sorry, here's the link.
[urlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/mar/12/politics.past[/url

i read that labour left more people unemployed than when they came to power. as 2.5m is a bigger number than 1.7m/2.0m.
there's 1 other interesting snippet from that piece from march 2007

If we stick to the Office of Natonal Statistics figures then the claimant count in May 97 was 1.62m from an umployed figure of 2.05m, in Nov 10 it was 1.58m from 2.49m unemployed.

So if you're into plucking figures in order to wave a political flag then the very simplest of comparisons is true, the latest claimant figure is lower then when Labour came to power, or to put it another way the last set of claimant figures that the outgoing Tory party left was higher than the figures that the Tory/LibDem coalition are working with now.

I'm not quite sure what the Guardian correspondants comparison has to do with the Labour Party though being as they wouldn't really be responsible for causing the unemployment in May 97 would they ?


One very pertinent point from the ONS figures is that since mid-2005 the difference between unemployed and claimants has been growing and as all three party's can take responsibility for those figures then then question is, in Nov '12 almost 900,000 people were unemployed but not claiming JSA and as the notes to those stats in my link state that can be caused by the fact that the top line unemployed figures are actually an average over three months and therefore not a definitive snapshot figure whereas the claimant figures are accurate for that month - but mainly because there is a trenche of people who do not qualify for JSA when they are unemployed, mainly the young school leavers, and its they who should be our biggest concern and its they who have been contributing to the widening gulf between "unemployed" and "claimant".

we can stick to whatever figures you like, the simple fact is more people were unemployed when labour left power than when they came to power.

That would be two years into the global financial crisis.

One of the reasons that the deficit was lower under the Labour governments, until the global financial crisis, was that unemployment was lower than under the Conservatives governments of both Margaret Thatcher and John Major.

The Tories could, for the wrong reasons (IMO), maybe get this right. If, as I have previously proposed, they can split the French-German axis that dominates Europe and isolate France in policy terms we could all come out of this well. As I have said before, a Northern European powerhouse with France being isolated, possibly as the champion of the impoverished South would be a good outcome.

Here's a thing: why do we keep responding to someone who has so little respect for the rest of the users of this forum and for their own 'arguments' that they have admitted they cannot be bothered even using basic correct punctuation?

I've been ignoring most of his posts, suggest you do to, you'll miss nothing.

You're probably right.

He (or she) is a good poster. Provides some balance to the utter rubbish that infects most of your posts on the forum, and the fact that you felt it was necessary to abuse him a few weeks ago proves that you don't have the intellectual capacity to respond to his points.

And why was that ?

You can't just wave numbers around like a flag above your head unless you're prepared to stop and think about what it is you're trying to say, there is an obvious reason why unemployment rose from 2008 to 2010 and its the same reason why it has stayed pretty much static from 2010 to 2012 and if any political party wants to take the blame or the credit for that figure then by all means, sew it to their flag and wave it.

The important and most pertinent point that you should be addressing is what can be done to reduce the numbers - assuming that you believe they should be lower in the first place ?

i'd rather not use basic correct punctuation than just spout lies to try and back up my own petty prejudices.

does unemployment not count in a recession or something? are they simply a 'price worth paying'?

this statement is simply a lie. nothing more, nothing less. now, you as do several others may like to pretend that 2008-2010 didn't happen, but it did.

Amazingly I've talked you completely around in a circle, you now seem to be trying to prove to me that unemployment rose in 2008 to 2012 because of the two recessions that occured in that period ?

I already know that, THAT is the point that I was trying to make to you when you asked why unemployment was so high in 2010



Your second quote is not one of mine.

i know exactly why unemployment went up. it's what tends to happen in a recession. i never asked why unemployment was so high in a recession. you should stop banging your head against the wall, it prevents you reading what's actually written as opposed to what you want to see.

i know the second quote isn't yours, it's from someone who thinks 1.7m/2.0m is a bigger number than 2.5m.

So you've answered (at last) your own original question.

Good, are we done ?

i didn't have an original question? you're clearly done.

Really ?

The punctuation thing again, putting a question mark at the end of a sentence, sort of turns it into a question you see.

really? that's what those straws you clutched at came up with? ? ? ?

Deary me, you try and engage some grown up conversation but its not long before the playground kicks in is it ?

oh god, so you're still not done. here, i'll help. the bit in bold below, go find it, then get back to me. that's you're starting point.

Congratulations.

That's probably one of the stupidest posts ever seen on these boards.

???

Don’t argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience

not quite as stupid as thinking 2.5m is a smaller number than 2.0m.

Everyone reading this will have picked up on the fact that one needs to see beyond headline numbers ... but you either can't or, more likely, won't.