Labour banging on about zero-hours contracts ...

[pjclarke]

That's in direct contradiction of what Cameron said on TV last week. He said the bulk of new jobs were traditional full-time employment.

Of course it might not be true, but he said it clearly several times, which suggests he feels safe it won't be ripped apart.

analysis by the ONS has demonstrated that self-employment in the UK was higher in 2014 than at any point over the past 40 years, at 4.6 million or 15% of the workforce. Of the 1.1 million rise in the number of people employed between the first quarter of 2008 and the second quarter of 2014, 732,000 were self-employed.

Real pay also declined 2008-2014. Cameron is lying.

Has David Cameron really created 1,000 jobs a day? | Business | The Guardian

[d000hg]

So because someone writes something supporting the view you want to believe, they're right and opponents are lying?

You're pretty easily led.

[Euler]

So because someone writes something supporting the view you want to believe, they're right and opponents are lying?

You're pretty easily led.

Most people "think" that way.
They have a position and then look for supporting "evidence", ignoring anything that conflicts with that position.
But dig deeper as I did in my precious post and you'll see numbers are quite often made up
Now that's true of left or right.
But what the lefties CHOOSE to ignore is that this country for various reasons is far better off than any similar country in Europe, in terms of growth and unemployment rate.

[Euler]

Another point to do with the conflation of zero hours, agency work and self-employment:
Most contractors on here would not say they are "self-employed" for nit-picking tax reasons, but actually they are in the broad scheme of things, as in they are not "employees".
There has been a rise in the number of "self-employed", but that has not necessarily been forced, as implied by the Guardian article.
Most of us chose not to be employees.

[Zero Liability]

Ed is calling them an "epidemic".

I can't see this election strategy working for Labour. With the constant flow of positive economic news I just don't think labour can hold the electorate's attention with another 38 days of warbling on about zero hour contracts.

They're better off banging on about the NHS and hoping everyone forgets they brought in the PFIs; NHS scaremongering gets more votes than zero hour contract or minimum wage scaremongering, given how minuscule a proportion of the population these apply to, and also given how it isn't clear that zero hour contracts are universally bad or worse than the alternatives.

That Labour attracts as many votes as it does leaves me incredulous.

[pjclarke]

Also we don't know how the survey was designed - it may have been that the wording was such that only zero-hours contracts people responded..

Wouldn't that give you a 100% result? The survey question would be illuminating: some contracts are not technically zero hours, but still do not guarantee a level of income or work, let alone such luxuries as sick pay… It was conducted by respected independent social survey company Mass1.

Totally agree that extrapolating from a survey of Unite members, who I guess are over-represented in the sectors most affected, to the entire workforce is not legitimate, I'm equally comfortable that the 2.3% number underestimates the number of people affected, and that the Labour policy wonks will have crunched the numbers themselves before deciding to make it a plank of the campaign..

[Euler]

That Labour attracts as many votes as it does leaves me incredulous.

Why are you incredulous? Educated people on here believe that 5 million people are on zero hours contracts. What hope has the great unwashed?

[FatLazyContractor]

Hang on a minute, doesn't he look like ->

[Euler]

Wouldn't that give you a 100% result?

The survey question would be illuminating: some contracts are not technically zero hours, but still do not guarantee a level of income or work, let alone such luxuries as sick pay… It was conducted by respected independent social survey company Mass1.


Totally agree that extrapolating from a survey of Unite members, who I guess are over-represented in the sectors most affected, to the entire workforce is not legitimate, I'm equally comfortable that the 2.3% number underestimates the number of people affected, and that the Labour policy wonks will have crunched the numbers themselves before deciding to make it a plank of the campaign..

So a "respected" company can make such a schoolboy statistical error? It's more likely actually that the fake extrapolation was done by the Guardian journalist.
I don't see why you're "comfortable" that 2.3% is an underestimate, except that that view happens to coincide with what you want believe.
I don't believe that the Labour party wonks have necessarily crunched the numbers - far more likely they've (probably correctly)calculated that the dunces their comprehensive eductaion system have produced don't know, don't care or can't work out the numbers.

[pjclarke]

So because someone writes something supporting the view you want to believe, they're right and opponents are lying?

The 'someone' was quoting the Office for National Statistics. If Cameron did repeatedly state that the bulk of new jobs created under his government were secure paid employment, then either

(a) The ONS is wrong, or has been misquoted, (easily checked)
(b) Cameron is unaware of the actual facts and is making an inaccurate statement in good faith
(c) Cameron is knowingly telling an untruth, in the hope that nobody will notice.

I find (c) most credible.