THE article Tatton MP determined to create more jobs which recently appeared in the Knutsford Guardian was a poor article.

Firstly, unemployment data by parliamentary constituency is labelled as ‘experimental’ by the ONS ie you shouldn’t read too much in to it as the data may not be 100 per cent accurate.

Secondly, the 0.8 per cent quoted is the number unemployed, receiving out-of-work benefits and able to start a new job straight away, so excludes those ineligible for out-ofwork benefits, choosing not to claim benefits or those who cannot start work straight away eg due to illness or childcare arrangements.

Of course unemployment is falling if the unemployment count is actually those claiming out-ofwork benefits when the conditions for receiving them have been made much tighter.

In both Tatton and across the country the difference between male and female unemployment is shocking.

As it currently seems fashionable to promote gender equality perhaps Ms McVey can explain what additional support men need so that the male unemployment rate is lowered?

Maybe there’s an underlying problem where it’s easier for women to get entry level jobs than men?

On the other hand if she thinks there is no issue and it’s the way the statistics are presented then maybe she should stop quoting from them.

In the article, a quote from Ms McVey also referred to public transport improvements improving employment prospects – can she explain when we are going to get those improvements as bus services were cut in Cheshire East in April and unemployment initially went up following those cuts.

Peter Smith Knutsford