Would be good to know the employment % as well, as we know that there will always be a number of people of working age doing something else.

The unemployment numbers never give the whole picture and allow governments to hide away lots of non working people.

How come there's not data for Scotland? Im studying maths and stats in Edinburgh and it would be interesting to know the figures for all the regions(West of Scotland in particular) as well-

The data does include Scotland Novos777. Please find the Scotland data on the table at 584 - 643. It is also present in the spreadsheet.

We shouldn't be bothering much with claimant counts.

We should be looking at the % of underemployment.

Not sure exactly how to calculate the number but it should represent the proportion of the population who want to work longer hours but the hours are not available to them. I think the key is to look at the total hours worked divided by the total workforce.

For the past 25 years under the policy of successive neo-liberal governments. Underemployment has risen steadily giving businesses ever greater negotiating power on salary.

This is the class war we need to fight!

A government guarantee of a job at minimum wage for every person willing to work.

To protect both profits and the purchasing power of wealthy savers. The policy is to deliberately keep a stock of underemployed. This reduces business costs and manages inflation.

Full employment as a policy has been utterly abandoned. The unemployment buffer stock has been a fait accompli for the past 25 years.

The trick is to distract the general population with lies about budget deficits and keep everyone fearful about inflation. Control by wealthy elites is guaranteed.

I'd imagine the only reason the claimant count is going down is because those unemployed since the 2008/9 crash are hitting their 18 month New Deal mark. They are being handed over to New Deal providers and are removed from the claimant figures.

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

Sexism in selection is alive and well then.

Women have virtually taken over personnel and admin functions and Equal Opportunities only works one way. Isn't it about time this was changed?

Liberation for men, that's what I preach.

Interesting report on BBC last night - there is plenty of work but people dont want to work because they dont get enough financial reward if they do.

Well there is one solution then, and it would reduce unemployement overnight - stop paying benefits to those who can work.

Hope this government will take the action the last government was too weak and bigoted to do.

Conservatism = Unemployment

RobbieScot 16 February 2011 3:39PM Interesting report on BBC last night - there is plenty of work but people dont want to work because they dont get enough financial reward if they do. Well there is one solution then, and it would reduce unemployement overnight - stop paying benefits to those who can work. Hope this government will take the action the last government was too weak and bigoted to do.

On the BBC? Well, must be true then.

I found 9 jobs within 15 miles of my address the other day, 4 were door to door salesmen (non jobs) 3 cleaners (1 was for 7 hours) the other 2 were for trained pharmacists (part time)

Wakey wakey Mr Blinkered!

I wouldn't trust either the red group or the blue group, they are 2 peas in a pod.

Do you have the same for ILO unemployment? (I.e. NOT claimant count which excludes mums with little ones that can't jump into a job at 24 hours notice, because they have child-care to sort out; and can't sort out the child-care in advance because they don't get any money to pay for it until they get work)?

Interesting to see the data split into female and male but I wonder how many are listed mistakenly so? If the gender statistics were to be 100 per cent reliable they would also need to take into account those people who are listed by birth sex as one gender - but actually live as another. So, this makes the data offered by the table apt to be interpreted in a somewhat shortsighted way. If they were to include the trans factor I think they'd find that proportionally one of the highest rates of unemployment is amongst transwomen, transmen and also those who don't conform to any gender roles at all. Wonder what that percentage stands at - a conservative (note with a small "c") estimate might tend towards 80 per cent unemployment rate perhaps.

Cortina1600E

A government guarantee of a job at minimum wage for every person willing to work.

Surely you mean 'able' to work.

Sexism in selection is alive and well then.

Women have virtually taken over personnel and admin functions and Equal Opportunities only works one way. Isn't it about time this was changed?

Poor old victimised algefern. In the areas I'm familiar with there are plenty of shitty jobs as care assistants. Funnily enough men seem to exclude themselves - it's nothing to do with HR.

@3genders - to be honest amongst the many, many people I know in that situation employment hasn't been an issue, but they do tend to be well-educated. Being young, badly educated and, dare I say it from a working class environment is a different matter.

@fluter: to be honest amongst the many, many people I know in that situation employment hasn't been an issue, but they do tend to be well-educated. Being young, badly educated and, dare I say it from a working class environment is a different matter

Perhaps this is because we don't hear the voices of working class people as much? Right-wing wealthier and better educated people tend to dismiss the rest of us as (in the Daily Mail's favourite term) "feckless", those just above - in the lower middle class income bracket's favourite terminology seems to be "chav" and those on the left often automatically make the assumption that we're all on the verge of becoming dim-witted BNP thugs.

I'm sure that statistically there are just as many trans people who are working class as there are those who are middle class. Such things cut across class, racial and national divides.

I've a sneaking suspicion though, that due to so-called mainstream society's tendency to stick its head in the sand over such an issue, the largest percentage of transpeople of working age remain invisible to the neat little figures and boxes of statisticians. I wonder what percentage of trans people as a group form part of the precariat as compared to cis people as a group and I wonder what percentage of transpeople as compared to cispeople are so marginalised and excluded from the mainstream jobs market that they are forced into sex work in order to survive?

It's a national scandal - and it's probably a national scandal in most other countries, too. Yet it's hardly a hidden one.

Ronald

Can I ask where abouts you live? I work in recruitment so am interested to hear you think that there are only 8 jobs within 15 miles of you.

I'd be amazed if that is really the case unless you live completely way out in the countryside somewhere where there's been no employment to speak of in 50 years since farming became increasingly mechanised.

I'd suggest you're not looking in the right places for work - virtually no jobs are actually registered with job centres!

@Robbie Scot here is a simple fact for you. In the south east where myself and my partner live and where she has recently been made redundant. The cost of full time childcare is about £12000 per child pa. Now if you've got one child at school and you need to do drop offs and pick ups add around another £3k to the figure. If you have to commute into London (where most of the jobs are) add another £1k. so that is £16k net you have to bring home in order to not make a loss. So basically any full time job paying under £22k gross without any kind of benefit subsidy to someone with young children brings in virtually nothing.

The reality in the jobs market today is that there are either low skilled low paid jobs, or there are better paid jobs where because of the amount of people available the employer wants and can get someone who is an exact fit to their need / trade. There is little or no training / first time employment / opportunities to transfer some skills from existing roles.

There are plenty of sales jobs because sales people are not making target and getting fired

What is VERY noticable is the North/South divide. Unemployment: 1.7 to 3.5% South (Tory Land). 4% to 8% North (Labour Land) but I wouldn't swap our pace of life for your 3 hours per day travelling to work life style. I must be humdrum you poor souls !

Teenage mums can't claim unemployment benefit..

Jobseeker's Allowance*

stop paying benefits to those who can work.

Here's a radical idea instead.

Get those who are offering work to pay a living wage in range of where the people live.

Businesses saying there is plenty of work without paying a living wage is like saying there is a lot of demand for personal swimming pools - if you take into account those who can't afford one.

A government guarantee of a job at minimum wage for every person willing to work.

Surely you mean 'able' to work

No willing to work. There should be no compulsion to take up a job guarantee position.

Those who are able, but unwilling to work, just won't get any money from the state once a Job Guarantee is in place.

It's the only way to separate the disadvantaged from the feckless.

How many people are this government taking off of JSA and transferring onto to other benefits?

If the claimant count is rising then something is "phishy" in the system. "Phishing" people from JSA and transferring them onto other benefits is an old Tory trick last used in the 90's where people were taken off of unemployment benefits and transferred to other benefits (usually incapacity benefit) to "falsify" and mask the true numbers unemployed, this is why at the end of 1997 independent analysts put the true number of unemployed anywhere between 4 and 6 million, now we have the same thing happening again.

It always makes me first laugh and then wonder why I can't get a job when I understand the simple fact that just because there are plenty of jobs advertised and the fact that I apply for every job I am able to do dosn't mean that I am going to get the job, and yet I constantly see people commenting on the fact that if they can find 100 jobs advertised it must mean that unlike themselves who are working anyone not working is a workshy scrounger, and they all seem to believe that everyone lives within commuting distance of the job they found advertised.

Vacancy for ONE job advertised, 20 people applying for that ONE job means 19 people are still going to be looking for work at the end of the selection process.

Those of you who think that by simply finding a job advert equates to having found a job really need to take your head out of your arses and start using it to think properly.

There are many many people like myself who apply for everything we can, even to the point of knowing if we get offered a job we will have to upsticks and move, also we are applying for jobs that don't give us a living wage that don't fall into the criteria for claiming WTC but we are willing to do them simply to get back into the work place.

There are many many employers out there who simply won't entertain taking someone from long term unemployment into their workforce, and also many employers who won't employ anyone over a certain age.

The media have stirred up the employed against the unemployed, the classes against each other and it now seems they are trying to get the sexes battling with each other.............

I've said it before and I'll say it again probably many times, it's about time the media started reporting the truth about unemployment and the obstacles we are constantly coming up against, and how those who are trying to help themselves who are willing to jump through hoops backwards while doing a double flip are given no help whatsoever and in fact are almost being stopped from getting any decent sustainable jobs that would take us out of the benefit system.

Once you are unfortunate enough to have been pushed down to the bottom of the heap you are going to be given sod all help to get back up.

"Employment grew by only 0.3% over the three months to April. The latest figures show that this increase is driven by modest growth in the service sector, which added 175,000 jobs to the payroll in the three months to March. Employment in manufacturing and construction fell by 11,000 and 24,000 respectively over the same period."

No matter how the latest figures are interpreted (and even among the experts there are swings between optimism, caution and pessimism), it does appear from the above facts, that we are becoming an increasingly low wage economy, with vacancies being filled in supermarkets, hotels, public houses, tourism et al. This bodes ill for a consumer-led recovery.

Also, can anyone tell me how part-time jobs, and training schemes figure in the statistics please?

Thanks for including NI. I hope this recent trend continues; for far too long the Guardian never bothered to include data relating to NI in their studies. I'm very pleased to see this changing.

Here's a good breakdown of why the latest figures are not good.

47,000 claimants in Birmingham and 7,000 vacancies. The jobs growth is clearly not in the right areas, perhaps there's a late rush in the South as people look to make money out of the Olympics but not much else.

As for other parts of the country the pending closure of Bombardier in Derby is estimated to cost aroun 10,000 in total over the next months and year

Thousands of Welfare to Work provider staff are being made redundant as the all singing, all dancing "The Work Programme" is rolled out.

That doesn't bode well with me, starting a drive to help the jobless, by making folk unemployed. Chris Grayling and IDS are geniuses!

bino 13 April 2011 1:32PM Ronald Can I ask where abouts you live? I work in recruitment so am interested to hear you think that there are only 8 jobs within 15 miles of you. I'd be amazed if that is really the case unless you live completely way out in the countryside somewhere where there's been no employment to speak of in 50 years since farming became increasingly mechanised. I'd suggest you're not looking in the right places for work - virtually no jobs are actually registered with job centres!

Going way back into the past here but its "Ranald", thats my name. I live in the County of Angus, there is very little work, the 15 miles also includes Arbroath, Montrose, Brechin and at a stretch, Forfar.

In my case, one of your unemployment agencies are useless, i have a physical disability. Are you going to tell me that profit seeking agencies will be happy to have me on their books? That's not the experience i have locally.

All the farm work that you talk of is done by Eastern Europeans, living onsite. Locals are not welcome to apply.

There is an Asda being built atm, i am sure half the town will be queuing up in anticipation of a job, i have seen it before, thousands turn up for a couple of hundred jobs at the NMW. There is more closing down that opening up, Acorn Pets and Focus DIY, the two latest casualties.

I was hoping to be helped back into the workplace by my Pathways to Work adviser but guess what? They closed down in April! We are waiting with bated breath to see how "The Work Programme" turns out.

You didn't say where you lived btw?

I worked for 25 years continually in a permanent job, then, for the last two and a half years with agencies on and off and 6 months in total unemployed.

Now, because my wife comes home with the princely sum of £790 a month from her job, I'm not eligible for benefit at all, so I don't count.. I bet there are thousands like me.

Tories ..... tough on jobs, tough on the causes of jobs

@Scousescot 17 August 2011 6:15PM

"Now, because my wife comes home with the princely sum of £790 a month from her job, I'm not eligible for benefit at all, so I don't count.. I bet there are thousands like me."

Of course you count..... but, obviously, if those who are self sufficient in terms of income were to be elligible for State Benefit (such as Job Seekers Allowance), the Public Sector Debt would sky rocket.

@VinceIncapable 17 August 2011 8:08PM

"Tories ..... tough on jobs, tough on the causes of jobs"

It is the inevitable destiny of the Conservative Party to repair the damage inflicted on the economy by the poor plebs within the Labour Party, no pleb being more incompetent than Gordon "I Saved The World" Brown.

In order that immigrants may continue to settle in this country without being a strain on population and benefits, I propose the culling of all citizens reaching the age of sixty-five.

I understand where you're coming from Becky, but unemployment firgures should not be calculated on claimant count alone. Many of us need or want to work because we don't want to be seen as living off our partners. As a modern woman, I'm sure you understand that.
The tax system treats couples as seperate entitites: why not the benefits system (within reason)?

DWP have just released Out-of-work benefit statistics on Google's interactive Public Data Explorer:

http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd1/data_visualisation/index.php?page=out_of_work_benefits

The Explorer contains the proportion of 16-59 year olds who are jobseekers, on incapacity benefits, or lone parents. Data goes to local authority level and back to 1999.

Tottenham - # of Unemployed - 6,770 - Riots in August
Hackney North - # of Unemployed - 5,093 - Riots in August
Hackney South - # of Unemployed - 5,971 - Riots in August
Croydon North - # of Unemployed - 5,298 - Riots in August
Hornsey & Wood Green - # of Unemployed - 4,055 - Riots in August
Edmonton - # of Unemployed - 4,810 - Riots in August

Witney (Cameron's Constituency) # of Unemployed - 850 - No Riots in August

How many non-jobs are there with 13 out of 15 posts advertised locally being for less than 18 hours a week?
150 claimants, 2 full-time posts both of which demand specialist skills not available anywhere in the whole of Mid-Wales. And that was last year before ir got "disappointing", in Camerons words.

Lies, damned lies, statistics.

Hmm... interesting chart at the top of this piece. But does it show the truth?

It shows a huge drop in unemployment between 1983 and 1988.

During the same period the Thatcher government altered the way the unemployment figures were calculated. They did this 20 times and in every case without exception the unemployment figures wet down.

They said it was the economy improving but it was just more Tory lies.

I really don't understand. I have a business in Surrey and we are the busiest we have ever been, we can't find people to recruit. Advertised for 3 positions, got 15 applicants, but only two British. I now see why, unemployment claims have dropped in the area by on average 7% Why is this not being experienced across the whole country? A mystery to me.

How many job vacancies?

School A teacher retires position advertised.
School B teacher takes job at school A job advertised
School C teacher takes job at school B job advertised
School D teacher takes job at school C job advertised

@paulxx

It was also Thacther who parked the miners, steelworkers, dockers .. on IB to keep the true figures down.

It was also Thacther who parked the miners, steelworkers, dockers .. on IB to keep the true figures down.

It's an often quoted and quite lazy theory that IB and its precursor was used as a mechanism to control unemployment, but the data simply does not show that, as evidenced here:
http://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/publications/working-papers/iser/2011-03
Growth in IB during the Thatcher years is completely in line with growth before and after her tenure - there was nothing unsual going on with the numbers in the 80s (see page4, above). If there was you would see a spike, but you don't.

Competing evidence from the Instutute of Fiscal Studies shows that the rise in IB is primarily due to a reduction in people leaving IB, rather than inflows onto it. It is this phenomenon that has driven the very large increases in IB which actually took place between 1990 and 1995, and not, as supposed, during the Thatcher years.

And it's also documented that GPs in the 80s had an increasing propensity to sign people off sick, which was a decision taken by independent health professionals, not Government.

Basically, it's a specious theory that Thatcher stuck everyone on IB to control numbers.

This is shocking!

Ed Miliband has nothing to smile about in terms of his constituency, they didn't riot though, Yorkshire is used to being the foot stool of any government in power.

Can someone tell me why Britain's unemployment benefits are so low compared to most other Western countries?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lab_une_ben_as_of_gdp-labor-unemployment-benefit-gdp

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124155150793788477.html

http://www.acoss.org.au/media/release/oecd_unprecedented_call_for_australia_to_increase_unemployment_benefits_pay

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1232911/Mother-leaps-death-baby-arms-benefits-stopped.html#

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nickhi/6062887101/in/set-72157627479049432