and experts in STEM skills?

    • Lifelogic
      Posted August 14, 2014 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

      Nor do I trust “cast iron” promises, IHT promises, or “my priority in three letters is the N…. H….. S……” types of promises.

      Did anyone hear John Major pathetically trying to rewrite history on Radio 4 the other day:-

      “I was reinforced in that view by the impact of Black Wednesday. In one sense it was liberating.

      A shame it did not liberate him enough to think of actually apologising to the nation for taking us in as chancellor and destroying the economic credibility of the Tories for 3 plus so far terms.

      “The day after the 1992 general election, Chris Patten (the Conservative chairman) and I sat in the White Room at Number 10. Chris had lost his seat at Bath. And we agreed that in winning a fourth successive term, we had stretched the democratic elastic as far as it would go, and unless Labour collapsed, we would have little chance of winning the next election.”

      Another mate of lefty EUphile Chris now Lord Patten – just the same as Cameron I note. In fact without the ERM fiasco, (or even with it and a sincere apology for all the pointless jobs he has destroyed and homes repossessed by his idiotic ERM experiment) he could still have won. He just needed a working compass like Cameron does.

      But even post ERM he still insisted in taking the lefty, pro EU, green crap, big government, high taxes, path with all his “subsidiarity” lies. Destroying all Lady Thatcher had achieved, instead of building on it.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28737782

      Why no remotely challenging questions from the BBC interviewer?

      • Kenneth R Moore
        Posted August 14, 2014 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

        Ah Sir John thought it was that ‘democratic elastic’…not the fact that you he was an odious left wing soaking wet Liberal who was totally out of touch with his core supporters.

        Black Wednesday was’ liberating’…ah so once he had caused a full blown economic crisis and destroyed the credibility of his party he could sit back and relax as it couldn’t get any worse.
        Can’t stand the old buffoon.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted August 14, 2014 at 6:29 pm | Permalink

        Sir John Major is a wise elder statesman, not somebody who inflicted huge damage on the country and nearly terminal damage on his party.

        • Kenneth R Moore
          Posted August 14, 2014 at 9:14 pm | Permalink

          Nearly terminal damage…the damage to the party caused by Mr Cameron’s unhinged Tony Blair tribute act will be terminal.

          The Conservatives still had a decent grass roots membership army after black wednesday….even these staunch supporters people couldn’t stomach supporting Dave Cameron.

        • Lifelogic
          Posted August 14, 2014 at 9:33 pm | Permalink

          Indeed to the BBC he is it seems. Cameron will be too one assumes soon.

        • Bob
          Posted August 14, 2014 at 9:47 pm | Permalink

          Sir John Major is somebody who inflicted huge damage on the country and nearly terminal damage on his party, not a wise elder statesman.

          Sorted.

        • Posted August 15, 2014 at 12:12 am | Permalink

          I’m a lot wiser than John Major. It was Norman Lamont who took us out of the ERM, after John Major had made him wait 5 hours until after he had consulted Hurd and Heseltine and Clarke, even perhaps Patten, all fervently pro-European. During those 5 hours, the country lost a fortune on the foreign exchanges to a man called George Soros. Soros bought sterling at a price below the ERM floor and HM Government was obliged to buy it back at the (higher) floor price.

          I called our ERM exit White Wednesday – and I haven’t changed my mind.

      • Richard1
        Posted August 14, 2014 at 8:30 pm | Permalink

        I think this is unfair on Major. The ERM was certainly a mistake, but Lawson and Howe advocated it strongly, as did UK industry establishment and the City. Remember also that it was Margaret Thatcher who was PM when it was implemented. It is often said that she was pushed into it. I can’t accept that. She was a very strong woman and could and should either have vetoed it or resigned if she thought it would be a disaster. The reality is she probably didn’t realize, as many others didn’t, what a disaster it would be. Major was not that bad a PM after that. With Ken Clarke as chancellor he put the UK back on track towards a balanced budget, a policy subsequently wrecked by Brown. He also got opt outs from the 2 most damaging aspects of the Maastricht treaty, the Euro and the Social Chapter. (Veto of the treaty at the time was not a political possibility – the EC/EU at the time had much higher public support than it does today.)

        By 1995 however, our host was right to say ‘no change no chance’ (I didn’t agree at the time). Although had Major been deposed Heseltine would have become PM. The Tories would probably still have lost in 97, but jot as badly. Who knows……

        Reply Margaret Thatcher was forced into the ERM. She well knew its dangers as I – and Nicholas Ridley – had explained them carefully to her. She was faced with senior resignations had she refused to join. When I asked her why she gave in she assured me they would cut interest rates and come out if it got too much as I feared. It was exactly this that Mr Major did not do when the inevitable crisis hit.

        • Lifelogic
          Posted August 15, 2014 at 7:49 am | Permalink

          Indeed not only did the bonkers wets force her into the ERM but Major failed to get out sensibly and efficiently when the predictable mess finally hit the fan. He also failed to apologise (even now) and continued on his idiotic pro EU, lefty, ever bigger government, greencrap, high tax, totally misguided path. Now, the path is followed by Cameron with similar disastrous results at elections, for party membership and for the economy.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted August 15, 2014 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

          “Major was not that bad a PM after that”

          I can answer that claim with one word – “Maastricht”.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted August 15, 2014 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

          “(Veto of the treaty at the time was not a political possibility – the EC/EU at the time had much higher public support than it does today.)”

          Nonsense, only a small minority would have been at all bothered if he had said “no” to the treaty, and probably a majority would have warmly applauded.

        • Kenneth R Moore
          Posted August 15, 2014 at 5:46 pm | Permalink

          The case of J Major highlights the dangers of the modern disease that is the professional politician.
          In days gone by industrialists, company owners and trade union officials would have been the sort of stock that our Mp’s were taken from. Not anymore…where are the modern day giants like Powell?.

          Today politicians like Cameron abound that have never really had a proper job or any depth of experience in the real world.
          Like Major, they would never get a job outside of politics so this class will always put career before country – they have nothing else to fall back on so keeping on the gravy train becomes all consuming.

          http://www.johnmajor.co.uk/bio.html

          (Ludicrously, Sir John claims credit for reducing interest rates from %14 to $6.5 when this happened inspite of his wishes over the ERM,

          The Eu is a godsend to there mediocrities – all they have to do to guarantee a job for life is to signal their approval of the grand project. Which probably partly explains why they have sold our democratic birthright.

          Reply Sir John Major did have a job in banking before his political career. He would claim that he was thinking of the national interest in what he did. My fundamental disagreement with him about entering the Exchange Rate Mechanism and joining the Euro were disagreements of principle and of our differing views of economic impact, where he wrongly thought the ERM was in the UK’s interest. There was clearly no political advantage for him or the Conservative party in joining it, as he found out!

          • Kenneth R Moore
            Posted August 17, 2014 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

            Reply Sir John Major did have a job in banking before his political career. He would claim that he was thinking of the national interest in what he did. My fundamental disagreement with him about entering the Exchange Rate Mechanism and joining the Euro were disagreements of principle and of our differing views of economic impact, where he wrongly thought the ERM was in the UK’s interest. There was clearly no political advantage for him or the Conservative party in joining it, as he found out!

            Thanks Lord Redwood,

            As for Sir John’s banking career – it would seem to be only distinguised by losing a kneecap in a car accident while on a foreign business trip. I don’t care that his qualification was gained through a ‘correspondense course’..but i do that his judgement and experience was found to be so lacking.
            Mrs Thatcher didnt really have the right experience for high office either but atleast she knew how to seek advice and often listened to the right people.

            It was Sir Major’s chippyness,petulance and his perceived weakness in lack of formal education that led to the ERM debacle – he staked the house on the ERM gamble and lost badly in a vain bid for glory.

            Major may have had the best of intentions at the start ..but allowing 10% – 15% interest rates were all about saving his career and personal credibility – a man showing his weakness by refusing to admit that the Redwood was right.Silly silly man.

  2. Roy Grainger
    Posted August 14, 2014 at 5:39 am | Permalink

    As unemployment falls wages will rise – a period of massive wage (and general) inflation was in the 1970s when unemployment was close to zero and the union therefore had great leverage. There is an optimum level of unemployment to prevent this, it may be around 5%, of course no politician dares say this as they mouth platitudes about aiming for full employment which in realitywould be an economic disaster as it was before. On that basis the EU free-movement rules actually provide something of a safety valve which will tend to keep wage inflation low.

    • Anonymous
      Posted August 14, 2014 at 9:04 am | Permalink

      Replace ‘the unions had great leverage’ with ‘the PEOPLE had great leverage.’

      Leverage is what happens in supply and demand economies. In the UK, when average people get too rich they either outsource the work (fair enough) or import the people (NOT fair enough)

      • Anonymous
        Posted August 14, 2014 at 9:06 am | Permalink

        … especially where the importation of people is taxpayer subsidised.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted August 14, 2014 at 9:25 am | Permalink

      There’s certainly an argument that if wage inflation is getting out of hand because of labour shortages then one response from the government could be to issue more temporary work permits, with the condition that those who come to fill in for a time agree to waive any rights to claim permanent residence or apply for citizenship. That is not the same as having your immigration policy dictated by the EU and essentially placed under the control of whichever foreign individuals may wish to exercise an EU right to come here and work here and not go home when they are no longer needed, but instead stay here and have their children here and then grow old here. All that does it ratchet up the population with each economic cycle, with people being sucked in during the boom phase but then not leaving during the bust phase, and so create ever more problems for the future.

      • Bazman
        Posted August 14, 2014 at 5:22 pm | Permalink

        In other words undermine the skill base as has already been done. Nothing about wage inflation when managers are given massive pay rises in the public or state sector and nothing about ‘skill shortages when it is the middle class professions. Skill shortage? If you advertised for a 100 welders at £100 a hour you would have to many and as you by default have pointed out it is a money shortage not a skills shortage.
        Why not have work camps for cheap foreign labour by this logic

        • Edward2
          Posted August 15, 2014 at 9:03 am | Permalink

          Baz,
          A skills shortage concerns total numbers available versus the demand for their skills.
          Your example just proves that if you put up wages high enough you would get a queue of apllicants.
          But this probably means they have left some other companies who are now even shorter of skilled staff.

          Rapidly rising wages caused by the skill shortage would encourage companies to try to train up new people or to invest in more automated machinery or to get other cheaper labour areas in the world to do the job.
          Something would happen because if the price of the home grown product rose greatly people would switch to the imported alternative.
          I grant you that this is not possible in all cases but generally I think this is what happens.

          • Bazman
            Posted August 17, 2014 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

            Has not happened in the metal trades despite desperate shortages and wages are pretty much stagnate. This would of course not happen if there was a shortage of architects.
            Why do you think this is and how does the industry get round this shortage. By paying more? As if. Weld it up yourself it’s literately not my businesses, is the right answer for many. Interesting to see how the new Trident system gets built. Not by me thats for sure.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted August 15, 2014 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

          There’s nothing there about undermining the skills base.

          • Bazman
            Posted August 16, 2014 at 6:31 am | Permalink

            Cheap labour is underming the sklls base and his is what he is calling for.

          • Denis Cooper
            Posted August 16, 2014 at 9:38 am | Permalink

            But not what I am calling for.

      • Posted August 15, 2014 at 7:15 am | Permalink

        You mean “gastarbeiter”?

        It doesn’t really work. Once people arrive, they settle down, they form relationships, they have children.

        It’s just not possible, or right, to ask them to leave afterwards.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted August 15, 2014 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

          Of course it’s right as well as possible, if you make it clear from the outset that they are only being allowed in on that basis.

    • Posted August 15, 2014 at 7:07 am | Permalink

      of course no politician dares say this as they mouth platitudes about aiming for full employment

      Well you’re absolutely right. But economists do discuss this very issue. You may want to look up Phillip’s curve or NAIRU – the non-accerelerating-inflation-rate-of-unemployment.

      There can never be 0% unemployment. There will always be some people in-between jobs. The question are: how many? and, What do we do about the long term unemployed? Do we just pay them for doing nothing all their lives?

  3. Narrow Shoulders
    Posted August 14, 2014 at 5:45 am | Permalink

    Never mind the quantity feel the quality Mr Redwood. We are struggling out here.

    Unfortunately one of the main drivers of growth, mass immigration, is having a hugely adverse effect on the quality of life through lower wages and higher prices.

    Not such a success at the micro level wouldn’t you say?

    • Lifelogic
      Posted August 14, 2014 at 9:02 am | Permalink

      What matter to individuals and voters is growth in GDP per cap and higher real wages these are both still negative and that is despite the huge growth in borrowing by this government. The country has huge potential but a duff Libdem government with daft policies.

    • Narrow Shoulders
      Posted August 14, 2014 at 11:43 am | Permalink

      A large quantity of employees at the micro level will likely be swing voters, many of whom will reside in marginal constituencies, so it may be a party dividends to tend to them

  4. Lifelogic
    Posted August 14, 2014 at 6:14 am | Permalink

    It is indeed good news, though GDP per capita is still well below the peak levels. You say people moving from benefits to work will be better off, well perhaps but often only very, very slightly (after the cost of getting to and from work, child care, lunch and clothing) and often not at all.

    It could however have been far, far better had government done pro business things. Had we had cheaper energy instead of all the green crap, relaxations on the ludicrous employment laws, a far smaller and and less inefficient state sector – instead of the current bloated, overpaid and over pensioned mess, an NHS that actually worked, better schools and universities and a simpler tax system.

    Above all real competition in banking, Banks that are willing to lend to sound customers at sensible margins and fees. Rather than ripping them off to make good their past losses. These losses are not the liability of new borrowers but shareholders, and in a competitive market they could not get away with this. Also decreases in tax rates, rather than Cameron & Osborne’s 299+ increases.

    The current over regulation and restrictive capital requirements placed on banks is making many banks virtually withdraw fully from certain areas of lending with very damaging effects.

    I see the government is predicting yet further increases in its income from Inheritance Taxes due to a more aggressive approach from HMRC. Can we thus assume that Osborne is going to continue to let the current £325K allowance wither away, after conning the public on his £1m promise at the last election? In the unlikely event the Tories win an overall majority what will they do on IHT? When will they tell us and will they be honest this time?

    He seem rather silent on the issue.

    • zorro
      Posted August 14, 2014 at 11:16 am | Permalink

      Indeed, the IHT ratter is very quiet. I suspect that they are hoping to recoup lots of IHT in years to come as people are forced to sell the highly inflated assets of their nearest and dearest. It is important to remember though that if your parents were married and one died earlier, their IHT allowance (if not used) can be transferred over on the death of the widow/widower thus effectively raising the threshold to £650,000. Some respite I expect for the departed not seeing their assets sequestered by the government and used as they see fit.

      zorro

  5. Mike Stallard
    Posted August 14, 2014 at 6:34 am | Permalink

    Yup – Conservative policies are really working here and I am genuinely impressed.

    I have been on the dole on and off for about ten years at one point of my life and it is the most demeaning and depressing thing not to be able to afford a newspaper, to look through fish and chip shop windows longingly and to see your wife working 12 hours a day to support you. I even wore a hat which I found on the side of the road. Lots of time in the library…
    Well done Mr Duncan Smith I reckon.

    (PS all the hypocrisy of Zero Hours jobs is ridiculous. The State in the form of the DfE regularly uses Supply Teachers. If you are a good boy, then you get to be a temporary teacher. Zero Hours.)

    • bigneil
      Posted August 14, 2014 at 10:23 am | Permalink

      And IDS has helped me with his “fair system” – 45 year of paying in – retired early injury -awarded £3.01 a day -for one year -then told I qualified for NOTHING. Compare that with the people who walk in from other countries and get housing, hundreds a week benefits, all the free NHS they and their massive family want, schooling, and eventually a pension – -ALL FOR NO CONTRIBUTION AT ALL. – Needless to say who WON’T be getting my vote John. Your party must be fully aware of what social tension all this is causing, along with no deportation of foreign murderers etc, and the continued importation of people whose ideology conflicts totally with ours and who would like us “removed”. We now have seen the ISIS flag and reports of recruiting here in our own country.
      etc ed

    • Bazman
      Posted August 14, 2014 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

      You are as deluded as deluded Smith if you believe this.

    • stred
      Posted August 15, 2014 at 7:00 am | Permalink

      A lot of wives would have given their husband a few chips and gribble, if they saw him looking longingly through the window. She must be a very honest person.

  6. Richard1
    Posted August 14, 2014 at 6:48 am | Permalink

    It is excellent news and makes complete nonsense of the Miliband-Balls line that the economy would flatline and unemployment go up. Nor should we forget those grossly overrated and (on the BBC and in other left wing media) grossly overexposed leftist-keynesian economists like Mr blanchflower, who predicted these policies would lead to 5m unemployed. Let’s hear less of them and ignore them when we do.

    More jobs is what fairness is really about. Its opportunity that makes a socially just society, not taxes, debts, regulations and benefits dependency as Labour would like.

    You make a good point on the 0.6% pay increase being an average. The left have been arguing vociferously for LOWER PAY in the financial services sector. Surely they should rather be happy when they see the effect of this? We should challenge the left on this – do they want higher pay and more tax receipts or would they rather cut the top earners, bring down tax receipts but see a lower average pay increase?

    • Roy Grainger
      Posted August 14, 2014 at 1:35 pm | Permalink

      If Ed Balls were smart he’d point out that these good unemployment figures were actually achieved by the Government following exactly Labour’s policy of ever-increasing real-terms state spending, however he keeps claiming there has been austerity – there hasn’t.

  7. Lifelogic
    Posted August 14, 2014 at 7:04 am | Permalink

    It is not really a cause for celebration that nearly everyone in the private sector is getting poorer in real terms and has been for several years. This as the direct result of the bloated and largely incompetent state sector, all the green crap, the absurd tax system, the over regulation of almost everything, the absurd EU, and the 299+ increases in taxes, the private pension muggings (continued under Osborne) the new enforced pensions laws, the lunacy of HS2 & the pigis loans and with uncontrolled immigration undercutting wages and pushing up the deficit still further.

    The government is grasping at straws if it sees this a good. True is could have been worse, but with sensible (smaller state) government it would have been far, far better.

    Total government debt (deferred future taxation) up about 50% over term too, this is a dreadfully incompetent and hugely dishonest left wing government.

  8. Iain Moore
    Posted August 14, 2014 at 7:29 am | Permalink

    ‘As the recovery continues more should be able to experience higher pay’

    Unlikely while we continue to have mass immigration. What is most likely to happen is the continued downward pressure on wages along with the increased scarcity of resources.

    Mass immigration has put our economy into a downward spiral of low wages, low productivity, and low investment, a catch 22, where wages will remain low while productivity remains low, but productivity will remain low while investment remains low, and investment remains low while there is an unlimited supply of cheap labour.

    • Timaction
      Posted August 14, 2014 at 11:11 am | Permalink

      It isn’t all about the economy either. GDP per capita is shrinking as a result of mass migration. All the other points are true but it is also about overcrowding, longer waiting lists for health and education, congestion, building on the greenbelt. Loss of our culture and history is a big deal. I am English and proud but not recognised or supported by any of the legacy parties in the Westminster bubble.
      I want my Country, sovereignty, borders and democracy restored and we can’t do any of that with the legacy parties in charge. They can quote the cost of everything but the value of nothing!

    • Iain Gill
      Posted August 14, 2014 at 6:18 pm | Permalink

      Correct

  9. Bernard from Bucks
    Posted August 14, 2014 at 7:31 am | Permalink

    It might sound good, but they are certainly not manufacturing anything, neither are they building new homes or filling in the pot-holes in our roads. It is more likely that they are opening shops on our deserted High streets to ‘paint our finger-nails’ and other such ‘essentials’ of life. No doubt we can expect more and more non-essential services that we could all live without, unlike homes and pot-hole free travel. When are we going to start making real things again?

  10. oldtimer
    Posted August 14, 2014 at 8:07 am | Permalink

    One reason I have heard put forward for slow wage growth is that companies are having also to pay for the new employee pension schemes required by the government. However I do not know what this amouts to as a % of avaerage payroll costs.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted August 14, 2014 at 9:06 am | Permalink

      1% rising to 3% by 2018 for the employer plus lost of pointless admin hassle and costs.

    • Narrow Shoulders
      Posted August 14, 2014 at 11:49 am | Permalink

      3 to 5% (depending upon the generosity of the employer) but only so far larger employers. The roll out to small and medium has now begun.

      These forced pension costs will also reduce 3-5% (depending upon how much of the 8% the employer pays) from the spending power of each earner with no rebate on NI to account for the pensions that will not be there when we are due to draw on them.

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted August 14, 2014 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

      Last time I asked – twice in fact – nobody came up with even the tiniest reason why pension provision should have anything whatsoever to do with employers; and the government advert on the subject, which fatuously treated employers as some kind of enemy of the employed, was a disgrace

      • Lifelogic
        Posted August 14, 2014 at 9:35 pm | Permalink

        Indeed.

    • Iain Gill
      Posted August 14, 2014 at 6:19 pm | Permalink

      Its out of control immigration, that the top, bottom, and middle of it.

  11. margaret brandreth-j
    Posted August 14, 2014 at 8:08 am | Permalink

    The BBC quote similar this am but pointed out that wages are not keeping up with the growth

  12. Lifelogic
    Posted August 14, 2014 at 8:13 am | Permalink

    There see to be “Jobs Galore” in sending out BBC licence fee reminders (100,000 a day) and still locking up up about 50-60 still pointlessly jailed for failure to pay fines.

    Also there must be “Jobs Galore” for HR experts to guide through the absurd employment laws, for motorist mugging activities, government nonsense in general, consultants and daft jobs at HS2, tax accountants, HMRC staff and lawyers (thanks to the absurdly complex tax laws, high rates and the absurd multi level, over priced, slow and “totally unfit for purpose” as politicians might put it) legal system and the EC of Human Rights.

    Perhaps we should ensure that the systems, laws and regulations that pertain encourage jobs that do something productive & useful for the country. We will not be better of paying people to harass others, nor encouraging them all to sue each other with no win no fee. This just makes us all poorer in the end. My rough estimate is that about 40% of jobs are entirely pointless, parasitic or inflict real damage and harm. With sensible structures most could be got rid of. A huge boost to efficiency, competitivity and huge real job creation and better paying real jobs would ensue.

    • Anonymous
      Posted August 14, 2014 at 9:15 am | Permalink

      The punitive BBC is rather contradictory on its stance over incarcerating cannabis users “It wastes court and prison space.”

      Funny it doesn’t apply to non-payment of their licence.

    • JoeSoap
      Posted August 14, 2014 at 12:35 pm | Permalink

      It’s another small nail in the coffin of modern life whereby we can be cossetted because of our ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation and anything else irrelevant but not if our life is made unpleasant and unproductive because of pointless regulations and fines. This TV licence thing is state bullying by any other name.

  13. APL
    Posted August 14, 2014 at 8:21 am | Permalink

    This is indeed extraordinary.

    The administration you support has left the door open to mass immigration, bringing in a mass of low paid and unskilled workers, yet has managed to reduce the jobless rate …

    just in time for the election.

    That statistic is about as valid as the inflation statistic.

    • APL
      Posted August 14, 2014 at 10:57 am | Permalink

      JR: “Jobs galore”

      Since you politicians seem to be able to turn the jobs tap on and off at will.
      Beggs the question. If it’s so easy to produce unlimited jobs, why do we have any unemployment at all.

  14. lifelogic
    Posted August 14, 2014 at 8:28 am | Permalink

    Lots of pointless jobs pushing government/EU propaganda and all the subsidised green crap wind/PV quack science too.

  15. Posted August 14, 2014 at 8:44 am | Permalink

    Both you and Iain Duncan Smith have made a good point about average wage growth. Those newly employed are in low paid jobs. Those already employed have enjoyed a higher rate of wage growth. The ONS should also publish the latter statistic so that a proper like for like comparison can be made with the cost of living. However, the ONS, like many Civil Service departments, is riddled with lefties; they won’t do it until the Secretary of State forces them to do it.

  16. Will
    Posted August 14, 2014 at 8:47 am | Permalink

    Earn less borrow more seems to be the governments message to the workforce.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted August 14, 2014 at 9:08 am | Permalink

      Indeed & perhaps at 1000% APR from payday loan companies!

  17. ian wragg
    Posted August 14, 2014 at 8:58 am | Permalink

    Clearly, the policy of flooding the country with cheap labour isn’t working. Despite record numbers in employment (although a large number are spurious), tax receipts are down and per capita is way down. All we are doing is add to the great Ponsi scheme and when this cheap labour gets old we can import more.
    With health, transport and education at breaking point, when are you going to raise the drawbridge?
    I listened to the BBC saying the NHS was in crisis but no mention of 5 million more “customers” in the last 10 years. Apparently it was our fault for living longer. How long before you introduce extermination camps for ethnic Brits at 70 years of age.
    You couldn’t make it up.
    Then we have the clown Grieves saying it would be a disaster if we left the HRA. For whom may I ask???

    • Mark B
      Posted August 14, 2014 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

      The, “living longer” meme is used to prep us for a raid on those who have worked, saved and invested for old age and retirement. They are basically saying, it’s all the fault of those who were not reckless and that in order to bring balance and ‘fairness’ to society, those who use the NHS and others services (usually the old) must be expected to either pay more, or to go without.

      In short, the government are saying; “We have spent all the money, and are trying to steal it from others (the old) by hook or by crook, but have not got the guts to do it. So we create an environment were the young envy the old. And get the money that way.”

      And when you think about it, you know I ‘just might’ be right ! ;)

    • Posted August 15, 2014 at 12:18 am | Permalink

      If you raise the threshold at which people pay income tax without raising the standard rate, and you let in lots of immigrants to suppress wages, and you subsidise child care so that women can take low paid jobs, then depressing income tax receipts is what you get.

  18. Anonymous
    Posted August 14, 2014 at 8:58 am | Permalink

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2723696/Unemployment-plummets-132-000-just-2-million-pay-FALLS-0-2-time-five-years.html

    There is the problem that 4 in 5 jobs go to migrants. At the lower end of the pay scale ( most of these jobs – the wages of which are being depressed by migrant competition) there are in-work benefits to be had meaning that the whole thing is heavily taxpayer subsidised. There is also the issue that public services are unfunded by those entitled to use them who are on too low a salary to pay enough (if any) tax.

    How is the national debt going ? This is the acid test.

    Assuming that no-one is going to do a Brown and claim to have ended boom and bust we must expect ups and downs in the employment market. So what happens to all these new arrivals during the next downturn ?

    Do they go home ? Do they stay and claim every unemployment benefit they can get ? Their choice I suppose – not ours.

    One Tory claims “We are making a fairer immigration system for British people and those migrants entitled to be here.”

    The problem is that so many are ‘entitled’ to be here. Controlling immigration ‘from outside the EU’ was one big fat Tory lie and we are paying a huge cost for ‘lower’ unemployment.

    Reply Most of the new jobs are going to non migrants

    • Anonymous
      Posted August 14, 2014 at 9:20 am | Permalink

      I got my information from the Daily Mail. It needs challenging publicly then.

    • Iain Gill
      Posted August 14, 2014 at 11:10 am | Permalink

      Re “Reply Most of the new jobs are going to non migrants” where do you get this nugget from? how do they know? they counting the masses operating through personal one man band limited companies and not on PAYE?

      I really think I need to take you to a few big IT sites for you to realise how few and far between the odd British worker is in many of them. As an easy example.

    • Kenneth R Moore
      Posted August 14, 2014 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

      JR The number of people on out of work benefits is down 781,000 since 2010

      JR Since May 2010 the UK economy has created 1,800,000 additional jobs

      So that is 1,800,000 – 781,000=1,019,000 Jobs going to those that aren’t benefit claimants. Some will be school leavers and previous non claimants but a large proportion will be going to migrants.

      JR Most of the new jobs are going to non migrants.

      Please explain more Prof Redwood… Is the split 49% 51% etc.

      Reply There has been a substantial increase in people not on benefits and not working before taking jobs. Over the last year from memory around two thirds of the jobs went to non migrants. Migrants took more in 2010, 2011 before the migration controls started to have some effect.

      • Brian Tomkinson
        Posted August 14, 2014 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

        Reply to reply,
        Perhaps you could explain: “migration controls started to have some effect.” There is no control over EU immigration as you well know and the figures published by the ONS show are rising.

    • Max Dunbar
      Posted August 14, 2014 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

      Reply to reply: When is a migrant not a migrant? When he’s a Briton.

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted August 14, 2014 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

      Dear John–Another of your true but not the point answers: there should be no jobs at all going to unskilled immigrants. The idea that eg the NHS would suffer is claptrap for what would obviously happen is that a new equilibrium would be established with the nurses etc being necessarily paid much more; and unemployment coming down as work became more worth doing.

  19. Iain Gill
    Posted August 14, 2014 at 9:03 am | Permalink

    This is one of the most mistaken posts I have seen you make John. It features heavily from the IDS press statements. It shows people in your position need more links to the real world. I understand you need to try to push some good news stories on the run-up to an election, but these need to be tempered with realism or you just cheese people off.
    There are numerous issues I have with this view of the world.
    For one the government has absolutely no idea at all how many people are unemployed, by my definition of the word. They only have stats, and poor ones at that, on people claiming benefits.
    One of the features of the current jobs problems is that it has hit many of the middle class hardest. People who are running down their savings rather than claim benefits, for multiple reasons, one being pride, another being the way the system treats anyone with savings. I personally know, in my immediate circle, tens of people in this position.
    Another feature is that many people are officially taking “early retirement” when in reality they cannot find a job so are forced to dip into their pension fund in order to survive. Again I know tens of people, in my immediate circle, who would prefer to be working, some as young as 55, but will not be showing in the unemployed figures.
    And then we have many people who are now notionally freelance, not through choice, but are unable to find a long term engagement or permanent job. Many surviving a whole year on a few months worth of work. Again many not signing onto the unemployed books.
    And similarly the lower paid zero hours contract people, often working far less of year than they would prefer, but not showing on the stats mainly due to the inability of the DWP systems to correctly handle them cycling into and out of benefits entitlement.
    So I feel the reality is massively different to the picture you are painting.
    The other part of the story that is being airbrushed for public consumption is immigration. The harsh reality is the immigration we are allowing at the moment is displacing Brits from the jobs market in a massive scale. This cannot help but make it very painful for the British people.
    etc ed
    So I think it’s a mistake to present the picture as you do.

    Reply I do not produce good news because there is an election coming up. I report and comment on good news when it arrives, just as I often report bad news and am critical of policies and attitudes which produce it.
    I do think it is very good news that we have an economy capable of producing so many jobs, and even better news that our rates of long term and youth unemployment are coming down and are well below the rates in Euroland. We are getting some things right.
    You state the government does not know how many people are out of work. I disagree. As my comment revealed, the government both looks at the numbers claiming out of work benefits, and the additional numbers not in work of working age who do not claim benefits. Of course you are right that some people retired early might like to get a job. Well, there are now more jobs to get which improves their chances. Of course some people who thought they could live on their savings income have found if they kept their savings in deposits or short dated safer bonds that they do not have as much interest income to live on as they would like. Others who took more risk with their savings since 2009 by investing in longer dated bonds or shares or property have in contrast made very good money and will be better off than many forecast five years ago. (I am not offering them investment advice for the future by this comment)
    I understand your concerns about migration and have taken them up in the past. Some action has been taken, though not enough for your liking. Sometimes in life it is best to enjoy the good things and take advantage of what opportunities there are, rather than getting hooked on a very negative view because there are some things you do not like.

    • Iain Gill
      Posted August 16, 2014 at 8:21 am | Permalink

      Easy to say when your job has not been taken by a recent migrant, and your chosen line of work is not swamped with foreign nationals.
      Much harder when it has, and it is.
      It’s not negative its realistic.

  20. Denis Cooper
    Posted August 14, 2014 at 9:04 am | Permalink

    Good news indeed for workers, with all the usual qualifications … not such good news for savers, now that the official unemployment rate has dropped below 7% but Carney has identified the low growth of wages as a new reason for keeping interest rates at rock bottom, below the rate of inflation. Because Labour created such an awful mess it is taking a long time, and because before the 2010 general election the Tories failed to explain to the public just how bad that mess was it seems unlikely that they will get much credit for the current improvement in the economy, with just nine months to go before the next election; but beyond the party politics there must be a concern that we will have barely recovered from the last recession before the next one hits, in the nature of things, and how then will it be possible to unwind £375 billion of QE by selling the gilts back into the market, let alone reduce the total government debt?

    • Posted August 14, 2014 at 10:50 am | Permalink

      Denis,

      You need to ask yourself why the employment situation in the UK, though not great, is much better than in most countries of the Eurozone and substantially better than the EZ average. I would suggest that it is something to do with the UK’s 6% (of GDP) annual deficit. The rules for the EZ stipulate a maximum of half that. Incidentally, it worth mentioning that the annual deficit in 1992, shortly after the resignation of Mrs Thatcher, who wasn’t known for her spendthrift policies was actually about 8%. So, 6% isn’t at all unusual and can’t be ‘blamed’ on the last Labour government.

      This is money which is issued into the economy both to replace money spent abroad and money locked away in savings. Although there are signs that the savings of the private sector are becoming outweighed by borrowings which means a new recession is very likely not too far off. That will certainly happen if the next government grants your wish for higher interest rates and starts to fret about ‘burdening the next generation with excessive debt’ and all that nonsense!

      Reply The growth has mainly come from the private sector and is to do with banks, credit and money creation, not with the deficit.

      • Posted August 14, 2014 at 8:57 pm | Permalink

        Dr Redwood,

        What you say is very true, yet it is also true that the government budget deficit for the year ending March 2014 was £108 billion pounds or 6.6% of GDP. That has had a not inconsiderable stimulatory effect on the UK economy. If the deficit had been constrained to be less than half that, had the UK been forced to meet the same 3% target imposed by the EU on the economies of the EZ then the state of the UK economy would have been as equally dire as that of Greece or Spain.

        The “money creation” you refer to is the money created by the private banks when they lend. They simply edit accounts to reflect the value of any newly issued loan. However, it is only money as far as the issuing bank is concerned. They are the IOUs of the issuing bank. Banks swap each others IOUs by contra when they are spent via the clearing system with any imbalance being settled from their reserves of real government BoE issued money.

        Bank created money cannot be used to pay taxes. So, as bank created money is spent and respent in the economy it dwindles away on each transaction as a variety of Government taxes have to be paid. The issuing bank has to give up reserves to the taxman to settle these payments at the same time as cancelling its own issued IOU.

        Consequently, when banks are lending freely, the newly issued money initially has a stimulatory effect on the economy and Government finances tend to look good. But when that lending slows down, as it always must, the issued money disappears from the economy leaving only the debts. That’s when economic stimulation turns to economic drag. Boom turns to bust. The bubble bursts!

        But, that will something to worry about after the election. If Labour win, it can all be blamed on them!

        Reply The continuing high public deficit was in part the result of the delayed recovery of the private sector depressing tax receipts. High overall public spending was part of the problem forcing high levels of taxation which impeded private sector led growth.Sensible levels of new borrowing by the private sector are necessary to growth and are not dangerous.

        • Leslie Singleton
          Posted August 15, 2014 at 4:11 pm | Permalink

          Comment on Reply–The private sector is not very private if it is to be lent on to lend more than it freely wants to especially in these parlous times; and how much is “sensible” is anyone’s guess; if debt gets too large we hear at every turn (these days) that we cannot have a (wonderful) “low” inflation rate because at low inflation debt is not automatically eroded. The answer is to reduce debt not keep inflation high. Zero inflation should be the goal at all times in all analysis: everything else is juggling with the value of money, which should of course be sound above all else.

          • Posted August 15, 2014 at 7:47 pm | Permalink

            Dr Redwood is right when he says that “Sensible levels of new borrowing by the private sector are necessary to growth”.

            But sensible for whom? Presumably the banks must have thought it was sensible to persuade as many people as possible to take out loans prior to 2008. I can remember that it was quite hard to get in and out of the bank a couple of years before that without being accosted by a bank employee asking if I’d be interested in a loan for a new bathroom or house extension or whatever.

            Then around 2008 they must have thought it was sensible to go to the other extreme and refuse loans to just about everyone who asked. The credit crunch was very real.

            So, bank lending has to be sensible for everyone. Not just the banks. It is the stop-start nature of it that causes havoc in the wider economy.

            Reply The boom/bust extremes of lending in 2007-9 were a disaster as I warned at the time. The main commercial banks implemented the destructive policies of the Central Banks, who encouraged or allowed excess lending in the run up, and then forced too little lending in the collapse.

    • Simon Stephenson
      Posted August 14, 2014 at 11:18 am | Permalink

      I don’t think the QE bonds will be bought back. They’ll be retired, and then if and when the £375 billion additional money becomes a problem, they’ll seek to take it out of circulation without creating an interest liability. Special deposits at the BoE, or something like that.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted August 14, 2014 at 6:23 pm | Permalink

        Well, as previously discussed ad nauseam, right at the start Darling gave the Bank a Treasury indemnity against any losses arising from the asset purchases. So if Osborne (or successor) told Carney (or successor) that he was proposing to simply cancel all the gilts now owned by the Bank, the reaction of the latter would probably be along the lines of:

        “OK, I’ll work out our losses and send you the bill. I expect it’ll be a bit less than the £375 billion we spent buying gilts, but I’ll let you have the exact figure.”

        It should be, at least, if the word of the Treasury is to mean anything.

    • Mark B
      Posted August 14, 2014 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

      The recession cycle usually hits every 7 years or so. It started in 2008, so best guess, the next one should be around about 2015, or thereafter.

      What timing ?!?!?!

      :)

  21. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted August 14, 2014 at 9:14 am | Permalink

    How much lower might the unemployment figure have been if you had controlled immigration?
    Today’s Telegraph: “Office for National Statistics says migrants from Bulgaria and Romania topped 150,000 in the second quarter of this year, up by 13,000, as overall EU migration jumps by 187,000 in just three months ….
    There was also a massive leap in immigration from other eastern European countries known as the ‘A8’, such as Poland, which joined the European Union 10 years ago. Workers from Poland, Lithuania and the rest of the A8 jumped to 861,000 at the end of June, up 58,000 in three months and up 178,000 year-on-year. Sir Andrew Green, chairman of MigrationWatch UK, which campaigns for tougher immigration laws, said: “This is the sharpest increase in A8 migration since the boom year of 2007.””

  22. Posted August 14, 2014 at 9:24 am | Permalink

    Low wage growth is symptomatic with labour supply and the competition for jobs . Immigration has had a significant influence on the rates paid and this will continue until the brakes are applied . One responder has already commented on the type of growth that has happened indicating the flippant nature of the type of new business created . I support this view and would like to see a return to the apprentice type system encouraging the younger job seeker into disciplines and trades aided and abetted by established businesses . Building on the core of experience will benefit our economy more in a sustainable manner . I cannot see the wisdom of encouraging youth into further education establishments to study meaningless courses at the expense of the tax payer . The Government has an important role in this and must incentivise organisations to take part .

  23. Simon Stephenson
    Posted August 14, 2014 at 9:25 am | Permalink

    “The best news is there are now 400,000 fewer workless families than at the time of the last election.”

    And the worst news is that there is a chance that Labour will be elected in 2015, and that the more likely this is perceived to be, the more private businesses, in general, will put their expansion and development on hold, in apprehension about what Big-Statists like Miliband and Balls will do when in office. Low unemployment and sustainable prosperity can never happen under the unreconstucted Labour Party, because the people who are needed to make it happen can never trust that Labour will resist their Statist urges to take over the direction.

  24. Martin
    Posted August 14, 2014 at 11:15 am | Permalink

    The figures being used also ignore people who have left the UK to work (UK citizens, EU citizens and others).

  25. JoeSoap
    Posted August 14, 2014 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

    What is happening is this:

    Workers over 45-50, used to being highly productive, managing SMEs, scavenging for work are slowly retiring or doing less. The burden of tax, age, and general lower motivation which comes with increased regulation and tax is a big disincentive. Those left working in the public services and elsewhere at 60 plus are working un-productively and often against their will.

    Filling the gap are numerous immigrants (who work well but often with lower skills), indigenous lower skilled and more slothful folk, who are necessarily less productive. So more of them are needed.

    This is leading to the 2 things we are seeing, high employment and low productivity.

  26. JM
    Posted August 14, 2014 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

    Do I mis-recall, or did I read a few years ago anxious hand-wringing reports that we were pricing ourselves out of the world markets and paying ourselves too much? If this is so, is it not a good thing for the long term, however uncomfortable it might be in the short term, that real wages are falling. We will slowly price ourselves back into the world markets and thereby both increase productivity and the attractiveness of our country as a place to do business.

    The hard fact is that today most people enjoy wealth and comfort that their grand parents could only dream of and, indeed, for those of us who are 50 something, was only enjoyed by the super rich whilst we were growing up. We have become accustomed to a lifestyle we have not earned. It’s been an extraordinarily good party while it lasted, but it is now time to clear up and put the house in order.

    • Anonymous
      Posted August 14, 2014 at 6:05 pm | Permalink

      “The hard fact is that today most people enjoy wealth and comfort that their grand parents could only dream of … the party must end…” etc

      Are the Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders thinking like this ? Of course they aren’t.

      So what balls ups can be blamed for us having to ?

      Would you direct the same advice to our ANZAC cousins ? If not then why not ?

      These people left British shores to escape something. Could that something possibly have been the “It’s far too good for the children” self flagellating mentality the UK and its elites have towards its own people ?

      “They’re demanding too much – outsource their work !”

      “We can’t outsource their work – import more people.”

      “Dumb down their education.”

      “Win elections by offsetting the decline in living standards with debt and inflation.”

      If we are to return to the austerity of our grandparents then it’s because it’s been deliberately inflicted upon us.

  27. Kenneth R Moore
    Posted August 14, 2014 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

    More jobs is all very well if it makes us better of – but as Lifelogic has said GDP per capita is what matters . My view is we need to see the big picture.
    Prof. Redwood loosely describes the new jobs as going to people already ‘settled here’. But that could mean someone that has been in the country only a couple of years ?.

    For me there is also a question mark over the quality of these ‘new’ jobs – car washing etc. How many are the result of the threshold of labour costs coming down to levels that only workers living in squalid conditions would accept.
    How many new jobs are migrants claiming to be ‘self employed’ as it’s a popular route to entry.

    Why isn’t income tax booming if the economy is doing so well ?. Why are welfare payments still climbing if employment is going up ??.

    Looking at the period 2010 – 2014

    BENEFITS

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2602613/The-welfare-state-How-average-workers-MONTHS-wages-taken-tax-fund-Britains-benefits-bill.html

    Benefits payments have gone up from £165 millions to £168 millions

    INCOME TAX

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/336662/Income_tax_receipts_statistics_July_2014_bulletin.pdf

    Income tax receipts have increased from £176 millions to 178 millions

    POPULATION
    http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/population

    The population of the Uk has increased by 2 million (3%) in the period between 2010 and 2014.

    So it looks like improved employment figure have contributed to national income ( 2 billion) but this has been largely offset by increases in benefits payments (3 billion).

    Population has increased by 2 million (3%) without any demonstrable economic benefit.
    Then there is the ‘time bomb’ effect of increased competition for school places and nhs services etc. Wages are also being depressed. The South East gets more crowded.

    I don’t share Mr Redwood’s enthusiasm for these results – it’s a bad deal but I’m pleased that some long term unemployed people have benefitted.

    Reply As I have often explained, the 50% tax rate lost us a lot of top end incomes and revenue. Meanwhile Coalition policy of large increases in the tax free threshold at the other end of the income scale has also lost a lot of revenue for good reasons.

    • Anonymous
      Posted August 14, 2014 at 6:11 pm | Permalink

      reply to reply – 50% tax rate jobs might bring up the average wage but what use is that except to make the figures look good ? (So few people are/were in the 50% tax rate)

      The crippling point for tax is the 40% rate which has one hell of a catchment of people who are forced to drive old bangers and who can’t always go on holiday.

      Imagine the boost to the economy if they were freed. Except they can’t be. There is a socialist state to fund.

    • Kenneth R Moore
      Posted August 14, 2014 at 8:54 pm | Permalink

      Reply As I have often explained, the 50% tax rate lost us a lot of top end incomes and revenue. Meanwhile Coalition policy of large increases in the tax free threshold at the other end of the income scale has also lost a lot of revenue for good reasons.

      Thanks for your reply Prof. Redwood.

      I note your point about tax thresholds but the change to the higher rate of income tax post dates the period i looked at (2010-2014) . 2010 saw a sharp decline in tax revenue as the 50p rate took affect.
      Despite record numbers of employed people , income tax revenue remained flat except when the 45p rate came in.

      So very weak or no correlation between income tax revenue and workers in jobs and migration.

      I am still puzzled by the fact that less people are claiming out of work benefits but total welfare spending continues to rise ?. If these new jobs are being generously funded by in work benefit top ups then the picture isn’t so rosy.

      • Kenneth R Moore
        Posted August 15, 2014 at 9:43 pm | Permalink

        Payments of working tax credits are booming under that coalition highlighting the fact that many of thes 1,800,000 new jobs are lowly paid. The increase is disproportionate to the number of extra people in work.

        Why doesn’t the government just pay people to dig holes and fill them in again if the economy is so feeble it has to subsidise work on a grand scale ?

        • Posted August 16, 2014 at 8:39 am | Permalink

          Why doesn’t the government just pay people to dig holes and fill them in again if the economy is so feeble it has to subsidise work on a grand scale ?

          It could, and it is possible that it may have some economic benefit. I’m not sure if Keynes was the first to discuss the point, but his view was that once a currency was off the gold standard, a government could simulate the process of mining gold, and thereby increasing the money supply, by burying pots of money so that ‘miners’ could dig up the new money and fill in the holes afterwards.

          Of course, there’s no real need to have any new money in the ground to start with, governments could just pay miners to dig holes and fill them in again.

          Taking the argument one step further, it’s better to supply the economy with new money by paying companies and individuals to do something slightly more useful than dig unnecessary holes in the ground.

          • Kenneth R Moore
            Posted August 17, 2014 at 11:37 am | Permalink

            Peter,

            That wasn’t meant to be a serious suggestion!.
            I have to say though that your view is widely shared by those in power – Conservative and Labour alike.
            ie it’s better to pay people to do jobs that are by and large useless as it ‘stimulates’ the economy.
            This wrong headed belief has got us into one hell of a mess – over 50% of workers in Scotland are employed by the state. The trouble is once you start creating ‘non jobs’ it’s very hard to stop.
            Paying people to dig holes and fill them in..or outreach workers, team building managers etc. all fit the same mould.
            I can see the sense in for example subsiding the mining of coal or steel industry as it a)would have kept communities together and provided dignity to working people , b)kept a useful energy reserve accesible, c)maintained a skills base but it was all wiped out.

  28. acorn
    Posted August 14, 2014 at 1:10 pm | Permalink

    Governor Carney seems to be getting his knickers in a twist. One of his MPC mates on the Today prog’, was having great difficulty trying not to tell us that Firms have increased their profit margins by keeping wages suppressed with the “austerity” myth. This is known in the trade as “internal devaluation”.

    Also, the MPC guy was saying that interest rates will go up, but not back to pre-crisis levels while mortgage rates, will go back to pre-crisis levels. That is, instead of Banks making the historic 2% mark-up, it will be more like 3 – 3.5% mark-up.

    Meanwhile, what all these new jobs are producing is a mystery to me. Keep an eye out for the ONS metric “GVA per hour worked” (GDP with the tax bit taken out).

  29. Eddie Hill
    Posted August 14, 2014 at 4:31 pm | Permalink

    Yes, as people are commenting above, job creation should be reflected in rising wages, but over-supply of labour is negating this effect.

    As we all suspected all along, mass immigration is making us all poorer, regardless of the spin one puts on it. Also, Labour can hardly claim the moral high ground over low wage rises, because Labour kicked off mass immigration.

    We also read that mass immigration helps the NHS, but don’t I read every week about some new crisis that threatens the NHS? And our schools, both in a shortage of school places and (allegations about ed) the presence of Islamic fundamentalism in the Midlands?

    Mass immigration needs to be stopped, completely, and right now!

    • Mondeo Man
      Posted August 14, 2014 at 6:17 pm | Permalink

      Eddie – The Tories have played their part in mass immigration fully. The proof is that they continue to do so. The proof is that, still, they refuse to discuss it with the urgency their voters demand.

      The Tories are not your friends.

    • Brian Tomkinson
      Posted August 14, 2014 at 7:05 pm | Permalink

      Eddie,
      “Mass immigration needs to be stopped, completely, and right now!”
      Not possible whilst we remain imprisoned in the EU – subservience the three main parties in Westminster are determined to sustain.

  30. Bazman
    Posted August 14, 2014 at 5:46 pm | Permalink

    Jobs galore? what sort of jobs John and what will be the wages and conditions in these glorious jobs including benefits that is in these ‘employment opportunities? Which are really just low paid jobs. Not enough to make up for the VAT increases, the tax credit cuts and on top of one of the largest cost of living crisis ever, not helped by privatised utility and transport companies well above inflation rises. tax cuts for the rich with living standards for the average person down by £1600 a year. Interesting to see how these jobs job are paying an increased base rate that will be passed on by the banks many times over to home owners and landlords due to increased ‘employment’ too. Paymageddon.

  31. lojolondon
    Posted August 14, 2014 at 10:14 pm | Permalink

    Labour flooded the country with low paid workers. They set up the immigration system that brings in quarter of a million people plus families on the minimum wage. Now they are complaining that the average wage has not risen. Hypocrisy of the highest level, only facilitated by the dishonest BBC, who never ask any of the obvious questions.

    • Bazman
      Posted August 15, 2014 at 6:38 am | Permalink

      Excellent for business and Britain providing Labour for business that the bone idle British felt was below them lojo as you well know.

  32. Robert Taggart
    Posted August 15, 2014 at 11:04 am | Permalink

    Brilliant news, so – can the DWP / Government not lay off us ‘serial scroungers’ now ? !

  33. Kenneth R Moore
    Posted August 15, 2014 at 11:35 pm | Permalink

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100283242/im-in-favour-of-controlled-legal-immigration-something-we-cant-have-while-were-in-the-eu/

    Dan Hannan provides more clarity..

    “it’s ludicrous that foreigners are claiming in-work benefits which allow them to take jobs that would otherwise be uneconomic – that we are, in other words, subsidising immigrants through our taxes”.

    What is the point of a ‘ jobs boom’ that creates labour that provides so much employment that would be unviable without subsidy. The coalition’s boasts on job creation are hollow.

    So much for removing the ‘pull factors’ on immigration. We cannot control our borders but Gordon Brown’s tax credit system could be dismantled.

  • About John Redwood

    John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College, and has a DPhil from All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has been a director of NM Rothschild merchant bank and chairman of a quoted industrial PLC.
    Published and promoted by Thomas Puddy for John Redwood, both of 30 Rose Street Wokingham RG40 1XU
  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page