Britains economy

The other thing is that if they can reduce inflation by reducing the price of fuel, that will also help the situation with regards to industrial unrest I would have thought.

I think that labour are more frightened of the media tbh. They, like the rest of us can read the polls and can easily capitalise on it.

Just finished reading the report. I've saved it and will read again later, but one of the key issues I took from it is that unemployment and jobs aren't spread evenly and just how polarised the situation is. My area has 1.9% unemployment and the neighbouring authority has 1.7%. That compares with 9.6% in the south of the county, 10.6% in Birmingham, 10.1% in Hull, 10.9% in Liverpool, 10.4% in Burnley, 14.7% in Blackpool, 11.6% in Middlesbrough, 10.8% in Hartlepool, 10.5% in Neath Port Talbot, 10.8% in Merthyr Tydfil, 12.2% in Blaenau Gwent, 10.9% in Inverclyde, 10.9% in North Ayrshire, 10.7% in West Dunbartonshire. There aren't any figures for Northern Ireland.

Employment is so high in other areas - so high that it isn't realistic to think the figure could be increased without encouraging more people to live in the areas, which won't happen unless there's affordable housing or very well paid jobs. Even then, there would need to be better infrastructure and there would still be a need for low paid workers, who just couldn't afford to live in the wealthier areas.

A one-fit solution won't work. Wealth, good health and educational opportunities need to be more evenly spread and targeted support given to the areas which need it - and not just as electoral bribes.

I suspect that areas with relatively high unemployment are as a result of long term structural issues, which the government has never tackled, or where it has many of those jobs have disappeared to Europe.

Maizie In addition to the suspect definition of employment, the unemployment figures don't include those not registering and claiming benefits, which includes spouses who wouldn't be eligible for any means-tested benefits.

The report also highlights that there are more people claiming incapacity benefits in areas of high unemployment. They're not suggesting that people are defrauding the system, but areas with high unemployment tend to have poorer health and employers are less likely to employ somebody with a disability if a fit and healthy person is available. The "hidden" unemployed add to the official figures.

Whitewavemark2

I suspect that areas with relatively high unemployment are as a result of long term structural issues, which the government has never tackled, or where it has many of those jobs have disappeared to Europe.

It's almost certainly related to de-industrialisation. Hi tech companies and other industries with well paid jobs aren't going to invest in areas where there isn't a pool of talented people available and those people won't move to areas which seems depressed and infrastructure is poor, however cheap the housing. There needs to be a "levelling out" ie greater equality. I don't think the sirens for "levelling up" really understand what's needed.

Yes, it is another slogan of empty rhetoric.

But I hope that at long last people are running out of patience with a clueless government.

UK growth set to be worst in G20 apart from Russia, OECD warns. Sharp slowdown attributed to effects of high inflation and rising taxes. [FT]

Once the Conservatives are booted out , as they must be , beware of a Labour SNP coalition . The SNP have the Scottish economy in a bad way .

£100 to fill a family car?

Regarding Zonne's post Wed 08-Jun-22 09:52:03. The Sheffield Hallam published research is fascinating. If you can, read it through.

It is so packed with information and facts that it is difficult to précis. It talks about the real level of unemployment and the three different types of unemployment areas describing them as:

FULL EMPLOYMENT BRITAIN (below 4% real unemployment)
MIDDLING BRITAIN (4-8% real unemployment)
HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT BRITAIN (more than 8% real unemployment)

It takes into account what they refer to as the hidden unemployed. These are hidden on Incapacity Benefits. They note, several times, that the health problems or disabilities are not necessarily anything less than real, nor the benefit claims in any way fraudulent. The "hidden" aspect is not to do with the incapacity but with the real level of employment/unemployment in the area where the claimant lives.

In areas of low real unemployment, such as the first defined above, a higher percentage of those on incapacity benefits are likely to be able to find work they can do. In areas of real high unemployment, they are less likely even to be looking. There are those who are both fulfilling the incapacity definitions and able to work if the type of work they can do is available, and employers willing to take them on. These workers do not show on the unemployment figures before entering work. The authors show that the official count is not as accurate because of this. We do not have the full employment we are perceiving, accept in a few areas.

Many of the known factors that are drivers of low employment opportunities are mentioned. These include an ageing population or the death of an industry, for instance.

This survey could aid the process of levelling up if used correctly. It is, interestingly, Rishi Sunaks constituency of Richmondshire, which received a levelling up financial award, that has the lowest real unemployment of all in the country at 1.5 per cent.

I’m glad some people found the report interesting. I can’t see that anyone has mentioned that there are around 800.000 hidden unemployed who would work if possible (so not those who choose not to) which almost doubles the unemployment figures.

My paternal family mostly live in a high actual and hidden unemployment area, and, as has been pointed out, nothing in the so-called levelling up agenda will help there or in places like it.

I think we crossed posts Zonne. I hope I have done the report justice but it really is worth reading in full.

growstuff

Whitewavemark2

I suspect that areas with relatively high unemployment are as a result of long term structural issues, which the government has never tackled, or where it has many of those jobs have disappeared to Europe.

It's almost certainly related to de-industrialisation. Hi tech companies and other industries with well paid jobs aren't going to invest in areas where there isn't a pool of talented people available and those people won't move to areas which seems depressed and infrastructure is poor, however cheap the housing. There needs to be a "levelling out" ie greater equality. I don't think the sirens for "levelling up" really understand what's needed.

You are spot on as far as Blaenau Gwent is concerned, the area has never recovered after the closure of mines and steelworks. I think another factor is that the communities which are the most deprived are also the most close knit, and people are very reluctant to move away from their families if the job on offer is poorly paid, as housing and the cost of living is more expensive. It’s a vicious circle because the most skilled move away, and because housing is cheap more vulnerable adults are moved to live there from other areas.New industry is very difficult to establish because people with the skills don’t want to live in the area. I would think that’s a pretty typical picture UK wide.

The SH piece was more about how unemployment - or employment was recorded and how the method they use distorts the figures. It does still point to the areas you would guess, i.e., de-industrialised but also some coastal towns.

The incapacity claimant rate is especially high in parts of South Wales, Merseyside, North East England and Clydeside. These are places where standards of health have long been known to be below the national average but what they also have in common is that they have all experienced large-scale industrial job losses. Initially it was the ex-miners, ex steelworkers and other redundant industrial workers, mostly men, who drove much of the increase in incapacity numbers in these places. They have now nearly all dropped out of the figures into retirement but, where there is still a serious imbalance between labour demand and labour supply, they have been succeeded by the generation behind them. In these difficult local labour markets, the competition for jobs has eventually squeezed out women with physical or mental ill health or disabilities as well.

A number of seaside towns also have high incapacity claimant rates. Blackpool and Torbay make the top 20 but a number of other coastal districts are not far behind Hastings, Great Yarmouth, Scarborough, Thanet (which covers Margate and Ramsgate), Tendring (Clacton) and East Lindsey (Skegness). These seaside towns have generally not lost jobs on the scale of older industrial Britain but their economies have been under sustained pressure from changing patterns of tourism and their peripheral location does not make it easy to attract new businesses. Their distinctive housing stock – former guest houses converted into cheap flats for example – can also draw in claimants from surrounding areas and further afield. Their generally older population tends to boost incapacity numbers too.

Interesting posts from

Zonne
DaisyAnne
growstuff
WWM2

Thank you for posting - I'm learning a lot here!

DaisyAnne

The SH piece was more about how unemployment - or employment was recorded and how the method they use distorts the figures. It does still point to the areas you would guess, i.e., de-industrialised but also some coastal towns.

The incapacity claimant rate is especially high in parts of South Wales, Merseyside, North East England and Clydeside. These are places where standards of health have long been known to be below the national average but what they also have in common is that they have all experienced large-scale industrial job losses. Initially it was the ex-miners, ex steelworkers and other redundant industrial workers, mostly men, who drove much of the increase in incapacity numbers in these places. They have now nearly all dropped out of the figures into retirement but, where there is still a serious imbalance between labour demand and labour supply, they have been succeeded by the generation behind them. In these difficult local labour markets, the competition for jobs has eventually squeezed out women with physical or mental ill health or disabilities as well.

^A number of seaside towns also have high incapacity claimant rates. Blackpool and Torbay make the top 20 but a number of other coastal districts are not far behind Hastings, Great Yarmouth, Scarborough, Thanet (which covers Margate and Ramsgate), Tendring (Clacton) and East Lindsey (Skegness). These seaside towns have generally not lost jobs on the scale of older industrial Britain but their economies have been under sustained pressure from changing patterns of tourism and their peripheral location does not make it easy to attract new businesses. Their distinctive housing stock – former guest houses converted into cheap flats for example – can also draw in claimants from surrounding areas and further afield. Their generally older population tends to boost incapacity numbers too.^

I think the problems in these areas is exacerbated by the migration, often through no fault of their own, of people who are disadvantaged already. When the amount a council has to pay to house somebody who is a drug user, has just been released from prison, or has a large family, poor mental health- (or whatever, those are just examples) they often try to shift the ‘problem’. I know that people were moved from London boroughs to South Wales for that reason. Their original local authority paid the bill for a fixed period for the housing, but that was all.

The government is spending too much on “unproductive” activities - spending that does not return a profit, in addition energy infrastructure needs investment, now we are having to import at high prices.
There isn’t a short term fix because the investment over the last 20yrs has been so low and it’s going to take another 20 to update everything.

The government is spending too much on “unproductive” activities - spending that does not return a profit,

Would you care to tell us what unproductive activities you are referring to, Katie59, and why government should 'make a profit'?

The economists are suggesting that the UKs economic situation is similar to what we experienced in the 1970s.

That crises was initially caused by the Middle East oil crises was was then exacerbated by the industrial unrest in particular the coal miners. Remember the 3 day week?

On top of that there was a rapid rise in inflation leaving many families struggling.

Sounds very similar to today.

It became known as the British disease, where we lost competitive advantage over other developed countries, caused not just by external factors such as global crises, stagflation and structural changes, but also by internal factors like low levels of productivity, due to lack of investment, there were recognised shortcomings in the education system leading to a lack of skills, poor labour relationships, and economic policy failure on the part of successive governments.

Yes, Casdon, you are right about the import of people being "exported" from cities such as London to cheaper rental properties in seaside towns. The regulations state that the local authority of origin must pay for a fixed number of years rent, and then they become the responsibility of the receiving LA. The arrival may not have the skills required for work in the new area and they may have no family support for child care etc which adds to the unemployment levels of areas with, already significant needs.

Be interesting to see how the 1970 crises was dealt with.

The initial boost to the economy came as a result of the U.K. becoming a member of the EU. Trade increased dramatically throughout the period after joining and GDP rose substantially as a result leading to positive effects on income.

However we still suffered from what appeared built in structural high inflation, caused by the poor trade relationships and over powerful unions causing wage/inflation spiral.
In my view when economies are badly handled by government you will always get industrial unrest as families struggle to deal with the rising cost of living.

When Thatcher came to power she did so with an entirely different economic plan to what had preceded her in the years after the war.

Her desire was to reduce inflation, reduce the power of the unions, reduce the trade deficit and increase productivity.

So she set about tackling this by introducing what became known as “Thatcher-economics” basically monetarist policy.

However whilst succeeding to reduce inflation, by withdrawing the supply of money she also succeeded in causing a very deep recession, causing tens of thousands of liquidated businesses and 3 million unemployed.

Much misery.

The result of Thatcher economics can still be seen in so many areas in the U.K. which have been talked about up this thread.

Katie59

The government is spending too much on “unproductive” activities - spending that does not return a profit, in addition energy infrastructure needs investment, now we are having to import at high prices.
There isn’t a short term fix because the investment over the last 20yrs has been so low and it’s going to take another 20 to update everything.

I don't understand this comment either. The government's job is to make sure that the population has its basic needs met by redistributing wealth at times. It needs to encourage people to contribute to other people's needs. Money is a means to keep the flow of wealth moving, which is why it taxes. It's a proxy to give people some choice and enables them to buy what they want/need (hopefully). The government shouldn't be making a profit. It doesn't have any shareholders (or shouldn't have) and doesn't pay out dividends.