is around 323 thousand. That means that: Approximately 68 percent of the intervals from one standard error below the estimate to one standard error above the estimate would include the true population value ... [and] ... Approximately 95 percent of the intervals from 1.96 standard errors below the estimate to 1.96 standard errors above the estimate would include the true population value. So we can be fairly certain that employment rose by at least 227 thousand in September 2012. Equally, we can be as certain that it rose 873 thousand or even 1.4 million. The standard errors are thus large but we know them and can take them into account when we draw conclusions. But in my view the real issue is the situation over time -- since the January 2007 peak participation rate. To see what that decline in participation means for the growth of the labour force, consider the following graph, which shows the actual labour force since January 2007 (indexed at 100) up to September 2012 (blue line) and total employment (red line). The movement in the labour force is a combination of the declining participation rate and the growing working age population. The absolute change in the labour force over that time has been 1919 thousand persons, an increase of 1.25 per cent, which is very modest indeed. Over the same period, employment has increased by 3054 thousand leading to a rise in unemployment of 4973 thousand. The green line shows what the labour force would