Here's some odd numbers for unemployment and shows how you can make anything fit For the three months ending July 2020, the highest employment rate estimate in the UK was in the South East (79.6%) and the lowest was in Northern Ireland (71.5%). For the three months ending July 2020, the highest unemployment rate estimate in the UK was in the North East (5.2%) and the lowest was in Northern Ireland (2.9%). For the three months ending July 2020, the highest economic inactivity rate estimate in the UK was in Northern Ireland (26.3%) and the lowest was in the South East (17.4%). I demand a recount
Economic inactivity measures people without a job but who are not classed as unemployed because they have not been actively seeking work within the last four weeks and/or they are unable to start work within the next two weeks. Our headline measure of economic inactivity is for those aged between 16 and 64 years.
I completely agree. In a world where "no platforming" and "safe spaces" are becoming the norm, it's refreshing to be able to freely exchange different and opposing views with out triggering sanctions.
(change April to Jul) % employment unemployment inactive Wales 74.7 (0.3) 3.1 (0.1) 22.9 (-0.4) Scotland 74.3 (0.1) 4.6 (0.1) 22.0 (-0.1) England 77.0 (0.2) 4.1 (0.2) 19.6 (-0.3) NI 71.5 (-0.1) 2.9 (0.6) 26.3 (-0.4) Latest ONS stats. TBH surprised more employment in Wales than Scotland. NI is 70% of the rate of unemployment as England yet 135% of the England inactive rate...
Sorry, I may have drifted, but I find these stats pretty interesting. 20% of the workforce aged 16-64 right now are inactive and not working, i.e. there is something that means they do not either sign on or are actively looking for work and are not employed. 20%. No wonder we're f*ucked. As that 20% must surely then be taking up lots of NHS care too. Also, how would the counties survive when its clear England (London and SE) are propping up all UK as the regions take out far more than they put in? No wonder English regions (like SW) want some kind of regional power akin to devolution, given that are bigger communities, high generating tax parts of the UK than S/W/NI and want equality. Still can't get over 20% (plus in non-England) of the working age population neither have a job nor are seeking one. millions Active Employed Unemployed Inactive tax revenue spend per head United Kingdom 34,213 32,522 1,692 8,602 181,000 £9,584 Great Britain 33,322 1,665 1,657 8,293 England 29,001 27,532 1,469 7,084 158,000 £9,296 North East 1,283 1,199 84 384 4,120 £10,183 North West 3,621 3,451 171 1,004 13,800 £9,865 Yorkshire/Humber 2,716 2,576 140 750 9,620 £9,123 East Midlands 2,436 2,307 130 609 9,560 £8,601 West Midlands 2,984 2,823 161 747 10,900 £9,242 East 3,224 3,074 150 714 18,900 £8,736 London 5,078 4,756 322 1,215 45,700 £10,425 South East 4,799 4,613 186 1,010 33,300 £8,601 South West 2,859 2,734 125 652 12,400 £8,910 Wales 1,531 1,461 70 459 4,780 £10,656 Scotland 2,790 2,672 118 750 11,800 £11,247 Northern Ireland 891 857 35 309 2,790 £11,590 *unfortunately the pagination when posted isn't the same as drafted!
Part of the problem has been Parliament’s funding model which is based on funding the Uk regions in proportion to population density. Consequently, The south east gets more investment which attracts more infrastructure, which attracts more business which creates more job opportunities, which attracts more people which attracts more investment and so on. I think that Gove is leading a review of this investment model with a view to changing it to one where investment is most needed.
If you have higher density surely you need more funds? The highest populated get least per head generally. Just makes you wonder how U.K. of England would be different to U.K. of now.
At a microeconomic level yes, but countries work on a macroeconomic level and it's not in any government's interest to concentrate wealth and opportunity in any particular area at the expense of other areas whose resources are under utilised. Hence, stimulate growth in those areas by greater investment. If you take Wales and Scotland out of the equation, then you'll merely be replacing them with an equally underinvested North West and North East and that investment differential will still remain.
yip, the UK Gov is intending on getting involved in devolved areas. funding in Scotland, Wales and N/I too i think is dependent on the funding given to england. population numbers are thrown into the mix but it deffo doesn't take into account of the geography of countries other than england. 100 schools with 10 pupils cost more or less than 1 school of 1000? ect ect ect. in the past, for extra funding to be awarded outside of england it had to argued for in england. so its fair to say partys like the SNP have argued more for english counties than their english counterparts just to receive more via the Barnet formula. except we now have that lil wheeze known as EVEL. where debates that appear english only but have Barnet consequentials, have seen MP's that dont represent english constituencies barred from voting.
UKIP wanted to scrap Barnet, but as the torys basically are UKIP now, i guess their plans are coming to fruition
Wouldn’t it be nice if this pandemic proved that money can sit in London (or the finance sector) but the jobs that support it can be in Preston or Middlesbrough or Bets-y-Coed if the digital infrastructure is sufficient.
How do they count people who have taken early retirement, are supported by their spouse, or live off private means and investments? Not everyone wants to work, but that doesn’t mean they are entitled to Job Seeker’s Allowance or Universal Credit, nor that they would want them.
And so it begins? https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Au...not-Britain-to-make-Ariya-electric-car-for-EU
Seems a bit odd, given they will have tariffs from Japan I think and uk/Japan deal is done. Plus brexit deal isn’t concluded yet. No plant in EU. Sounds like positioning statement.
