Labour banging on about zero-hours contracts ...

[GlenW]

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.

I actually agree with our resident yoghurt knitting, bunny hugger!

[Euler]

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.

Did he, though?
Even the Gurdian admits 1000 jobs a day were created.
You're raising the point about secure paid employment - that may or may not be relevant. Most people here, for example, don't care about that, and would just like more contracting vacancies.

[Zero Liability]

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

A combination of their terrible recent track record when in power, horribly poor policies, deflated talking points and a raft of scandals involving their party had led me to think people may revise their stance on the party; clearly, hatred of the Tories, identitarian politics and, in some cases, ideological affiliation trump all that. Maybe ignorance as well but I would expect that of most voters anyway irrespective of party affiliation.

I'm not convinced the current recovery is based on a sound improvement in economic fundamentals, but nothing leftist politicians, including Labour, have to offer would address that. Instead, they threaten to reverse the path of debt reduction.

[pjclarke]

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.

The point about it being a respected survey company was that the questions and methodology will have been professional, the dubious extrapolation seems to have been done by Unite in a press release and repeated by the Guardian to make a good headline. A bit like 1,000 jobs per day or £3,000 more tax. For the record I don't for a minute believe one in five workers is on 0H.

As I demonstrated upthread the article from which you took the 2.3% number also had another survey which resulted in a 6% answer. Perhaps you like the lower number because it happens to coincide with what you want believe?

[NotAllThere]

I work on zero hour contracts and it's fine. The client has no obligation to give me any work. If there is no work, then I don't work for them and don't bill them. That flexibility is one of the reasons why I can charge a premium.

[Zero Liability]

Even at 6% it would be a small number, and that is assuming they're necessarily a bad thing, which they are not. Point being, it's not even much of a vote winner.

[SimonMac]

I work on zero hour contracts and it's fine. The client has no obligation to give me any work. If there is no work, then I don't work for them and don't bill them. That flexibility is one of the reasons why I can charge a premium.

Yes but the majority of people on a zero hour contract do not command the rates we do

[pjclarke]

I work on zero hour contracts and it's fine. The client has no obligation to give me any work. If there is no work, then I don't work for them and don't bill them. That flexibility is one of the reasons why I can charge a premium.

I would guess that you're at one end of the spectrum, and Labour are more interested in helping the 87% who would prefer not to be on zero hours, struggle to get through the month, cannot get a mortgage or credit and for whom the notion of charging a premium is a joke.

[TheFaQQer]

I work on zero hour contracts and it's fine. The client has no obligation to give me any work. If there is no work, then I don't work for them and don't bill them. That flexibility is one of the reasons why I can charge a premium.

Sadly, it's when you cannot charge a premium, don't have any flexibility, but that is all you can do that the problems with a ZHC become apparent.

[d000hg]

Most of us chose not to be employees.

Yeah but we're a pretty small fragment of the general population.