Crosswords1 min ago
Labour's Record On Unemployment
I have no idea whether this is true, but I read over the weekend that every Labour government we've ever had has left the country with more unemployment when they left office than when they entered office.
Is this a fact?
Is this a fact?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Deskdiary. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It's wouldn't surprise me if it were, although context is also important. The 1929 Government might have done better were it not for the Wall Street Crash within weeks of its coming into office; the Labour government of 1945-1951 was crippled by the financial burden of World War Two; while there is little point in defending Labour governments of 1964-1970 and 1974 -79 as anything other than useless on employment, Heath's government in the middle was not exactly better either. In the most recent government unemployment had steadily fallen until (about a year before) the financial crash.
And for the first seven years of Thatcher's government, unemployment figures more than doubled from about 5.5% to 11.9%, and held very high, never dropping below 7% as long as the Conservatives were in office.
Unemployment has been falling recently, of course, after fluctuating around 8% for the first few years. Whether or not that trend will continue will probably not have much to do with who is in office for the next five years. Global influences are far stronger than who is in number 10.
And for the first seven years of Thatcher's government, unemployment figures more than doubled from about 5.5% to 11.9%, and held very high, never dropping below 7% as long as the Conservatives were in office.
Unemployment has been falling recently, of course, after fluctuating around 8% for the first few years. Whether or not that trend will continue will probably not have much to do with who is in office for the next five years. Global influences are far stronger than who is in number 10.
I do not know the *statistical facts*, Deskdiary, but I sense that this is what you are after. If you already have access to these then please save us the effort of googling them for you ;-) (and I do wonder why AB even exists, in a world well equipped with search engines *except* when it is conversations and opinions that you really seek).
Two simple 'facts' I will offer, in lieu of an answer:
1) Population is always increasing, even before you add immigration. It might be necessary to always keep in mind who was in power 10 or so years prior to any given Labour government. If it is the case that economic booms lead to baby booms then governments 15+ years later will be faced with billing the nation for the education bill, boosting infrastructure and so on.
Youth unemployment is a serious blow to business: they should be growing their music collection and equipping their first flat, not scrimping and saving to get by. Belt-tightening is bad for business. After a recession gets Labour booted out, the next boom just falls into the Tories' lap. It's all in the timing.
2) I thought it was employers who ultimately control unemployment? Governments can grow or shrink the Civil Service, the NHS, the emergency services, the Armed Forces and very little else. They have control over employment levels other than that.
If I can find it, I'll post a link to "A Brief History of Corporate Whining", which repeats the typical excuses given for companies not lifting too many fingers to alleviate unemployment (they blame government regulations, mainly).
Two simple 'facts' I will offer, in lieu of an answer:
1) Population is always increasing, even before you add immigration. It might be necessary to always keep in mind who was in power 10 or so years prior to any given Labour government. If it is the case that economic booms lead to baby booms then governments 15+ years later will be faced with billing the nation for the education bill, boosting infrastructure and so on.
Youth unemployment is a serious blow to business: they should be growing their music collection and equipping their first flat, not scrimping and saving to get by. Belt-tightening is bad for business. After a recession gets Labour booted out, the next boom just falls into the Tories' lap. It's all in the timing.
2) I thought it was employers who ultimately control unemployment? Governments can grow or shrink the Civil Service, the NHS, the emergency services, the Armed Forces and very little else. They have control over employment levels other than that.
If I can find it, I'll post a link to "A Brief History of Corporate Whining", which repeats the typical excuses given for companies not lifting too many fingers to alleviate unemployment (they blame government regulations, mainly).
@naomi
I was so long typing that yours and jim's were not there when I started.
My mother probably influenced my first ever vote, having convinced me that, as a matter of routine, major investors alwayscash in their investments in UK business and take it elsewhere; anywhere where it won't be taxed to pieces. Hence the country is doing swimmingly right up to the moment Labour takes office then big business does everything in their power to make Britain fail.
Business only does profit, not patriotism.
I was so long typing that yours and jim's were not there when I started.
My mother probably influenced my first ever vote, having convinced me that, as a matter of routine, major investors alwayscash in their investments in UK business and take it elsewhere; anywhere where it won't be taxed to pieces. Hence the country is doing swimmingly right up to the moment Labour takes office then big business does everything in their power to make Britain fail.
Business only does profit, not patriotism.
Well the influence of the second world war came at the start -- and then more importantly the cancelling of Lend-Lease was also at the start and definitely nothing to do with Labour. Ditto the Wall Street Crash, which was entirely an American thing until suddenly Europe's banks got tied up in it as well.
These are certainly coincidences and nothing to do with Labour. In the most recent case, Labour's contribution was hardly to cause the crash, but leave the country in a bad state to meet it when it came. In 1929 and 1945 they didn't have a chance to ruin things before the crashes came.
It's a misleading statistic, too, because what often seems to happen is that Labour never gets the chance to carry on after the crash has come. If we'd had Labour for the last five years, how would employment be doing? We'll never know, and there's every chance it would have been far worse of course, but kicking Labour out a couple of years after a recession has started and it's going to skew the statistics rather.
Incidentally, I was slightly harsh to Heath last time. Apparently the lowest unemployment record since 1970 at least, of 3.4%, occurred at the end of 1973 under his government. Since there was also the mess of a three-day week and all of that crap I doubt many people cared that much, but I thought I should mention it.
These are certainly coincidences and nothing to do with Labour. In the most recent case, Labour's contribution was hardly to cause the crash, but leave the country in a bad state to meet it when it came. In 1929 and 1945 they didn't have a chance to ruin things before the crashes came.
It's a misleading statistic, too, because what often seems to happen is that Labour never gets the chance to carry on after the crash has come. If we'd had Labour for the last five years, how would employment be doing? We'll never know, and there's every chance it would have been far worse of course, but kicking Labour out a couple of years after a recession has started and it's going to skew the statistics rather.
Incidentally, I was slightly harsh to Heath last time. Apparently the lowest unemployment record since 1970 at least, of 3.4%, occurred at the end of 1973 under his government. Since there was also the mess of a three-day week and all of that crap I doubt many people cared that much, but I thought I should mention it.
Hypognosis, // the moment Labour takes office then big business does everything in their power to make Britain fail.//
Tosh! Big business is not purposefully self-destructive. That would be utterly ridiculous. If your link is any indication of your usual sources, you’re reading too much left-wing propaganda.
jim, Carry on. You’ll rationalise the apparent coincidences eventually – if only in your own mind.
Tosh! Big business is not purposefully self-destructive. That would be utterly ridiculous. If your link is any indication of your usual sources, you’re reading too much left-wing propaganda.
jim, Carry on. You’ll rationalise the apparent coincidences eventually – if only in your own mind.
Governing Parties tend to change when things aren't going well, and get re-elected when times are good. So the first 3 terms of the last Labour Government, Blair kept power, and then we had the World Financial Crash and Labour got dumped at the next election.
What was more surprising in 2010 considering the havoc caused to our economy, was that the Conservatives didn't get a landslide, they didn't even get a majority. A feat they are about to repeat.
What was more surprising in 2010 considering the havoc caused to our economy, was that the Conservatives didn't get a landslide, they didn't even get a majority. A feat they are about to repeat.
@naomi
//Tosh! Big business is not purposefully self-destructive. That would be utterly ridiculous.//
I didn't quiz her on her sources but she was basically saying that, yes, they subvert Labour, so as to get their tax-cutting buddies back into power, as soon as possible. They need not "destroy" things to achieve this, merely cash in their shares, which they would do anyway if UK business' growth stagnated, regardless of causative agents.
//If your link is any indication of your usual sources, you’re reading too much left-wing propaganda. //
I don't read these sources habitually. People share things on Fakebook and Twitter and sometimes truisms raise a smile and stick in the mind.
Employers want to exploit the equation:- People x time = Product - costs.
Any increase in responsibility for their employees directly impacts the size of yacht that the owner can buy themself, so they fight against the wishes of people (more comfort/safety/free time) all the time.
And that's what politics is, basically: people with the means but only one brain and one pair of hands versus the masses who need a fresh squirt of money every month, to get by and exchange their time and efforts for this imaginary commodity.
Because hunting and gathering (oops, that's the other thread) was outlawed, ever since land ownership was first conceived.
//Tosh! Big business is not purposefully self-destructive. That would be utterly ridiculous.//
I didn't quiz her on her sources but she was basically saying that, yes, they subvert Labour, so as to get their tax-cutting buddies back into power, as soon as possible. They need not "destroy" things to achieve this, merely cash in their shares, which they would do anyway if UK business' growth stagnated, regardless of causative agents.
//If your link is any indication of your usual sources, you’re reading too much left-wing propaganda. //
I don't read these sources habitually. People share things on Fakebook and Twitter and sometimes truisms raise a smile and stick in the mind.
Employers want to exploit the equation:- People x time = Product - costs.
Any increase in responsibility for their employees directly impacts the size of yacht that the owner can buy themself, so they fight against the wishes of people (more comfort/safety/free time) all the time.
And that's what politics is, basically: people with the means but only one brain and one pair of hands versus the masses who need a fresh squirt of money every month, to get by and exchange their time and efforts for this imaginary commodity.
Because hunting and gathering (oops, that's the other thread) was outlawed, ever since land ownership was first conceived.
