Unemployment rate is six times higher than official figures

 Add your view

Nearly ten million people in Britain are out of work - more than six times the official unemployment rate - it was revealed last night.

The 'hidden army' of jobless accounts for a quarter of the working-age population.

Critics said the staggering numbers represented a 'huge pool of wasted talent' and fuelled concerns about the drain on the economy.

Scroll down for more

Employment minister Caroline Flint claimed the official unemployment figures were 'very strong'

The details are buried in the quarterly release of jobs figures from the Office of National Statistics published yesterday.

Ministers yesterday trumpeted the headline unemployment figure for June of 1.65million - a 45,000 fall from three months earlier.

But in the small print, the ONS figures reveal that the real total is 9.6million, because a further 7.95million people in Britain are classed merely as 'economically inactive'.

They are not listed as unemployed but do not go to work because they are sick, looking after family or simply refuse to find a job.

While they are not claiming unemployment benefits, many rely on other handouts such as incapacity benefit.

The 'economically inactive' currently form 21.2 per cent of the working-age population - 124,000 more than a year ago and the second highest figure on record.

The highest figure was in May 1997 - the month that the Conservatives lost the General Election after a severe economic downturn - when 21.6 per cent were inactive.

Some 1.89million of the current total are students, 2.35million are carers for elderly relatives or stay-athome mothers, and 2.04million are on long-term sickness.

A further 198,000 are on temporary sickness leave, 619,000 have retired early and 35,000 are classed as 'discouraged workers', meaning they are not interested in finding work.

Kieran O'Keeffe, policy adviser for the British Chambers of Commerce, described the increase as 'worrying'.

He added: "Whilst we accept that many people cannot work for valid reasons, such as those with caring responsibilities or in early retirement, there are many more that are claiming welfare in one form or another.

"These represent a "hidden unemployed", lost within the complexity of official statistics.

"This underlines the urgent need to find a long-term solution to welfare dependency, which, if left unchecked, will condemn a growing proportion of the working population to a cycle of low aspiration and worklessness."

The Conservatives' Philip Hammond said the figures were evidence that Gordon Brown's New Deal employment programme was failing.

of the working-age population is 'economically inactive'

"The 9.6million people of working age not working in Britain today represent a huge pool of wasted talent," he said.

"Many of these people could work, and would want to work, if given the right incentives and support."

Employment minister Caroline Flint yesterday claimed the official unemployment figures were 'very strong'. The so-called claimant count was 855,300, down by 8,500 from the previous month and the lowest total for over two years.

The number of people in work increased by 93,000 over the quarter to June to 29.07million, the second highest figure on record.

A spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions said: "Excluding students, inactivity has fallen by 140,000 since 1997 and the rate has fallen by 1.4 percentage points.

"This suggests that our reforms to help people move off incapacity benefits and move closer to the labour market are working.'

• Labour MPs have warned Gordon Brown not to hold a snap General Election, even though he boasts a ten-point lead in the polls.

Leading lights in the party said trying to capitalise on the 'Brown bounce' of his first few weeks in office could backfire on the Prime Minister, costing him key marginal seats.

In an autumn election, Labour could suffer from a low turnout due to bad weather, a backlash in Scotland and a lack of activists, they said.

Senior backbencher Andrew Dismore said: "The Tories are in a mess. But that doesn't mean [an early election] would be the best thing for the country or Labour. It makes more sense for Gordon to deliver on policy announcements.

'Our troops are likely to be in Iraq until next year. We need closure on that first."

 

 

Reader views (16)

 Add your view

Labour's much vaunted New Deal programme which promised training for the young has been a total failure. The New Deal has become nothing more than a punitive measure by which the long-term unemployed are forced to work a 30 hour week for an extra 15 pounds. In other words 50 pence an hour, lower than child slave labour rates in the third world. The only people to find work through the New Deal have been those Labour party appointees who administer the programme. With unemployment higher now than when Labour came to power it's obvious that the New Deal has failed. Time to scrap the New Deal and use the billions it wastes on our schools and hospitals.

- Tony Makara, Manchester

It strikes me as strange that students - "some 1.89 million of the current total" are included in the "economically inactive" count. Surely they'd be expected to be economically inactive?

- Richard Hancock, Bracknell, UK

I don't suppose these figures also come from the same company who say Labour have a 10 point lead?

- Fly, London

You are including mothers, students (both groups obviously do no work according to you. Tell a trainee doctor that) and the long-term sick in this statistic - so you are bodging your own statistics.


- R Smith, London

I knew that Labour lied about the statistics, but I never realised the true extent of it until now!
I pity the next government which has to try and sort out this mess, although the 'economically inactive' (i.e. unemployed) will almost certainly vote Labour to keep their handouts flowing, so little chance of a change for the forseeable future I fear.

- Mike, Tunbridge Wells

'Economically inactive' means they aren't claiming benefits - seriously, why does it matter if people choose to look after their families, study, retire early, etc - so long as they are not draining the benefits system?

- Ellen, London

Dan of Manchester - I couldn't have said it better myself. Trouble is I can't afford to leave the country otherwise I'd probably beat you to it!

- Sue, Orpington, Kent

So 10m unemployed, 10m in the civil service, 10m pensioners, 10m under the age of 16. So only 20m left to earn real money, doing real jobs and subsidising the rest of the country.

No wonder taxes are so high and services are so poor.

- Graham, Reading, England

Labour have being fudging these figures since they came into power. They do it with figures on immigration, crime, NHS waiting lists, exam results... in fact everything. I cant believe they were voted in a second time let alone a third. Why don't the people of the UK wake up. We are over taxed, over fined, spied on and generally used as cash cows for a government that experiments with social engineering and gives us nothing back for our money except lies and a country which I am seriously thinking about leaving.

- Dan, Manchester

New labour always had a problem with statistics.

- Georgie, London

This is a bit like the NHS waiting lists: not allowing people to join the queues generally means the numbers have to come down!

- Marianne, SW France

9.6 million people of working age but capable of work are inactive = 9.6 million people unemployed.

Bring back the Tories at least the media and the people in general would have blamed the Government and would have been hounded from office.

Not so the Labour Party they keep a straight face and say that unemployment is going down!
Ha, well I'd forgotten no one today is responsible for anything.

- Pat, Sussex

How come we are allowing more immigrants into the country then? Could this be a source of cheap labour! I would not trust a single word that comes from this Government, the only thing they have done consistently is to lie to the general public.

- Stephen D., London, England.

The Government lying about statistics? Never. Not this open and honest one, surely?

- Adam, Harrow, UK

Surprised at the Government fudging the figures and lying to the public? I'd be surprised if they didn't.

- Dave, London

Oh so the numbers from new Labour are incorrect? Surely not.

- Jacqueline, Hampstead, London

Add your comment

 

Name:

Your email address will not be publishedEmail:

Town and country:

Your comment:Terms and conditions make text area bigger You have  characters left.

Remember me - this will save your name, location and email address for when you leave your next comment.

Email me a link to these comments.