[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23340165UK unempolyment falls[/url. Yay!
However: "the number of long-term jobless rose."
"About 915,000 people have been out of work for more than a year, an increase of 32,000 and the highest total since 1996.
"Just over 460,000 people have been jobless for more than two years, the highest figure since 1997."
And ... "The number of people classed as economically inactive also increased in the latest quarter, up by 87,000 to 9.04 million."
So, perhaps the bubbly goes back on hold.
Further:
Quote the number of long-term jobless rose.="BBC"Unemployment is now 72,000 lower than a year ago, which Employment Minister Mark Hoban said was "encouraging".
"The fall in the number of people claiming out-of-work benefits ...'"
[my emphasis So no comment on how many people are in work, yet need in-work benefits because the pay is too low or because they cannot get enough hours? It's a very good illustration of why using the figure of those who are registered as 100% unemployed does not properly reflect the situation – and also of what confused some economists for a time a year or so ago, when unemployment – by that same definition – was not rising quite as expected, but the benefits bill was. The elephant in the room is underemployment, but that doesn't count for political purposes. So someone may be on a zero hours contract, and getting nothing in a week, but they don't get counted as unemployed.
Quote the number of long-term jobless rose.="BBC"... together with the news that there are currently over half a million vacancies available in the UK economy, show that there are opportunities out there for those who are prepared to work hard, and who aspire to get on in life," he said.'"
It shows nothing of the sort. At it's most simplistic (in keeping, therefore, with the nature of thew figures and the way they're used) there are 2.51 million people registered as out of work and there are "over half a million vacancies". In other words, there are not enough jobs for the number of unemployed.
Suggesting that it's the fault of those who don't get those vacancies is typical nastiness.
The headline figures also does not reveal whether those jobs are full-time, part-time, zero-hours contracts etc.
Only last week, it was revealed that [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/9798981/Graduates-face-toughest-job-market-since-depths-of-recession.htmlthings are getting tougher for graduates[/url – yet presumably, by Hoban's measure, any who don't get a job will only have themselves to blame.