New analysis from @ONS suggests fall in non-UK nationals in employment is much smaller than suggested by Labour Force Survey data (although still a large fall in EU nationals in London)

ons.gov.uk/employmentandl…
Key table here. Latest LFS data shows a 480K fall in EU nationals in employment; RTI data shows fall of 184K (concentrated in London) Image
Does this mean the analysis of the LFS data @StrongerInNos & published here is wrong? escoe.ac.uk/estimating-the… It certainly suggests our "upper bound" of 1.3 million is overstated..
but uncertainties remain huge (for reasons ONS explain) [RTI doesn't cover self-employed - who are disproportionately non-UK born - or people not in work; definition of non-UK nationals differs between LFS and RTI, etc].
ONS work confirms our conclusion LFS is significantly *overestimating* UK nationals in employment. LFS data shows no significant change over year while RTI data shows a 600K fall!

[although some of the latter will be non-UK born who have subsequently acquired UK nationality]

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Jonathan Portes

Jonathan Portes Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @jdportes

25 Mar
Important correction today from @MetroUK of their irresponsible and highly misleading claim "DEATHS SOAR....NOT FROM COVID". Image
This was the @MetroUK front page splash:

Image
@MetroUK's pathetic defense was that it buried in the article a qualification making it factually accurate. @IpsoNews dismissed this

"The headline was not supported by the text of the article, providing a significantly misleading impression on a matter ofgreat significance"
Read 5 tweets
24 Dec 20
The economic impact of the Brexit deal: our analysis

ukandeu.ac.uk/research-paper…
Key points to remember:

1. Leaving Single Market/Customs Union means major new trade barriers - customs and border checks, regulatory barriers, end of rules allowing services to be sold across borders.
2. A deal doesn't change that. It means no tariffs and quotas and *some* provisions that will stop trade breaking down. But the main impacts -on our and the government's own analysis, about two-thirds - happen either way
Read 9 tweets
25 Nov 20
*Why* did the Home Office ignore the law in order to implement racist policies? As the EHRC report found, because that's what Theresa May and David Cameron wanted.

bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politi…
As a direct consequence, Home Office Ministers and officials deliberately and illegally ignored the impact of the "hostile environment" on ethnic minorities:

equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/…
Home Office Ministers - in particular but not only Theresa May - and senior officials *chose* to ignore the racist impacts of their policies, despite repeated and direct warnings at the time.

None of this was accidental..
Read 6 tweets
27 Aug 20
@StevePeers @StrongerInNos @CatioMiles @alexandrabulat @jillongovt Problem here isn't accuracy IMO. It's inappropriate in tone and violates the GCS code, in particular

"should be objective and explanatory, not biased or polemical"

"be sensitive to tone and guard against perceived attacks on particular interests, organisations or individuals"
@StevePeers @StrongerInNos @CatioMiles @alexandrabulat @jillongovt If anyone wishes to complain, I would suggest doing to Alex Aiken, head of the Government Communication Service, and Matthew Rycroft, Permanent Secretary of the Home Office.
Read 4 tweets
22 Jul 20
This from @BBradley_Mans is false. Section 1 of the Equality Act 2010 *requires* public authorities to consider socio-economic disadvantage & to exercise powers with due regard to reducing inequality.

*This* government has *chosen* not to bring these provisions into force.(1/3)
Here is Section 1 of the Equality Act 2010. Why is @BBradley_Mans making this false claim, and will he correct it?
I also note that AFAIC @BBradley_Mans never signed the Early Day Motion calling for Section 1 to be brought into effect. So this tweet is not only false, but pure virtue-signalling. If he was serious about this issue, why not actually do something?

edm.parliament.uk/early-day-moti…
Read 4 tweets
8 Apr 20
Well-argued and thought-provoking as usual by @dsmitheconomics but for once I disagree with the conclusion (1/8 or so)

thetimes.co.uk/article/the-ru…
I think this is too pessimistic.

Virus won't significantly affect physical, human or intellectual capital. As a consequence, most conventional models would predict little/no effect on potential output. That is, sharp bounce-back to “trend” should be both possible & likely (2/8)
David right to describe channels leading to permanent damage. First, firm-specific capital – some firms will indeed go under. But most are likely to be relatively small and in sectors (retail/tourism/hospitality) where turnover already high (& partly random in normal times) (3/8)
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!