Osborne’s Zones only create 5% of jobs projected


by Sunny Hundal    
9:00 am - February 28th 2013

      Share on Tumblr

The Financial Times ran an extraordinary story yesterday.

You’ll recall that in 2011 George Osborne said that the government would bring in ‘Enterprise Zones’ to create jobs in the British economy.

Of course, many of us on the left pointed out repeatedly that this was a barmy idea and there was no evidence EZs actually worked.

So what’s happened so far?

The FT reports that:

The 24 zones were announced in 2011 by the chancellor with the promise that they would create 30,000 new jobs by the end of the parliament and aid Britain’s economic recovery.

That’s actually not a lot of jobs, given they were billed as Britain’s saviour back in 2011.

So what has actually happened?

But nearly a year after they were set up, only 1,700 jobs have been created and some of the new zones – in Harlow, Sheffield and Sandwich – have barely any tenants.

The FT story (registration req’d) details how Conservative ministers have started to blame each other for poor performance.

It’s difficult to imagine a more incompetent Chancellor in the history of this country.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: News

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


No surprise as they were nt designed to create growth. We need jobs creation through social enterprise zones in deprived areas helping long term unemployed into what I call patient employment – not as expensive as it sounds and potentially v effective see my book how to make a million jobs

“It’s difficult to imagine a more incompetent Chancellor in the history of this country.”

Don’t be ridiculous. Gordon Brown.

Stuart: Brown, for all I loathe the man, did the right thing when the financial crisis hit. When Osbourne got in he immediately did the opposite. Result: two years of steady recovery followed by a nose-dive into tragedy.

However, I do disagree with the contention in the article. There were several 18th and 19th century Chancellors (some of them were also Prime Minister) who were at least as disastrous, and that’s without looking a the performances of pre-modern catastrophes like Hugh Despenser.

However, most of them had the simple excuse of not knowing any better. Systematic data, models and methods simply didn’t exist yet. Osbourne, however, should know better, and I would say he’s a candidate for worst Chancellor since Lamont, for sure. Possibly even the worst since Chamberlain.

If they were in office during the 18th or 19th century they were not officially a Prime Minister. The first official Prime Minister was Henry Campbell-Bannerman (1905). First Lord of the Treasury was and is their official title and before 1827, the First Lord of the Treasury was automatically also Chancellor of the Exchequer. If the First Lord of the Treasury was a peer the Second Lord of the Treasury became Chancellor of the Exchequer. Peers are banned from that office. Prime Minister signifying first among equals was sometimes unofficially used in the 19th century, but it was usually meant as a derogatory form of abuse.

@3 Chris

I’m glad you mentioned Lamont. Easily the worst until now.

*Suddenly it doesn’t feel so bad that Stoke-on-Trent didn’t get the enterprise it was promised by David Cameron. These enterprise zones were not created to provide jobs just a political decision to make it look like he cared about job creation. Disappointing but not surprising.

So Government interference in the economy has failed. Why is anyone surprised?

These enterprise zones are a waste of time. They have been latched onto by successive governments as a way of developing an area. First problem is, is that the government is involved and they land up for one bureaucratic reason or another land up costing a fortune and doing very little.

Lets make the whole country an enterprise zone through supply side policy.

5. Cherub

” I’m glad you mentioned Lamont. Easily the worst until now.”

Lamont was not much good and will forever be associated with the ERM debacle. However, most of the real blame he got could legitimately be attributed to others.

Worst Chancellor in my lifetime- Anthony Barbour
Runner up- George Osborne

Worst in the 20th century- Winston Churchill
Runner up- Stafford Cripps

*Barber* was his name his jacket was a Barbour.

Maybe because “100% of the benefits from NNDR relief are passed into rents and therefore accrue to landlords”.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/research/report42.pdf

@4 “Prime Minister signifying first among equals was sometimes unofficially used in the 19th century, but it was usually meant as a derogatory form of abuse.”

18th century, surely? For much of the 19th, though not yet the official term, it was the commonplace one (and not infrequently, though wrongly, used in official and semi-official contexts). That, indeed, is why it became official in 1905: because it was already in use. They’d hardly have decided out of the blue to make a term of abuse the formal way of referring to the Head of Government.

13. toryisinbred

A jobs a job even if its in the porn industry – Thick Scummy Tory Voter/MP


Reactions: Twitter, blogs




Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.