The real level of UK unemployment
“Don’t vote Conservative because we all know what happened under them - 3 million unemployed!”
I saw the BBC take this government’s unemployment figures to task some time ago, describing how there are ever-increasing numbers of people going onto disability allowance rather than becoming officially unemployed.
Then I posted about the extent of this fiddle - moving the unemployed into the less politically-sensitive category of disabled - in Scotland where 21% of Scotland’s entire workforce is on invalidity benefit.
Now, Thersites has come up with the official figures. Just over 1.1 million people have been diverted from unemployment benefit to sickness benefit - thus depressing headline unemployment figures. He’s added that figure to the headline unemployment figure - 1.42 million - to arrive at a more accurate figure of two and a half million unemployed.
Then Lascivious added the final touch by noting that over half a million jobs have been created in the public sector by Gordon Brown since 1997. Assuming all these jobs were Brown’s version of the YTS scheme and so unnecessary - and if you believe in shrinking the state rather than increasing it it’s an easy enough assumption - we find ourselves hitting the Thatcherite 3 million mark.
I would add that forcing tens of thousands of kids into university places that are often inappropriate to their needs (although entirely appropriate to the government’s needs) is also another expensive and dishonest way of suppressing the true scale of unemployment in this country.
And the adverse effects of all this manipulating and twisting of real life are now starting to come back and, as an American might say, bite our bottoms.
Labour still isn’t working.
UPDATE - this just in from our sloppy blogging department:
The 21% on incapacity benefit is quoted from this piece in The Scotsman: “The number classed as economically inactive, largely those on sickness and incapacity benefits, was 655,000″
(My emphasis).
So they’re not all on benefit after all. I would do well to read my sources a bit better. My apologies for my mistake.

Is not “unemployment” the natural result of technology and the sought after lesieur age.
If we remove the need for effort in production then the stores are stocked high with product but the diminishing distribution of incomes leaves the shelves full and the public need unfulfilled.
Who morally owns the productive capacity of a society?
The policy of monopoly ensures that the control and dividends of the communities inherited and natural wealth is claimed by a shrinking proportion achieved by the “money creation” trickery.
What if the abundant potential was incarnate in a social “dividend” paid to every member of the community relative to an annual measure of the economic realities of that community.
No more “means” testing and “welfare” abuse.
All members of the community receive their social dividend as a citizens right.
Choose to work and grow your economic position or be satisfied with a simple existence within your social dividend capacity.
All that red tape and bureaucracy no longer required. This multiplies the productive potential and choice of any community.
Skill and labour gets choice and real democratic power through the spending power of the individuals within the community.
This contrasts with the policy of monopoly that currently expands the spending power of the community by new “money” loaned into existence for the benefit of corporate designs and the taxing power of “government”.
If technology achieved perfection and “work” was no longer necessary where would spending power come from?
Would we have to destroy the “machine” because we failed to understand money credit and dividends?
Comment by Christopher Brooks — September 20, 2005 @ 6:42 am
Gary: that 21% of the Scottish workforce number smacks of sloppy journalism from the Herald. “Economically inactive” can include housewives, people taking time off to write a book, the idle rich, and so on. Put it another way, 1.1m on sickness benefits across the UK, but 655,000 “economically inactive” in Scotland - just seems very unlikely.
Comment by Blimpish — September 22, 2005 @ 10:29 pm
Blimpish - it’s actually sloppy blogging by me.
See update in main post.
Thanks for pointing this out. I don’t mind being an opinionated loudmouth but I don’t want to mislead…
Comment by Gary Monro — September 23, 2005 @ 7:12 am