This is probably an accidentally damning verdict of the schemes and ideas from the past years to 'help unemployment' or cut down JSA claimants, but could there be a viable reason for keeping unemployment high that Joe Public could never realise? Or is it really just governments thinking throwing money at contractors to not look for jobs for claimants or mandatory unpaid placements in retail could somehow help rather than damage?
I can see this just sounds like a veiled attack, but I'm legitimately asking because I see this and think there must be a political reason and that they're pretending to try and help, but wanting figures stay high (or even make them higher).
Gordon Brown was blatantly trying to create a client state. Whether or not that includes the unemployed is debatable - but he certainly wanted to engineer millions of Labour-dependent voters.
It is possible that they may view high rates of unemployment as meaningless, or at least not much of an issue.
Alternatively, the situation may be a little too rough to just 'deal with it'. It seems ridiculous to say that there is a nicely packed ''solution'' to the problems facing this country (unemployment included). If there was, then why hasn't the government used it? Surely if they are to solve the problems, they'll remain in power? It's my belief that issues which face us have solutions, but they take years to function, or are difficult to impliment, if not impossible.
But don't take my word for it, i'm not an expert.
Well, the higher the unemployment rate and the worse the job market, the more desperate people will become and they'll be forced to accept worsening pay and conditions. Can't see anyone in this government having a problem with that, unfortunately.
I can't see why. Common sense should tell politicians that if they ensure people have stable jobs, those people are going to be more likely to vote for them.
As demand can be derived from employment/ disposable income, a high unemployment would lower demand.
As inflation is derived from demand, lower demand would lower inflation.
So if, economically speaking, the government had a policy conflict between lowering unemployment and lowering inflation (which they do) and decided stabilising inflation was more important, then theoretically they WOULD want unemployment higher.
Of course, this is only theoretically speaking
I think that most jobs will not be full time, they will be part time as business can afford more people at lower hours. Or the alternative being that we work longer for less money. The cost of living will eventually be very high which will cause the gap between the rich and poor to become larger. People will become desperate and accept any job, unemployment will fall but we still will be working for less.
The only thing politicians care about is being re-elected. If you can come up with a reason why high unemployment results in a higher probability of being re-elected then yes.
Unemployment makes people angry and restless. Look what happened in Libya and Egypt, you have a huge youth bulge and no jobs so people go out protesting/rioting. No government really wants it, although 'scoungers' are a great political escape goat.
Norman lamont (tory) said during the 92 recession: unemployment was a price worth paying to control inflation.
This did raise the uncomfortable question about who was paying for low inflation and who was benefitting.
Politicians are a bit more circumspect these days so now you're unlikely to hear one blurt it out.