Lord Freud praises government's jobs policy during recession | Business | guardian.co.uk .
Lord Freud, a Conservative spokesman on welfare, has congratulated the government on its handling of the recession, saying it has contributed to 500,000 people not losing their jobs.
Three good things:
1) He's right
2) By default he admits his own party got this horribly wrong
3) Since no one can be sure which 500,000 jobs were saved he gives every person in employment a solid reason for voting Labour
The Tory economic mess continues.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
The article reads:
“Freud said: “The process in Europe, including in Belgium and in Germany, is that subsidies are provided by government. This government has not supported that process and I congratulate them on that because it has saved a lot of money. That has happened more flexibly here than in any European country and is a testament to a relatively flexible labour market.”
Echoing the view of many independent economists, he went on: “There has been a substantial difference between this recession and other recessions,” saying the labour market ¬?flexibility especially in the higher ¬?echelons of the private sector in the UK has been substantial.
Asked by startled opposition peers who precisely he was praising, he explained: “I was congratulating the government on not subsidising a process of adjustment but allowing the market and the contract between the employers and employees to hold sway, albeit the employees took a hit.
“In practice what happened economically was that instead of having another half million people unemployed and fully dependent on the state, the misery was spread.”
This is the first time I have known Richard support a smaller role for government in anything. So I am pleased we can all agree that the free market is the right way to regulate labour relations during a recession even if it means that many people are forced to accept shorter working weeks and/or a smaller salary.
Hold on – you didn’t just read the headline, did you?
Oh Richard, really. Do quote the proper bit:
“Freud, a former businessman who has advised both Labour and the Tories, praised the government’s flexible labour market during debates on the government’s child poverty bill.
Admitting his remarks might not be “politically correct”, he said one of the key differences in the recession was the degree of labour market flexibility in the private sector,”
It’s that labour market flexibility that the Tories wanted to preserve and the unions and Labour destroy by extending employment rights to temps that he’s talking about, isn’t it?
That’s what he spun it as – and the bits you’ve chosen to highlight
But the reality is labour saved those jobs by intervening in the market – no amount of flexibility would have saved jobs without the spending Labour undertook
And if you really think temps saved the day you’re really very sad Tim
Perhaps you should come to the UK sometime
It’s not Portugal you know
Richard, he specifically states the opposite of what you’ve said. He says it was labour market flexibility, not government spending.
And I say he’s a Tory who got his analysis right for the wrong reasons
Unsurprising – he got onto the Tory benches after all
Richard’s right. Super labour market flexibility implies greater speed and volume of job losses – exactly like that which has happened in the US.
So the worthy Peer gets the conclusion right, but highlights the wrong driver. It is government deficit spending that has maintained those jobs.
Blinkered Tory do-nothing policy would almost definitely have seen 3m plus unemployed (just as happened 1992-3) in this private sector created crisis.