Unemployment across the UK has risen again, and once more London has not escaped the national trend. Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures show the seasonally-adjusted rate for the capital for August to October to be a fraction short of 10%, the worst of any region apart from the north east of England and an increase of 0.3% from the previous quarter. November's ONS figures for claimants in London, which don't include all unemployment people, underline the continuing bad news. The total is 234,699, representing an 11.9% increase over the past year.
At constituency level, the highest percentages of claimants are in Hackney South and Shoreditch (8.6%), Tottenham (8.3%), West Ham (7.6%), Walthamstow (7.4%), Edmonton (7.3%) and Bethnal Green and Bow (7.3%). These locations prompt a certain bleak reflection: four are in Olympic host boroughs; two sit alongside the Square Mile; one is where the summer's riots began and another is its next door neighbour, a place grimly associated with fatal youth violence.
Mayoral candidates have been responding. Conservative incumbent Boris Johnson remarked that young Londoners in particular were being "squeezed out" and urged businesses to take on more apprentices and paid interns. Yet he appears to have uttered not a squeak of complaint about the scale of the government's public spending cuts, which have produced so much unemployment in the capital as they have across the country.
For the Liberal Democrats, the Tories' coalition partners, Brian Paddick said much the same, although he specified the City rather than London businesses in general, urging it to "put money into training and apprenticeships" and the current mayor to try harder.
Jenny Jones for the Greens? "Both the Coalition and the Mayor's office seem willing to consign an increasingly large section of today's youth to the sidelines," she said. "With such a concentration of affluence continuing unscathed within the Square Mile under the Mayor's protection these increases in youth unemployment are inexcusable."
Labour's Ken Livingstone launched a more general attack on the government and said Boris seemed "embarrassed" to mention unemployment in the capital. He accused him of doing nothing to "offset these negative trends," and of being "more keen on covering up for his fellow Tories in government." Ken had had a bit more to say on rising unemployment in a speech he gave on Tuesday, linking it directly to public spending cuts and "a stagnating economy" and pledging that if elected he would do all he could to "protect Londoners from the decline in living standards and the squeeze that ordinary people are facing."
See full London constituency JSA figures on the Guardian's data summary chart, starting at entry number 328. Have stiff drink to hand.
From Cyclists in the City
From The London Word
Comments
14 December 2011 6:39PM
Boris is inherently incapable of displaying sympathy or even empathy with those not in work. He just does not really care and is therefore unable to find any form of words of support.
14 December 2011 9:50PM
I know at least one party that is profiting from high long-term unemployment - all these "education/qualification provider" who get taxpayer's and European Social Fund money for no value courses. The participants are forced to sign enrolment forms that state clearly that they are not eligible for funding when they have Full Level 2 qualifications or above. If these rules would be taken seriously the government (JCP, Department for Work and Pensions, etc.) would realise that the majority of people have good to very good qualifications and extensive work history but there aren't enough jobs to match the skill set of the jobseeker. Making them then attend compulsory nonsense courses below their existing qualification is not only patronising, it is counterproductive, ineffective and wasteful. And with "old age" and "over-qualification" they are not likely to get entry jobs or shelf stocking positions either.
With the increase of modern computer technology in almost every work place, the output is higher and the number of people needed in administration, manufacturing etc. is decreasing.
People need to get a complete different mind set about work, because there will never be meaningful and sustainable employment for everyone.
15 December 2011 4:58PM
-
@Rumpelstilzzchen
Yes and no to the above. Yes, traditional manufacturing and secretarial positions have been vastly curtailed or even eliminated altogether (how many people employ somebody who is expert at shorthand anymore?).
However, How many people in the past worked in the IT, high-tech and computer industry? These are new sectors and employ a lot of people, from web designers to IT technicians and many more. Not all the pay is bad either.
Remember in the past there was high unemployment as well, look at the big migrations from the country in the 1950s
16 December 2011 11:15AM
Yes and no to the above as well. I should have been clearer with the modern computer technology, I meant not only clever programming and PC's I meant Robots, machines that function without or with far less human help/interaction than before.
Look in every supermarket, there are at least 10 self checkouts supervised by one human who just assists when problems arise. Makes 9 less humans as checkout assistants. And that does not only work for low-skill jobs. Image recognition software is so good now that highly specialised Radiologists are no longer needed. The software is far better and more accurate in detecting cancer, fine fissures, interpreting sonograms, etc. Japan has now already so many old people who need care, and they have invented robots who do the heavy lifting, because the nurses could not cope anymore. That frees time up for other tasks that would may have been neglected because 5 nurses were off sick with orthopedic problems. Or less people choose this profession because of the possible strain that it may cause on the own health.
Most jobs created recently were low-pay, low-skill, with little or no security, mostly in the service industry. But with the robotic revolution they are also the first ones to go. And with what ever revolution that comes next or new skill set that is needed for new technologies, they won't employ 1000, they probably employ 10 highly specialised people (and consider the time needed to re-train those people) and the rest is on the dole. And when we continue to procreate at this pace, we hit the 8 billion sooner than thought. We do not have resources and meaningful good-paying employment for that many people.
16 December 2011 9:33PM
-
@Rumpelstilzzchen
Yeah, no if I am to be honest you are quite correct. A scary scenario you have illustrated. I worry about the many young people that may have little hope of decent employment opportunities, here and in many (most?) developed nations, my own at uni teenage daughter included.