Youth unemployment has surged to 16.1%, meaning that one in six young people want a job but can’t find one. It’s no surprise when some estimate that half of the over 200,000 jobs lost since Labour took office have been among the youngest.
For those who don’t recall, the expression “Labour Isn’t Working” was the banner of a Conservative Party election campaign of 1979, and while unemployment rose sharply in the early term of office of the Thatcher period – that was also a period of the monetarist squeeze against inflation – the devastating impact on the Labour Party of being associated with unemployment – and union mayhem and inflation cannot be overstated. Even today, the shame of a party that used to bang on about the “dignity of labour”, when many working-aged adults aren’t in employment or seeking it, should be far higher than it is. But as we seem to be reminded almost daily with this clanking and sanctimonious government, a sense of shame appears to be absent. Being a socialist, it seems, means never having to say you’re sorry, and never having to understand that incentives matter.
Maybe the “new” slogan should be:
“Labour STILL isn’t working”.
However, “Labour” is likely “working” on “something”, but the peasants are not supposed to find out exactly what, until it is fully implemented and only reversibly via the time-honoured practice of “Civil War”.
NOBODY in their right mind wants a “civil war”, such events usually being horrendously destructive.
Those NOT of sound mind seem to subscribe to the idea that if you tear everything down, you can get the “peasants to cheerfully “build back better”. (Well, those not dead, disabled or fled).
In 1979 the world recession hit – but it was particularly bad in Britain due to rising taxes – Chancellor Geoffrey Howe has a very good reputation, but he does NOT deserve it – under him both taxes (overall – income taxes were cut, but the rise in sales tax, “VAT”, and other taxes more than counterbalanced that) and government spending, in spite of all the media lies about “cuts”, ROSE – both in money and as a proportion of the economy. Sadly British industry had been crippled by decades of “Collective Bargaining” (a creation of Acts of Parliament – there is nothing “free market” about it – in a free market if people refuse to turn up to work they get dismissed, and if people “picket” the entrance of a place of business, or a private home, this is OBSTRUCTION which-is-a-crime) and insane levels of taxation on INVESTMENT – British industry had become a Potemkin Village – a facade, ready to collapse.
James Prior was Employment Secretary (Margaret Thatcher was forced to give him the position) – and he did almost nothing to deregulate the labour market, he had a perfect opportunity to do so – as the public were sick of the unions due to the “Winter of Discontent” under the Labour government, but James Prior seems to have reasoned that if unemployment was allowed to dramatically rise (due to “Collective Bargaining” preventing the adjustment of wage rates to fit the actual state of the economy) the rise in unemployment would be blamed on Margaret Thatcher – who would then fall, perhaps being replaced by James Prior himself.
The cynical sabotage of James Prior (replaced by Norman Tebbitt – who finally did do some, very modest, labour market reform) was vicious – but not without precedent.
In 1956 Chancellor Harold MacMillan (“Super Mac”) strongly supported going into Suez and then undermined the operation (there was a “run on the Pound” – but “Super Mac” refused abandon the false exchange rate to the Dollar – the RIGGED “fixed exchange rate” that was undermining British industry, just as it had done in the late 1920s, even before Suez) – earning himself the tag “first in – first out”.
Harold M. was not insane – he had played a clever game, encourage Prime Minister Eden to intervene against the Dictator Nasser’s take over of the Suez canal (which was partly the fault of Eden – as he had removed British troops from the canal zone – in return from promises from Nasser – not understanding that culture Nasser came from regarded breaking one’s word as clever and praiseworthy), and then sabotage the operation to take the canal back – in order to bring down Eden and become Prime Minister himself. It worked – “Super Mac” became Prime Minister, and he continued the decline of Britain (much to the horror of Peter Thorneycroft, Nigel Birch, and Enoch Powell – who all resigned from the government in disgust at the rise of domestic government spending).
James Prior played a similar cynical game against Margaret Thatcher – and almost succeeded.
No apologies for the history lesson above – people need to know the real history of their country.
As for the present….
Taxes on employment have been increased, and employment regulations (dressed up as “rights”) are being increased – so UNEMPLOYMENT is increasing.
This is basic economics – of course unemployment is increasing.
The question is – is the deliberate aim of policy to increase unemployment (in order to make more people dependent on the state – and thus more likely to vote Labour, shades of the “Curley Effect” named after Mayor Curley of Boston who drove business enterprises out of Boston with the intention of making more people poor and dependent on city welfare programs – and thus more likely to vote for him), or are we dealing with people so ignorant that they do not understand even the most basic economics?
I do not know.
By the way…..
The idea that higher unemployment makes unions more moderate and in their wage demands is a myth – as union leaders, the people who make the demands, do not face the threat of unemployment.
Collective Bargaining, if (IF) imposed by government legislation (such as the Acts of Parliament in Britain of 1875 and 1906 – which did not “legalise unions” which were already legal – these Acts gave unions POWER), is NOT really limited by rising unemployment.
And nor can union leaders be tricked by Keynesians producing inflation – union leaders are not stupid, they understand that what matters is REAL wages, the “money illusion” (the idea that they can be tricked by increasing wages, but also increasing prices – by creating more Credit Money) is a myth – it is just wrong, it is an idea produced by men such as the late J.M. Keynes who had never worked in industry themselves and knew nothing about the intelligence of working men – and, falsely, assumed that working men are morons.
“Being a socialist, it seems, means never having to say you’re sorry, and never having to understand that incentives matter.”
Of course, they understand that incentives matter all too well when it comes to fining people for exceeding the speed limit, or platforming opinions of which the government disapproves.
Lastly for those who blame “gold” or “sound money” for unemployment.
The rigged-exchange-rate “gold standard” of Montague Norman, Governor of the Bank of England, in the late 1920s was a very different thing from gold-as-money – indeed Montague Norman had sabotaged the establishment of sound money in INDIA. Neither Montague Norman or his American counterpart Benjamin Strong of the New York Federal Reserve, supported sound money – they supported banker confidence tricks, to be blunt – they were CON MEN.
As for 1979 and after – money was entirely fiat by this time (other than in Switzerland – were some link with reality existed till the 1990s) and, as Enoch Powell pointed out in the 1980s, the money supply grew and grew.
Unemployment did not rise in the early 1980s because of “tight money” – as the money supply (which was entirely fiat – whim) grew and grew.
Again what most people are taught about the past (about history) is WRONG.
Why do you think ideas of conscription are floating round Europe?
Youth unemployment solved!
Yeah, I know, Russia but that bear was neutered long ago… In nearly four years of throwing everything at Ukraine they have achieved very little so I fail to see them as a credible threat unless Putin goes nuclear. And if Putin does that we need Israeli missiles, not the second-coming of Pike.
I know… Starmer will have the kids not just square-bashing (Rachel Thieves will have a monstrous regiment to go “Squire-Bashing”)*. You know, “good works”, enforced charity because Jesus and Muhammed both were really just social justice community organisers like Buddha and those other sorts…
*You wanna know why we is buggered? Meet me down my local pub and have a chat involving anyone with a small business, a farm, or indeed the landlord of the pub. He’s recently been told he needs to find another 14 grand a year and that is on top of intolerable energy prices, employer National Insurance… Yeah, they make running a small local business harder (you know the sort of things that often employ young folks) and youth employment goes up! It is a conundrum for the ages that is! I don’t want to sound overly Fraser here but our local undertaker has been forced to close. I suppose that shows the folks who said the only certainties in life were “death and taxes” were 50% correct.
NickM: “Why do you think ideas of conscription are floating round Europe? Youth unemployment solved!”
A friend of mine pointed out to me that in the Industrial Revolution, people who stole a loaf of bread etc could be transported to Australia/other places, or in some cases, were encouraged to move to the New World, as it were. The UK actually retrenched military spending after the Napoleonic Wars, although it had a large navy. The issue of unemployed/discontented youth was managed in a variety of ways (the demographics of the 19th century were younger than today, given medical science, diet, etc).
Vast numbers left the UK and Ireland (the Irish famine was a factor, but not the only one). Lots of Scotch-Irish left for the US; in my native East Anglia, farmers and some of their labourers took up the offer to buy a farm in the grain-producing states of the US and Canada. Others went to South Africa and Rhodesia; some went to grow rubber plantations in Malaya or ended up working on ships in Singapore or building ships and maintaining them in Malta. We got out into the world and took advantage of the spread of the Anglosphere. Much of this was not really about what the de-colonising intellectuals think of as being about conquest, but was also a huge outlet for labourers who found themselves dislocated by the steam age, etc.
With AI, and all the other forces – including rising taxes and regulations – that are adding to unemployment at home, and a sense of frustration, this exodus is unlikely to stop. And it will not be just among the white population or those who can trace their origins back for centuries. First/second-gen Poles have gone back to Poland because they make more money back home, for example. Some prosperous UK citizens of Indian descent are back in India, or live in the UAE to take advantage of Non-Resident Indian status. It may also be the case that some ethnic Chinese have decided to go to Singapore – if they can afford it – or Australia, etc, if they have the eduational and practical qualifications.
Some of this is normal and not necessarily a major case of people “going Galt”, to borrow a concept from Ayn Rand. But it does suggest that the UK has been a draw for those dreaming of welfare and comfort and yet is increasingly unwelcome for those who work hard and want to see the benefits. This will not end well. And we have an “overproduction of elites” problem with too many folk with inflated university degrees realising, to their horror, that their expectations of their station in life don’t fit with reality.
Paul:
You are not wrong about MacMillan. Anyone who could allow the destruction of the Euston Arch was obviously a shit of the first order. Every time I had to use the soulless 1960s abortion which is Euston station I cursed the man.
Mind you, the fact that his wife was carrying on a long standing affair with the amoral toad Bob Boothby can’t have helped his morale much. But still, a shit.
Kind of feels the mainstream perspective of the Thatcher era – be it the standard left-wing view or the relatively triumphalist ‘Thatcherite’ perspective – have a lot of holes. Don’t think I need to elaborate on why the leftist perspective is often wrong. But when you read perspectives that the high unemployment of the 1980s was a grim necessity to allow monetarism to work on controlling inflation, I would have in the past probably accepted that. But the more I’ve read how monetarism actually didn’t really reduce the money supply, the more I’ve questioned that point of view. I think a lot of people were made unemployed unnecessarily, and unemployment stayed quite persistently high throughout the 1980s. I have read that towards the late 1980s there began pressure to push some long term unemployed to different forms of long term welfare like disability to get them off the unemployment statistics. I’m not sure how rampant that was then, or if that was a practice that predated the 1980s either. But we know it’s rampant today. This doesn’t equate to a repudiation of everything the Thatcher government did of course, I just don’t subscribe to the relatively messianic view some people have.
As for Brits leaving the UK, I don’t think there will be anything like the 19th or early 20th centuries. There’s no empire to move to, no frontiers to cultivate. The Dominions don’t let Brits move their willy nilly and are expensive and have most of the same societal ills as Britain, if not worse. America will be harder to emigrate to, is expensive, has in places much worse social ills than Britain (don’t care what anyone says, nowhere in Britain is as bad as Minnesota, Chicago or Detroit yet) and is probably one or two elections possibly away from serious grief. The EU is largely closed off to most Brits after Brexit, and too few know the languages well so couldn’t prosper there unless they get plum jobs at multinationals. Gibraltar, Bermuda and the Falklands are too small to accommodate people. Dubai, Singapore etc are small, not realistic unless you have significant means, and culturally alien (especially Dubai).
JohnK – he was indeed. A dreadful man – a Modernist pretending to be a Conservative.
Martin – as you point put, the money supply went UP (not down) every year under Margaret Thathcher
So “monetarism” did not cause unemployment – because there-was-no tight control of the money supply. X can not cause Y – when there is no X. The Labour Market was broken by government-granted union power – James Prior did nothing to change this, but Norman Tebbitt did act – he did not do as much as he should have, but at least he did something.
Enoch Powell pointed this (that the money supply was going UP and that government spending was going UP) out at the time – and even I knew that when the BBC (and so on) talked about “cuts” in government spending they were LYING.
I agree with you about there being no where to go.
New Zealand, Australia, Canada, the United States – everywhere Westerners are in decline and other peoples are rising.
The future of an individual is always death – but individuals used to be able to say to themselves “I will die – but my nation, my people, will live on” – that is no longer true, as most Western nations (Western peoples) are dying.
Paul Marks
‘Lastly …’
Dear Mary and Joseph, if only that were true.
“Labour isn’t working”.
And in other breaking news, water is wet.
Tell me something I don’t know …
Philip Scott Thomas – if I make any errors of fact, please let me know.
It is not my fault that people do not know the basic history of these matters. If they did, I would not lay it out (because I would not have to) – but, as things are (with mythology, not the real history, being taught) I have to.
For example, people (even libertarians) confuse the confidence trick (fraud) of a “Gold Standard”, such as the one from 1925 to 1931 in the United Kingdom – with gold-as-money, and people (even libertarians) often think that Margaret Thatcher “cut government spending” and “had a tight money supply”, that something called “monetarism” was followed.
The state of the roads seem to me to be an indictment of the government and local authorities. I’m 67 and I have never seen the roads as bad as they are now in my lifetime. Crumbling infrastructure is pretty sound evidence of our descent into third world status.
If the post had just said “unemployment is going up – why is this?”
Then I would have just typed that if taxes on employment and regulations (dressed up as “rights”) on employment, are increased – then unemployment is indeed likely to go up.
But the post went into historical matters – so what actually happened in the past had to be explained.
There was no “monetarism” if by this term is meant either control of the money supply (the money supply continued to increase after 1979), or a reduction on government spending (which also continued to increase after 1979).
Sadly real history is not presented – not in the media and not in the education system (the schools and universities) either, what is is taught (on a wide range of matters) is so wildly distorted – that it is basically mythology.
Stonyground – correct.
Very large corporations are in charge of the roads – and they are not doing a good job.
Confusing large corporations with government (taxpayer funded) contracts to do XYZ – confusing them with a free market, is one of the big mistakes I made in my younger years.
Of course, when the British state tries to do something directly it also fails.
So it is failure either way – which means you are correct in your conclusion as to where our country is heading.
Paul Marks
If I make any errors of fact, please let me know.
Are you serious? Do you want to look at your posts qualitatively or quantitatively?
Qualitatively, you are wrong about Martin Luther’s theology. You are wrong about Article One, Section Ten of the US Constitution. You are wrong about corporate taxation. All of these faults have been pointed out to you and yet you refuse to acknowledge your mistakes.
Quantitatively, one of the games I play with Samizdata is to count the the number of comments on a post and then count the number of comments made by you. You should try it. You might also be surprised to know how many times you say the same damn thing over and over again. Is it any wonder that my work colleague just skips any post you’ve made.