RT @BBCHughPym: Claimant count down 7,000 in March... employment down 2,000 in three months to Feb
yet
RT @BBCHughPym: Unemployment up 70,000 in three months ending in Feb.
Herewith the official explanation from the ONS Labour Stats bulletin:
A key factor in the increase in unemployment is that the number of people actively engaging with the labour market is increasing. Between September to November 2012 and December 2012 to February 2013, the number of people aged from 16 to 64 who were not in the labour force (known as economically inactive) fell by 57,000 to reach 8.95 million. A large part of this decrease was for women who were economically inactive because they were looking after the family or home. The number of women in this category fell by 45,000 between September to November 2012 and December 2012 to February 2013 to reach 2.06 million, the lowest figure since comparable records began in 1993.
There has been a small fall of 7,000 in the number of people claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) between February and March 2013. The number of people claiming JSA (1.53 million) is around a million lower than the number of unemployed people; many unemployed people are not eligible for or do not claim JSA.
As you can see the official explanation is once again at odds with the malicious spin of the tim and Ben the flower pot men.
It has the look of a Tory Party Conference c1984 with some faces I hoped I would never see again. This isn't an attractive event for those of us who didn't like Thatcher or any of her works.
Referencing the 1984 Tory conference is particularly tasteless, Roger.
RT @BBCHughPym: Claimant count down 7,000 in March... employment down 2,000 in three months to Feb
yet
RT @BBCHughPym: Unemployment up 70,000 in three months ending in Feb.
Herewith the official explanation from the ONS Labour Stats bulletin:
A key factor in the increase in unemployment is that the number of people actively engaging with the labour market is increasing. Between September to November 2012 and December 2012 to February 2013, the number of people aged from 16 to 64 who were not in the labour force (known as economically inactive) fell by 57,000 to reach 8.95 million. A large part of this decrease was for women who were economically inactive because they were looking after the family or home. The number of women in this category fell by 45,000 between September to November 2012 and December 2012 to February 2013 to reach 2.06 million, the lowest figure since comparable records began in 1993.
There has been a small fall of 7,000 in the number of people claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) between February and March 2013. The number of people claiming JSA (1.53 million) is around a million lower than the number of unemployed people; many unemployed people are not eligible for or do not claim JSA.
As you can see the official explanation is once again at odds with the malicious spin of the tim and Ben the flower pot men.
Ah - IIRC we saw the same in the USA a little while ago - more non-botherers now thought it was worth trying for the first time in yonks. A positive negative figure.
RT @BBCHughPym: Claimant count down 7,000 in March... employment down 2,000 in three months to Feb
yet
RT @BBCHughPym: Unemployment up 70,000 in three months ending in Feb.
Confused?! Given how prolifically you comment on politics, I'm surprised at your lack of grasp of some absolute basics.
Here you go.
Unemployment measures all people who meet the internationally agreed definition of unemployment. It is different from the claimant count, which measures only those people who are claiming unemployment-related benefits (Jobseeker's Allowance). The number of unemployed people in the UK is substantially higher than the claimant count. Not everyone who is unemployed is eligible for, or claims, Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA). Many unemployed people (especially women) are not eligible for JSA because they have a partner who is in work and/or because of their financial position. While most recipients of JSA would be classified as unemployed, some would fall into the "employed" or "economically inactive" categories.
As to the confusion over indicators, I would note that in some quarters JSA as an indicator has been reassessed since 2008. I think I've got it the right way round to say that it was seen as a leading indicator and now they're not so sure.
"If you want to see where the depression is being felt then you need to leave the city centres and go to the industrial estates."
I'm judging it by the time you have to wait for a table at the Ivy.
That's very interesting Roger.
I was under the impression that the London rich were still doing very well but perhaps that's not so.
Maybe they do need that top rate tax cut after all.
By comparison all the McDonalds and Weatherspoons I've been to recently have been doing a roaring trade.
;-)
ar
I trust you noted that the household savings ratio fell for the first time in many months in Q4 2012. Signs of increased consumer confidence in the economy and signposting the Q1 uplift in retail spend.
Not a consumer boom but evidence of life in the economic patient.
Is an increase in retail spending a good thing? If the money is spent on imported goods and so largely going abroad does that make the Country wealthier or poorer? It might improve growf, but GDP is not the be all and end all.
In moderation it is a good thing. At least it is better than a sharp contraction.
Underlying the stats is a big churn. Spending on imported tat (household goods, clothing and fashion etc) is falling whereas spending on services (hotels and restaurants, other goods and services) is increasing. Both increases and decreases are quite substantial.
So the overall impact is probably better than it looks although I don't have any worked figures to prove this.
"If you want to see where the depression is being felt then you need to leave the city centres and go to the industrial estates."
I'm judging it by the time you have to wait for a table at the Ivy.
That's very interesting Roger.
I was under the impression that the London rich were still doing very well but perhaps that's not so.
Maybe they do need that top rate tax cut after all.
By comparison all the McDonalds and Weatherspoons I've been to recently have been doing a roaring trade.
;-)
ar
I trust you noted that the household savings ratio fell for the first time in many months in Q4 2012. Signs of increased consumer confidence in the economy and signposting the Q1 uplift in retail spend.
Not a consumer boom but evidence of life in the economic patient.
Is an increase in retail spending a good thing? If the money is spent on imported goods and so largely going abroad does that make the Country wealthier or poorer? It might improve growf, but GDP is not the be all and end all.
Indeed - I remain sceptical. Glad to hear that Mr Kitty has been located and returned to Quarters.
Indeed the most obvious lesson which jumps out of the international comparison tables is that economies which run sound public finances have better growth and lower unemployment that those who are profligate.
I wouldn't take him too seriously on UK politics given that he predicted the Lib Dems would get 103 seats last time around! At least partly because his methods rely on polling data with quite high granularity - which we just don't really have over here.
"If you want to see where the depression is being felt then you need to leave the city centres and go to the industrial estates."
I'm judging it by the time you have to wait for a table at the Ivy.
That's very interesting Roger.
I was under the impression that the London rich were still doing very well but perhaps that's not so.
Maybe they do need that top rate tax cut after all.
By comparison all the McDonalds and Weatherspoons I've been to recently have been doing a roaring trade.
;-)
ar
I trust you noted that the household savings ratio fell for the first time in many months in Q4 2012. Signs of increased consumer confidence in the economy and signposting the Q1 uplift in retail spend.
Not a consumer boom but evidence of life in the economic patient.
Is an increase in retail spending a good thing?
Yep. Even if a shop is selling foreign goods, an increase in sales will increase their turnover (and profit), giving the business more cash to spend on hiring and expansion, its workers and owners more cash to spend themselves, and so on.
Whether a retail boom (particularly one built on credit) is a good thing is a different question!
Indeed the most obvious lesson which jumps out of the international comparison tables is that economies which run sound public finances have better growth and lower unemployment that those who are profligate.
Stone me! Sound finances = better growth + lower unemployment! Whoever would have guessed. Someone will do some work soon that indicates that countries who run positive trade balances retain and increase their wealth whereas countries that run negative balances become progressively poorer.
I wouldn't take him too seriously on UK politics given that he predicted the Lib Dems would get 103 seats last time around! At least partly because his methods rely on polling data with quite high granularity - which we just don't really have over here.
"Why the F are you watching it then, you ridiculous old fart."
I thought you'd parked yourself in front of St Paul's and were planning to throw yourself in front the hearse? Did they move you on because they couldn't bear your sniffling?
Indeed the most obvious lesson which jumps out of the international comparison tables is that economies which run sound public finances have better growth and lower unemployment that those who are profligate.
A more accurate interpretation would be that economic growth leads to healthier public finances.
There is absolutely no doubt that austerity in itself depresses economic activity. Even the Tories were forced to accept this by the OBR recently.
Indeed the most obvious lesson which jumps out of the international comparison tables is that economies which run sound public finances have better growth and lower unemployment that those who are profligate.
Stone me! Sound finances = better growth + lower unemployment! Whoever would have guessed. Someone will do some work soon that indicates that countries who run positive trade balances retain and increase their wealth whereas countries that run negative balances become progressively poorer.
Indeed the most obvious lesson which jumps out of the international comparison tables is that economies which run sound public finances have better growth and lower unemployment that those who are profligate.
Stone me! Sound finances = better growth + lower unemployment! Whoever would have guessed. Someone will do some work soon that indicates that countries who run positive trade balances retain and increase their wealth whereas countries that run negative balances become progressively poorer.
Meanwhile stimulus spending in Japan has just piled up debt and covered the country with infrastructure white elephants.
A non cyclical deficit is not something that can be sustained for long without impoverishing the nation. The sooner it is fixed the sooner we will grow. Austerity will lead to growth in the long term even though the short term is less rosy. As the lady one said: There is no alternative.
Indeed the most obvious lesson which jumps out of the international comparison tables is that economies which run sound public finances have better growth and lower unemployment that those who are profligate.
A more accurate interpretation would be that economic growth leads to healthier public finances.
There is absolutely no doubt that austerity in itself depresses economic activity. Even the Tories were forced to accept this by the OBR recently.
Carl
Whilst you may be right, I would leave out the OBR as reinforcement to your claim.
The OBR were fully aware of all the government's fiscal consolidation measures when it made its original projections. To turn round when the outcomes didn't match and assign the fiscal consolidation measures as the reason is somewhat disingenuous and utterly unconvincing.
It would be so much better if they held 'New Orleans' jazz style funerals. They could charge for tickets, cover the cost of the funeral/security and make some money for the deceased chosen charities.
Spent 30 mins looking at Spitting image from the 80's on You tube. I recommend it as a cathartic enema after all this triumphalist hogwash about MT's legacy.
Outside broadcasts in Scotland, Wales and North of England seem rather sparse....the relevance of the hybrid version of Jerusalem from Spitting Image seems particularly on the money today.
FW de Clerk there, he appreciated having her personal support and at the UN against the 80% of people who made up the terrorist oposition in the 80's...
Spent 30 mins looking at Spitting image from the 80's on You tube. I recommend it as a cathartic enema after all this triumphalist hogwash about MT's legacy.
Outside broadcasts in Scotland, Wales and North of England seem rather sparse....the relevance of the hybrid version of Jerusalem from Spitting Image seems particularly on the money today.
FW de Clerk there, he appreciated having her personal support and at the UN against the 80% of people who made up the terrorist oposition in the 80's...
We do this pomp and ceremony stuff really well, don't we?
And the eight men carrying the coffin must have very strong arms - it won't be light. The way they lowered the coffin to get through the door, then lifted it once more smoothly and slowly onto their shoulders, required not a little strength.
Spent 30 mins looking at Spitting image from the 80's on You tube. I recommend it as a cathartic enema after all this triumphalist hogwash about MT's legacy.
Outside broadcasts in Scotland, Wales and North of England seem rather sparse....the relevance of the hybrid version of Jerusalem from Spitting Image seems particularly on the money today.
FW de Clerk there, he appreciated having her personal support and at the UN against the 80% of people who made up the terrorist oposition in the 80's...
Spent 30 mins looking at Spitting image from the 80's on You tube. I recommend it as a cathartic enema after all this triumphalist hogwash about MT's legacy.
Outside broadcasts in Scotland, Wales and North of England seem rather sparse....the relevance of the hybrid version of Jerusalem from Spitting Image seems particularly on the money today.
FW de Clerk there, he appreciated having her personal support and at the UN against the 80% of people who made up the terrorist oposition in the 80's...
lefties all love to run around and shout about SA, but remain remarkably quiet about Zimbabwe and their role in putting Mugabe in power. About the only leftie with integrity on the matter is Peter Tatchell.
They didn't appear to ask about the "give all taxpayers shares" option of returning it to the market ?!!
I suspect this may be a harder sell than people think, it's bribing us with our own money.
Its the sage Cable's choice - and Alistair Heath had an article in the Tele supporting it - it would give us all a stake in the economy.
Haven't read what AH wrote but to be honest if the public is given shares they'll be stagged and RBS will quickly become what it was a big corporate ripping the rest of us off. I'd rather see it broken up into a number of mutuals doing bread and butter lending. At least we won't have to bail it out again and it may actually end up doing something economically useful for the rest of the country.
"My former boss Margaret Thatcher hated the South African apartheid system and became a good friend of Nelson Mandela"
That is just rubbish. Even Goebbels would be embarrassed to have written that nonsense article. The only reason so much revisionist history is being written on this subject now is because her acolytes know when the dust has settled on her funeral some serious appraisals will take place
A few of the junior lawyers were interested in joining the crowds. I was a bit surprised at this, since they are far too young to remember Mrs Thatcher in her prime. They might just have been looking to bunk off for a couple of hours, of course.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 2m So far the only voices raised in the presence of the Thatcher hearse seem to be those of the Serjeant Majors lining the route
Surely the money being spent on this funeral is pretty much labour policy? It is "infrastructure spending" (barriers etc.!) and more wages to public servants (police and that). Labour policies to a T! So what are they moaning about?
"David Cameron has distanced himself from one of Margaret Thatcher's key foreign policies, saying that she was wrong to have called the ANC "terrorists" during the apartheid era. The Conservative leader, who met Nelson Mandela in Johannesburg last week, said his party had made "mistakes" in the past by failing to introduce sanctions against apartheid in South Africa. Lady Thatcher opposed international calls to introduce sanctions against the apartheid regime in South Africa and fought a bitter battle with campaigners in Britain. Writing in today's Observer, Mr Cameron said that Mr Mandela was "one of the greatest men alive". He said: "The mistakes my party made in the past with respect to relations with the ANC and sanctions on South Africa make it all the more important to listen now.""
Message to anybody in the crowds watching such occasions: raising your arm in front of you in order to take photos can, from a distant TV camera, look rather like a Nazi salute.
As for throwing things at police horses. It's simply sick.
I'm afraid your knowledge on the subject is zero. Mandela was happy to be reconciled with everyone friend and enemy alike. That his daughter is attending the funeral alters history not a jot. I've been to South Africa maybe 20 times and the history is clear and known to everyone.
I'm afraid your knowledge on the subject is zero. Mandela was happy to be reconciled with everyone friend and enemy alike. That his daughter is attending the funeral alters history not a jot. I've been to South Africa maybe 20 times and the history is clear and known to everyone.
And yet I still know more than you.
Honestly, if your had an original thought in your head it would die of loneliness.
"My former boss Margaret Thatcher hated the South African apartheid system and became a good friend of Nelson Mandela"
That is just rubbish. Even Goebbels would be embarrassed to have written that nonsense article.
Oh grow up Roger.
Those are the facts,
The other facts, that Nelson Mandela regularly visited Lady T, or that his daughter is attending the funeral says more than you ever dare to admit.
It was entirely possible to disagree with apartheid, yet disagree with the imposition of comprehensive economic sanctions. In much the same way that it's possible to disagree with Fidel Castro's government, yet oppose US sanctions against Cuba.
Let's conclude this absurd debate. F W De Klerk said, on Channel 4 last week, that "Thatcher was a fierce opponent of apartheid, however she understood the complexities of South Africa better than most politicians".
But maybe the lefty insects on here believe they know more about the ending of apartheid than the man who ended apartheid.
Mandela was released in 1990, quite a few months before Maggie left office.
I'm afraid your knowledge on the subject is zero. Mandela was happy to be reconciled with everyone friend and enemy alike. That his daughter is attending the funeral alters history not a jot. I've been to South Africa maybe 20 times and the history is clear and known to everyone.
Really I'd be surprised at that Roger. Most of the major decolonisation and establishment of democratic rule in Southern Africa took place in 1979-90 under Mrs T. Zimbabwe, Namibia and the release of Mandela. Today we have a bit of mixed bag, Zimbabwe is an kleptocratic toilet which the Left has blanked out; Namibia is stable and sort of working and the world got lucky with Mandela who deserves credit for establishing a stable democracy though it was unknown if he'd take his country down the Namibia path or become Bob Mugabe 2 this being the choice of just about every African president post self rule.
Comments
Wide measure of jobless (unemp + part-timers wanting f-t work & inactive wanting work) rose 30k in 3m to Feb, to 6.24m
A key factor in the increase in unemployment is that the number of people actively engaging with the labour market is increasing. Between September to November 2012 and December 2012 to February 2013, the number of people aged from 16 to 64 who were not in the labour force (known as economically inactive) fell by 57,000 to reach 8.95 million. A large part of this decrease was for women who were economically inactive because they were looking after the family or home. The number of women in this category fell by 45,000 between September to November 2012 and December 2012 to February 2013 to reach 2.06 million, the lowest figure since comparable records began in 1993.
There has been a small fall of 7,000 in the number of people claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) between February and March 2013. The number of people claiming JSA (1.53 million) is around a million lower than the number of unemployed people; many unemployed people are not eligible for or do not claim JSA.
As you can see the official explanation is once again at odds with the malicious spin of the tim and Ben the flower pot men.
It helps.
Unemployment adjusted for people coming out of economic inactivity rose 13,000.
Clearly the figures aren't great but they represent a standstill.
https://twitter.com/MaxFosterCNN/status/324443539205406720/photo/1
"Someone has flagged a post of mine as "off topic"."
That's funny but clearly done as a joke. Everyone knows 'Financier' doesn't have a sense of humour.
The funeral's hotting up. I think Nigel Lawson has put the wrong wig on. It's bright orange
Here you go.
Unemployment measures all people who meet the internationally agreed definition of unemployment. It is different from the claimant count, which measures only those people who are claiming unemployment-related benefits (Jobseeker's Allowance). The number of unemployed people in the UK is substantially higher than the claimant count. Not everyone who is unemployed is eligible for, or claims, Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA). Many unemployed people (especially women) are not eligible for JSA because they have a partner who is in work and/or because of their financial position. While most recipients of JSA would be classified as unemployed, some would fall into the "employed" or "economically inactive" categories.
Underlying the stats is a big churn. Spending on imported tat (household goods, clothing and fashion etc) is falling whereas spending on services (hotels and restaurants, other goods and services) is increasing. Both increases and decreases are quite substantial.
So the overall impact is probably better than it looks although I don't have any worked figures to prove this.
Indeed the most obvious lesson which jumps out of the international comparison tables is that economies which run sound public finances have better growth and lower unemployment that those who are profligate.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/05/final-uk-projection-conservatives-312.html
Thanks for that, Mr. Avery, I am mildly reassured.
Thanks, Miss. P.. I shall pass your good wishes to The Brute, when he wakes up.
Whether a retail boom (particularly one built on credit) is a good thing is a different question!
Just as it should be,
Dressed to kill.
Or am I being a little measly?
http://www.espn.co.uk/caterham/motorsport/story/105795.html
Seems Caterham are worried about the lack of pace and losing 10th spot (worth tens of millions of dollars) to Marussia.
@David
"Referencing the 1984 Tory conference is particularly tasteless, Roger."
The date was chosen at random as I'm sure you know
Seemed a bit push polling frankly.
"Why the F are you watching it then, you ridiculous old fart."
I thought you'd parked yourself in front of St Paul's and were planning to throw yourself in front the hearse? Did they move you on because they couldn't bear your sniffling?
Someone should ask Prescott what he knew then other than not very much.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/apr/16/royal-bank-scotland-stay-public-poll
There is absolutely no doubt that austerity in itself depresses economic activity. Even the Tories were forced to accept this by the OBR recently.
A non cyclical deficit is not something that can be sustained for long without impoverishing the nation. The sooner it is fixed the sooner we will grow. Austerity will lead to growth in the long term even though the short term is less rosy. As the lady one said: There is no alternative.
Whilst you may be right, I would leave out the OBR as reinforcement to your claim.
The OBR were fully aware of all the government's fiscal consolidation measures when it made its original projections. To turn round when the outcomes didn't match and assign the fiscal consolidation measures as the reason is somewhat disingenuous and utterly unconvincing.
Not Robert Chote's finest day, methinks.
Outside broadcasts in Scotland, Wales and North of England seem rather sparse....the relevance of the hybrid version of Jerusalem from Spitting Image seems particularly on the money today.
FW de Clerk there, he appreciated having her personal support and at the UN against the 80% of people who made up the terrorist oposition in the 80's...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/9997714/Margaret-Thatchers-vital-role-in-ending-apartheid.html
Probably to watch tv - how long does it take to empty Old Trafford. What was his point?
And the eight men carrying the coffin must have very strong arms - it won't be light. The way they lowered the coffin to get through the door, then lifted it once more smoothly and slowly onto their shoulders, required not a little strength.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22146456
I can't see this working, but if it got to the reality TV show stage that is something I can imagine watching.
"My former boss Margaret Thatcher hated the South African apartheid system and became a good friend of Nelson Mandela"
That is just rubbish. Even Goebbels would be embarrassed to have written that nonsense article. The only reason so much revisionist history is being written on this subject now is because her acolytes know when the dust has settled on her funeral some serious appraisals will take place
@adamboultonSKY: RT @TonyParsonsUK: Boos for a 87 year old's coffin- that's the dignity of the working man restored, then.
Those are the facts,
The other facts, that Nelson Mandela regularly visited Lady T, or that his daughter is attending the funeral says more than you ever dare to admit.
So far the only voices raised in the presence of the Thatcher hearse seem to be those of the Serjeant Majors lining the route
you chop and change on this as much as Cameron.
As for throwing things at police horses. It's simply sick.
"Grow up"
I'm afraid your knowledge on the subject is zero. Mandela was happy to be reconciled with everyone friend and enemy alike. That his daughter is attending the funeral alters history not a jot. I've been to South Africa maybe 20 times and the history is clear and known to everyone.
Did Dimbleby just confuse mourners throwing flowers at the #Thatcher coffin with protestors throwing missiles?
" ... escorted into the cathedral to meet the Bishop of London and the Archbishop of London."
Archbishop of London? The Telegraph truly is an awful paper these days.
Honestly, if your had an original thought in your head it would die of loneliness.
Every little post helps.
This nuance seems to be wasted on a lot of people
Somehow I am rather disappointed that it is about the horses.