As of July 2025, the UK’s unemployment rate has climbed to 4.7%, the highest in nearly four years, leaving 1.67 million people jobless—a jump of 120,000 since Labour took office after their July 2024 victory. Young adults (16-24) face a 14.2% unemployment rate, up sharply from last year, while payrolled jobs have dropped by 178,000 since June 2024, per the Office for National Statistics (ONS). These stark figures, released on July 29, 2025, challenge Labour’s promise of economic stability under Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Chancellor Rachel Reeves. Are these trends a mere coincidence, or a consequence of policy missteps since August 1, 2024? Guided by the philosophical lenses of Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, let’s explore this crisis with a critical eye.
Unemployment Trends Since August 1, 2024
Since Labour’s ascent, unemployment has edged from 4.4% in late 2024 to 4.7% by mid-2025, with payrolled jobs declining for seven straight months. Vacancies at 727,000 signal a tightening market. Unlike the EU’s stable 5.9% since August 2024, the UK’s rise stands out, hinting at policy influence.
Causes Through a Philosophical Lens
Labour’s policies since August 2024 offer clues to this rise, viewed through Friedman’s and Hayek’s wisdom. The £25 billion hike in Employer National Insurance Contributions (NICs) in April 2025, linked to 276,000 job losses, reflects a tax burden. Friedman, in Capitalism and Freedom (1962), warned, “Inflation is taxation without legislation,” a critique apt as the UK lags behind the US’s freer market (4.1%). The Employment Rights Bill, rolled out by October 2024 with day-one rights and a zero-hour contract ban, may deter hiring, with 50% of small businesses reporting delays. Hayek, in The Road to Serfdom (1944), called this “fatal conceit,” unlike the EU’s balanced 5.9% approach. Labour’s slow green job rollout further stalls recovery, with 2025’s 0.1% GDP growth delaying relief. An expert from the Institute for Fiscal Studies notes, “The NICs increase risks pushing unemployment toward 5.5% by 2026 if businesses continue to cut jobs,” underscoring the policy’s weight. Friedman’s monetarist view would decry fiscal overreach, while Hayek might see centralized planning’s flaws, amplified by Labour’s moves since 2024. [Insert Visual: Bar chart of UK job losses vs. EU stability.]
Philosophical Reflection and Path Forward
Through Friedman’s and Hayek’s eyes, this crisis reflects a departure from market-driven solutions. Friedman’s natural rate of unemployment theory suggests Labour’s NICs push beyond equilibrium, risking inflation without job gains. Hayek’s belief in spontaneous order implies overregulation disrupts self-correction. A wiser path might include:
- Tax Relief: Ease NICs to encourage hiring, honoring Friedman’s free-market ethos.
- Flexible Rights: Delay Rights Bill enforcement until recovery, heeding Hayek’s caution.
- Targeted Support: Boost retraining for automation-hit sectors, aligning with Labour’s service goals.
Conclusion
Labour’s policies since August 2024 have coincided with a rising unemployment crisis, with the 4.7% rate and 276,000 job losses tied to NICs raising urgent questions. While green jobs and worker rights hold long-term promise, their slow start leaves workers adrift. Friedman and Hayek might ask: Is this overreach worth the cost? Share your views below—can policy steer us back?
Sources