Wenesday 11th November 2015

[rebeccariots2]

My memories of thirty years ago on Merseyside rekindled as Roger Bannister(no not that one)standing against Dave Prentice for GS of Unison.Not sure what happened to his wife Elaine-having a search.

I'll need a bit more explanation on that one HindleA.

[rebeccariots2]

norman smith ‏@BBCNormanS 6m6 minutes ago
Tory @EricPickles complains to Electoral Commissioin over @voteleave plans to use "nasty" tactics

[AnatolyKasparov]

Patrick O'Flynn Retweeted
General Election ‏@UKGE2020 7h7 hours ago
Yougov #EUref Poll

England

Remain 40%
Leave 43%

Scotland

Remain 55%
Leave 30%

Wales

Remain 42%
Leave 38%

Hmmm. Do we have any faith in / respect for polls these days?

YouGov seems to be showing higher "Leave" figures than most pollsters at the moment.

[HindleA]

My memories of thirty years ago on Merseyside rekindled as Roger Bannister(no not that one)standing against Dave Prentice for GS of Unison.Not sure what happened to his wife Elaine-having a search.

I'll need a bit more explanation on that one HindleA.

Sorry,I just remember the names during an "interesting" time,there ,politically.

[TobyLatimer]

It gets better. What a useless fecking gobshite we have for a pm

ScreenShot00966.jpg (20.2 KiB) Viewed 7475 times

ScreenShot00965.jpg (31.05 KiB) Viewed 7475 times

[citizenJA]

From that 'article':

It took a lot of time and money to get tax credits working. It's a pretty efficient way of tackling child poverty. Why does it need to be abolished? To save Osborne face because he wanted the money to fund tax cuts for the better off and got caught red handed? This is the most pathetic suggestion yet. Tax credits aren't the problem, inflexible Tory surplus plus tax cuts is the problem, easily solvable with no tax cuts and/or surplus. Has anyone even worked out how much Osborne is going to save in tax credits when the national living wage goes up and the amount people affected qualify for goes down? More people employed = less benefit paid. Higher wages = less benefit paid. How much is this worth and where's that money going, that's what I want to know. If the economy is back where it was before the crash, why isn't the tax credit bill?

Record employment we're continually told Willow, the Treasury should be flush with all that "extra" income tax.

The finances are improving at such a rate of knots and ditto the employment figures that Carney will surely be raising interest rates anytime now, yes? All criterion have been met, we are a safe haven from global financial matters. Followed closely by, the return of the AAA ratings.

Total pay, seasonally adjusted
Sept 2010
Real AWE_________116.0
Nominal AWE_____142.9
Real (2000 £)_____368

Total pay, seasonally adjusted
Sep 2015
Real AWE_________112.4
Nominal AWE_____154.9
Real (2000 £)_____357

Estimates of average weekly earnings in real terms (that is, adjusted for consumer price inflation) are available at Table 18 of the pdf version of this statistical bulletin and at data table X04 (144.5 Kb Excel sheet).
http://ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-ma ... y-earnings

[seeingclearly]

I've checked and it seems the claimant count has been inching up since August. It could be because more people are claiming UC and, like everything else associated with UC, the data for those unemployed rather than working on UC isn't robust. It might be worth keeping an eye on, though, because it's out of step with a general fall in unemployment.

The Claimant Count measures the number of people claiming unemployment related benefits. As explained at Section 9 of this statistical bulletin, the Claimant Count estimates are designated as experimental statistics. In this section of the bulletin we compare quarterly movements in unemployment with quarterly movements in the Claimant Count. Some claimants will not be classified as unemployed. For example, people in employment working fewer than 16 hours a week can be eligible to claim JSA depending on their income.

The unemployment estimates shown in this comparison exclude unemployed people in the 16 to 17 and 65 and over age groups as well as unemployed people aged from 18 to 24 in full-time education. This provides a more meaningful comparison with the Claimant Count than total unemployment because people in these population groups are not usually eligible to claim JSA.

When 3 month average estimates for the Claimant Count are compared with unemployment estimates for the same time periods and for the same population groups (people aged from 18 to 64 excluding 18 to 24 year olds in full-time education), between April to June 2015 and July to September 2015:

unemployment fell by 57,000

the Claimant Count fell by 6,000

http://ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-ma ... mant-Count

(my bold)

Yes, ONS, I love your work dearly but the provisos, addendum, and revisions is daunting stuff.
I'm typically able to read these reports and understand a great but the quoted material above has been put through the meaningfulness extraction machine.
Someone, please help me out.

I love the phrase 'meaningfulness extraction machine', and can see numerous instance of how it could be applicable.

[citizenJA]

Patrick O'Flynn Retweeted
General Election ‏@UKGE2020 7h7 hours ago
Yougov #EUref Poll

England

Remain 40%
Leave 43%

Scotland

Remain 55%
Leave 30%

Wales

Remain 42%
Leave 38%

Hmmm. Do we have any faith in / respect for polls these days?

Me?
None.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Polls called the Labour leadership contest right, tbf - even though many actively disbelieved what they were saying.

[ephemerid]

http://ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-ma ... mant-Count

(my bold)

Yes, ONS, I love your work dearly but the provisos, addendum, and revisions is daunting stuff.
I'm typically able to read these reports and understand a great but the quoted material above has been put through the meaningfulness extraction machine.
Someone, please help me out.[/quote]


I'll give it a try.....and I am not going to read your link right now, because it is very daunting as you say......

The measure that the ONS uses to define unemployment is an internationally agreed standard and complies with the International Labour Organisation (ILO) definiton - used by the UN, the EU, and the OECD.
It means a person between the ages of 16 and 64 is unemployed if they are not in paid employment, are available for paid employment, are looking for paid employment, and in the UK, that is further defined as someone who has actively sought work for 4 weeks, can start within 2 weeks, or has a job but will not be due to start within 2 weeks.
Counted as in employment are - anyone who works 1 hour or more for pay; anyone who is temporarily away from work (holiday, long leave like maternity leave, or sickness however long, whether or not those absences from the workplace are paid); anyone on a government-supported training scheme; and anyone who works unpaid in a family business.
People who are economically inactive are those who are of working age but do not fulfil any of the criteria for unemployment or employment - eg. students who don't work, people who cannot work due to sickness, disability, or caring responsibilities.

The government defines "unemployment" in most of its' press releases as it chooses - a lot of emphasis is placed on the Claimant Count, and that has been rising for a few months now. That Claimant Count applies only to JSA - not ESA WRAG, IB, Income Support for parents with a youngest child older than 3, some claimants of Carers Allowance, or Universal Credit.
So all those people on benefits other than JSA which also have a jobsearch condition - and all those I have mentioned are not included in the JSA claimant count - I estimate that, altogether, this must be close to a million people who are, strictly speaking, unemployed but not included in the JSA Claimant Count.

The last figures I could find for workfare showed that there are 120,000 people on it at any given time; more than 1.5 Million people have been through the full 2 years of the Work Programme, and more than half of them are now back at the Jobcentre signing on - as we know that only about 10% of all WP participants find sustainable employment, there is a massive cohort of people missing.

The reason the ONS refers to "experimental statistics" is because they can only use what they're given by government and what they glean from their own Labour Market Surveys - the latter are usually pretty close to the truth; the former are often called "experimental" by the government too, usually because they have yet to decide how to present them, what to include, what not to include, and so on.

That's why there are so many addenda, reviews, and fiddling about. I trust the ONS - but they can only deliver figures according to what information they have; as this government (and others, to be fair) have "hidden" people in other places to suit their narrative, it's not clear what the situation s a lot of the time.

But then, those of us who follow these things know we are being lied to on a massive scale.

[ohsocynical]

This sums up Dave very well....

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... rm-cartoon" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[LadyCentauria]

Oh, and people are hanging onto their phones to find out whether or not they will be required to work. That has a certain resonance too.

744, 000 on zero hours contracts working an average of 25 hours a a week, am presuming many of them on minimum wage which would give them well under 50% of average earnings, and this does not include those who are doing the same but are classified as in training, which is an ambiguous term, which could mean anything from coercion into unsustainable work to a real, but relatively rare apprenticeship. At the average point of 25 hours they are eligible for tax credits without which they are not likely to survive.

My heart sinks at the thought of the single people with children who are not eligible, who are having to survive cuts to top up benefits, child support, housing etc. and whose fates are being gambled on.

The majority of these workers are women, and unlikely to include the people who defend zero hours contract because lots of people who are self employed in well paying industries have a version of these kind of contracts too. They are more likely to be classified elsewhere.

(my bold)
We/they used to call ourselves freelancers - sometimes (independent) contractors or consultants - is that how they'd be classified in the reports? Or simply as 'self-employed'?

[TobyLatimer]

ScreenShot00968.jpg (31.41 KiB) Viewed 7409 times

ScreenShot00969.jpg (37.97 KiB) Viewed 7409 times

[yahyah]

Are those Male Online cartoons from a particular website Toby ?

He even looks like my Kipper minded elder brother.
Last time I spoke to him he called Cameron a pinko. Seriously.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Oh, and people are hanging onto their phones to find out whether or not they will be required to work. That has a certain resonance too.

744, 000 on zero hours contracts working an average of 25 hours a a week, am presuming many of them on minimum wage which would give them well under 50% of average earnings, and this does not include those who are doing the same but are classified as in training, which is an ambiguous term, which could mean anything from coercion into unsustainable work to a real, but relatively rare apprenticeship. At the average point of 25 hours they are eligible for tax credits without which they are not likely to survive.

My heart sinks at the thought of the single people with children who are not eligible, who are having to survive cuts to top up benefits, child support, housing etc. and whose fates are being gambled on.

The majority of these workers are women, and unlikely to include the people who defend zero hours contract because lots of people who are self employed in well paying industries have a version of these kind of contracts too. They are more likely to be classified elsewhere.

Yep.

There's some Labour proposal to grade jobs according to benefits, tenure etc. That seemed a decent idea to me. One of the new Tory MPs claimed this was a "lawyers' paradise". And then bored for Britain on how she'd done an arduous low paid job and it helped her get on, so it was a great job for her.

I lost the will to live then.

[TobyLatimer]

He's a cartoonist who does a lot of stuff for Viz comic @yahyah, I follow him on twitter where he does indulge in a little more political stuff, I just copy them from there. He got into a big row with Louise Mensch a few months ago which was a joy to watch

https://twitter.com/barneyfarmer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[yahyah]

So the only thing Radio 4 took from Brown's speech today was a warning for Corbyn ?
That was their 6.30 headlines report.

[RogerOThornhill]

So the only thing Radio 4 took from Brown's speech today was a warning for Corbyn ?
That was their 6.30 headlines report.

Same as the front page.



Tax credits in the attached story? Hardly a mention - that's not important.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34791775" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[yahyah]

Night all.

Have baked a spelt loaf, the type of bread eaten by Roman soldiers, to go with soup.
It's as dense as a brick, not sure how Rome conquered so much of the world with stomachs full of it.

[citizenJA]

Night all.

Have baked a spelt loaf, the type of bread eaten by Roman soldiers, to go with soup.
It's as dense as a brick, not sure how Rome conquered so much of the world with stomachs full of it.

Goodnight, yahyah.
Sleep well, my friend.
love,
cJA

[citizenJA]

@ Ephemerid
Thank you for your explanation on the ONS data, Ephemerid. You're always shining light upon darkness. Thank you.

[citizenJA]

@ seeingclearly
Thank you!
Thank you for everything.

[citizenJA]

Polls called the Labour leadership contest right, tbf - even though many actively disbelieved what they were saying.

ELECTION FORECAST
7 May
HUNG

ELECTIONS ETC
7 May
HUNG

POLL OBSERVATORY
7 May
HUNG

THE GUARDIAN
7 May
HUNG

LADBROKES ODDS
7 May
HUNG

http://www.may2015.com/category/seat-calculator/

[ephemerid]

@ Ephemerid
Thank you for your explanation on the ONS data, Ephemerid. You're always shining light upon darkness. Thank you.

Ta muchly.

Forgot to say - what we think we know is that between 146,000 and 176,000 households are now claiming Universal Credit (and that depends on which of the government's various sets of "experimental statistics" you look at). The ONS has some problems with this, as they are being told that some UC claimants are on benefits that do not have jobsearch conditionality but they do not know how many - which is bonkers, because all UC claimants have such conditionality, working or not....that's the whole point.

Also, the overall fall from last year in people classified as unemployed (ILO definition - so not necessarily claiming benefits) is 210,000 bringing the total down to 1.75 Million; but the JSA Claimant Count is less than half of that.
The rise in the number of people employed is 419,000 - but some of those may well be working very short hours (just 1 hour is enough to satisfy the ILO definition) and some may be working unpaid or self-employed with no work.

None of this takes into account population changes - if last years' net migration figures are repeated this year (318,000), some of this rise in employment could be accounted for by an increase in population.

The really spooky figure is this - 8.97 Million people are "economically inactive". They are not employed, they are not claiming any benefits, and less than half of them can be accounted for by claims for non-jobsearch-conditional sickness/disability/carer benefit claims.
That figure was 8.85 a year ago.

I find it very difficult to work out what's actually going on. If I seriously thought that that this government and the last had made any real improvement in employment, I'd say so.
Judging by how they move the goalposts all the time (no, sorry, that was the badgers), and how the ONS is not only sceptical of the "experimental statistics" it makes the point frequently that it is relying on them but always notes the reports/reviews they are subject to, and most of all how often Sir Andrew Dilnot feels moved to write to ministers to tick them off about misrepresentation, I'm not sure anyone actually knows what's happening.

Sorry, J - that's not a lot of help, is it?

[citizenJA]

I've just read Monbiot's article and Dave Cameron's. I hadn't time earlier and had only a rough idea of the subject. All of the research I've done today, all the report reading and writing I've done elsewhere is nothing in comparison, realitively speaking. I'm utterly shocked.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... are_btn_tw

[LadyCentauria]

From that 'article':

It took a lot of time and money to get tax credits working. It's a pretty efficient way of tackling child poverty. Why does it need to be abolished? To save Osborne face because he wanted the money to fund tax cuts for the better off and got caught red handed? This is the most pathetic suggestion yet. Tax credits aren't the problem, inflexible Tory surplus plus tax cuts is the problem, easily solvable with no tax cuts and/or surplus. Has anyone even worked out how much Osborne is going to save in tax credits when the national living wage goes up and the amount people affected qualify for goes down? More people employed = less benefit paid. Higher wages = less benefit paid. How much is this worth and where's that money going, that's what I want to know. If the economy is back where it was before the crash, why isn't the tax credit bill?

To give Martha Kearney her due that point that the tax credit cuts simply aren't necessary ... there are other, preferable to many people including many Tories, ways of finding the money ... came over loud and clear in her various WATO interviews on the subject. I have a growing respect for Stephen McPartland - refusing to meet David Gauke in his constituency today because of the way he feels about the tax credit cuts and child credit cuts. He actually said he had discovered that child credits are going to be cut in direct contradiction to the statements given by Cameron before the election and was clearly upset by that. I have zilch respect for Priti Patel - she sounds like she's eating boiled sweets that have been dunked in government messaging juice which has got a bit garbled up in her mouth as she chews so they come out in various odd, awkward, desperate, mashed up ways. She sounds stupid when she 'answers' - i.e. doesn't answer. And she never sounds the g on the end of 'ing'. It sounds horribly affected and drives me effin' mad.

You're all absolutely correct, to my mind. Where's all the bloody money? What, exactly is a better way of topping up income than tax credits? Why does it need to be abolished? I'm with you, too on Martha Kearney and Stephen McPartland - refusing to meet the leader a Minister of your own Party on a Constituency visit is quite strong, as protest goes. Priti Patel appearing on screen causes me to hit 'mute' and 'subtitles' simultaneously and reflexively. But I really, really, really don't get Frank Field! What's he suggesting? Low-earners on tax-credits were supposed to be brought into UC, weren't they? Is that his solution? To crash all the families on tax-credits into the existing train-wreck of UC's roll-out? Ach :spit:

Late edit: Gah! and Bumboils!™ 'Twas Gauke he refused to meet, not Cameron. Mind you, that'd be true rebellion, eh? Or crossing the floor...

[ephemerid]

I've just read Monbiot's article and Dave Cameron's. I hadn't time earlier and had only a rough idea of the subject. All of the research I've done today, all the report reading and writing I've done elsewhere is nothing in comparison, realitively speaking. I'm utterly shocked.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... are_btn_tw

I've had a go at a few dipsticks on that thread this morning, J.

There are some nice people there amid all the dross...

[citizenJA]

Sorry, J - that's not a lot of help, is it?

It is all kinds of help, Ephemerid, sincerely, thank you.

Edited to add further thanks. Your post on the Cameron letter article is outstanding. Your research and writing are exceptional.

The jaw-dropping astonishment revelation from Tory government I'm most eager to read about is their departure from government.

[RogerOThornhill]

This is excellent.

The headteacher's view: ‘Why do ministers insist that my school become an academy?’

https://www.tes.com/news/school-news/br ... y%E2%80%99" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The evidence is quite compelling. Only three of the top 20 largest academy chains are in a position to take on additional schools, while only 15 per cent of these academies (the so-called saviours of the education system) are performing above the national average when looking at "value added", compared with 44 per cent of local councils. But however stark those figures, of course Nicky Morgan never mentions them in her speeches.

Instead, she seems keen to encourage the withering of local authorities.

and

In the past year or so, we have been approached to support schools experiencing a difficult period. Early in May, one in a category asked us formally to be its sponsor. I duly contacted the Department for Education as I felt we had the capacity to help. The bureaucracy of the DfE was astounding, and we were told that we could take on this support role only if we became an academy.

What is the rationale for this? It seems to me that it is totally and utterly politically driven, and has absolutely no consideration for the children, teachers and staff involved.

I have also been contacted recently by a journalist and asked why my "outstanding" school has not become an academy. This is totally the wrong question. Why would we need to? If, as educationalists, we always put the needs of children first, then why change something that is not broken? Will my school gain more by becoming an academy? Research suggests this is not the case, although I may get a pay rise.

Purely ideological - "academies are better and never mind the evidence" and "because academies are better we're not even going to talk about any others"

[Tubby Isaacs]

Sheriff Mike:

https://www.tes.com/news/school-news/br ... ers-advice" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Young people are being failed by "selfish" headteachers who encourage them to stay on for sixth form to keep budgets strong rather than offering them decent careers advice on vocational alternatives, the head of Ofsted has said.

Sir Michael Wilshaw made the comments while giving evidence to the House of Lords Social Mobility Select Committee today.

"Too often this is what inspectors see all the time – they go into secondary schools and because headteachers are so concerned about filling their sixth forms to ensure that their budgets are strong, they will give the wrong advice to youngsters and be selfish in their careers advice," he said.

Shouldn't you have thought about this conflict of interest before? Nah, stick all the careers advice in schools.

No sense of systems and processes with him at all, is there? Everything's "this group are doing it wrong and I'm telling them to do it right".

How much longer before he moves on to an academy chain?

[seeingclearly]

Oh, and people are hanging onto their phones to find out whether or not they will be required to work. That has a certain resonance too.

744, 000 on zero hours contracts working an average of 25 hours a a week, am presuming many of them on minimum wage which would give them well under 50% of average earnings, and this does not include those who are doing the same but are classified as in training, which is an ambiguous term, which could mean anything from coercion into unsustainable work to a real, but relatively rare apprenticeship. At the average point of 25 hours they are eligible for tax credits without which they are not likely to survive.

My heart sinks at the thought of the single people with children who are not eligible, who are having to survive cuts to top up benefits, child support, housing etc. and whose fates are being gambled on.

The majority of these workers are women, and unlikely to include the people who defend zero hours contract because lots of people who are self employed in well paying industries have a version of these kind of contracts too. They are more likely to be classified elsewhere.

(my bold)
We/they used to call ourselves freelancers - sometimes (independent) contractors or consultants - is that how they'd be classified in the reports? Or simply as 'self-employed'?

Freelancer is what I called myself, and what I did/had was classed as a small business/sole trader. The contracts were with the business, I was the signatory for it. My income derived from business takings, not directly from the contracts, though to the tax man I was interchangeable with th business. Isnt that different from someone supplied by a contractor or directly contracted with? ( I know a lot of people who employ personal assistants are encouraged to do something similar, I'm unsure what differences there might be, but effectively they then go into a different category, they become employers.) If they are the same then I would think the figure for zero hours contractees, given that some of them are working two or three contracts, must be underestimated. I didn't do a job, I worked on many and various contracts, and independently, in an arts context. Much as a builders does in a construction context. If thats the criteria for zero hours contractees within those figures then they cannot possibly be as low as that, the construction industry alone covers so many people doing this. I can see theres something flawed there, we are told theres nothing wrong with working this way, and I included the sentence to cover the wide range of people that many articles on the subject have led me to believe are in zero hours contract work, which includes the examples here, and those of other lower paid workers such as hospital cleaners carers etc. too. If these articles overstate the case then I'd love to know. Theres no clarity for me on this so if you have a better understanding that sheds light I'm happy to stand corrected or to learn something new. Many thanks.

[seeingclearly]

Thanks, Ephemerid for your post where you talk about that spooky figure on economically inactive, because when i looked at the figures and saw the people you would normally expect to be actually economically inactive then that figure simply grew, as I explained to JA, and my short term memory being iffy when medicated, I'm not so much now and the 16-25 NEETs are also inactive, and a few others too, and it really is astonishing. I'm sure of one thing, you cannot keep reducing earnings, reducing available money in the economy, and just shifting assets and bubble income around and create a recovery, it will only be a zombie recovery. So what is happening underneath all these figures, which by my estimation contain approximately nineteen million humans of working age not economically active in various categories, and a further ten million who are retired. As the graph I derived these figures from represents the categories as part of a whole and in percentages there should be no overlap, and therefore no double counting. If this is the real picture then cutting tax credits and implementing UC are both furcups. The cure is to spend more, to make more, on as much as possible because the other way leads to societal collapse.

[citizenJA]

"John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor...said: “I’m backing David Cameron on this one.
He is absolutely right that his chancellor’s cuts to local government are seriously damaging
our communities and have to be opposed. I welcome the prime minister as another Tory MP
joining our campaign against George Osborne’s cuts.”'

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... re-council

Brilliant.

[seeingclearly]

Also, some of those addendums and doodahs that Ephemerid mentions have a very wide +/- latitude that isn't mentioned in the main text. The figures are offered as firm information, in percentages or numbers, but they aren't. Where UC is concerned they seem a little creative?

[gilsey]

I saw McDonnell being interviewed on Sky News the other day, he was very good.
He and Corbyn both seem completely unflappable.

[rebeccariots2]

So the only thing Radio 4 took from Brown's speech today was a warning for Corbyn ?
That was their 6.30 headlines report.

Had me fumin.

(I am goin to channel Priti Patel speak for a while I think).

[citizenJA]

Thanks, Ephemerid for your post where you talk about that spooky figure on economically inactive, because when i looked at the figures and saw the people you would normally expect to be actually economically inactive then that figure simply grew, as I explained to JA, and my short term memory being iffy when medicated, I'm not so much now and the 16-25 NEETs are also inactive, and a few others too, and it really is astonishing. I'm sure of one thing, you cannot keep reducing earnings, reducing available money in the economy, and just shifting assets and bubble income around and create a recovery, it will only be a zombie recovery. So what is happening underneath all these figures, which by my estimation contain approximately nineteen million humans of working age not economically active in various categories, and a further ten million who are retired. As the graph I derived these figures from represents the categories as part of a whole and in percentages there should be no overlap, and therefore no double counting. If this is the real picture then cutting tax credits and implementing UC are both furcups. The cure is to spend more, to make more, on as much as possible because the other way leads to societal collapse.

Apologises for not writing more about the ONS data this evening, you're absolutely correct, the information you included was accurate.

I'm still trying to get my jaw off the floor after reading about Dave's letter to an Oxfordshire county councilperson.

"After Cameron chastised Ian Hudspeth, leader of Oxfordshire county council, for considering
cuts to elderly day centres, libraries and museums, the local Conservative councillor addressed
Cameron’s claims point by point, arguing that the efficiency savings Cameron suggested had
already been made, and that the county was struggling to cope with large and continuing cuts
to its finances."

[seeingclearly]

Thanks, Ephemerid for your post where you talk about that spooky figure on economically inactive, because when i looked at the figures and saw the people you would normally expect to be actually economically inactive then that figure simply grew, as I explained to JA, and my short term memory being iffy when medicated, I'm not so much now and the 16-25 NEETs are also inactive, and a few others too, and it really is astonishing. I'm sure of one thing, you cannot keep reducing earnings, reducing available money in the economy, and just shifting assets and bubble income around and create a recovery, it will only be a zombie recovery. So what is happening underneath all these figures, which by my estimation contain approximately nineteen million humans of working age not economically active in various categories, and a further ten million who are retired. As the graph I derived these figures from represents the categories as part of a whole and in percentages there should be no overlap, and therefore no double counting. If this is the real picture then cutting tax credits and implementing UC are both furcups. The cure is to spend more, to make more, on as much as possible because the other way leads to societal collapse.

Apologises for not writing more about the ONS data this evening, you're absolutely correct, the information you included was accurate.

I'm still trying to get my jaw off the floor after reading about Dave's letter to an Oxfordshire county councilperson.

"After Cameron chastised Ian Hudspeth, leader of Oxfordshire county council, for considering
cuts to elderly day centres, libraries and museums, the local Conservative councillor addressed
Cameron’s claims point by point, arguing that the efficiency savings Cameron suggested had
already been made, and that the county was struggling to cope with large and continuing cuts
to its finances."

Yes, it is some eyeopener to just how lazy he is and how clueless. I scraped my own up earlier on in the day, and wondered how many people will actually appreciate the level of incompetance this represents. That, or a devious dishonesty that should not be present in a head of government. If it isn't recognised then as a nation what are we? It has really raised quite a lot of issues for me, and I'm glad of these unflappable challengers to this kind of misrule.

[rebeccariots2]

Just seen v strange tweet from Times re their front page tomorrow. 'Osborne in ultimatum over Trident - Calls to strip defence chiefs of 40bn project.'

[RogerOThornhill]

Just seen v strange tweet from Times re their front page tomorrow. 'Osborne in ultimatum over Trident - Calls to strip defence chiefs of 40bn project.'

Gotta love the fact that after 5 years of them being in charge, Osborne doesn't trust the MoD to project manage this - wonder why - not because they got rid of too many relevant people surely?

[seeingclearly]

Not a source I'd usually use, and its a dreadful headline, but I love this honest hoonourable lady.

http://www.sunnation.co.uk/guido-corbyn ... bour-seat/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[citizenJA]

Goodnight, friends.
love,
cJA

[seeingclearly]

HMRC gets it in the neck....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/econ ... rhaul.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[LadyCentauria]

Oh, and people are hanging onto their phones to find out whether or not they will be required to work. That has a certain resonance too.

744, 000 on zero hours contracts working an average of 25 hours a a week, am presuming many of them on minimum wage which would give them well under 50% of average earnings, and this does not include those who are doing the same but are classified as in training, which is an ambiguous term, which could mean anything from coercion into unsustainable work to a real, but relatively rare apprenticeship. At the average point of 25 hours they are eligible for tax credits without which they are not likely to survive.

My heart sinks at the thought of the single people with children who are not eligible, who are having to survive cuts to top up benefits, child support, housing etc. and whose fates are being gambled on.

The majority of these workers are women, and unlikely to include the people who defend zero hours contract because lots of people who are self employed in well paying industries have a version of these kind of contracts too. They are more likely to be classified elsewhere.

(my bold)
We/they used to call ourselves freelancers - sometimes (independent) contractors or consultants - is that how they'd be classified in the reports? Or simply as 'self-employed'?

Freelancer is what I called myself, and what I did/had was classed as a small business/sole trader. The contracts were with the business, I was the signatory for it. My income derived from business takings, not directly from the contracts, though to the tax man I was interchangeable with th business. Isnt that different from someone supplied by a contractor or directly contracted with? ( I know a lot of people who employ personal assistants are encouraged to do something similar, I'm unsure what differences there might be, but effectively they then go into a different category, they become employers.) If they are the same then I would think the figure for zero hours contractees, given that some of them are working two or three contracts, must be underestimated. I didn't do a job, I worked on many and various contracts, and independently, in an arts context. Much as a builders does in a construction context. If thats the criteria for zero hours contractees within those figures then they cannot possibly be as low as that, the construction industry alone covers so many people doing this. I can see theres something flawed there, we are told theres nothing wrong with working this way, and I included the sentence to cover the wide range of people that many articles on the subject have led me to believe are in zero hours contract work, which includes the examples here, and those of other lower paid workers such as hospital cleaners carers etc. too. If these articles overstate the case then I'd love to know. Theres no clarity for me on this so if you have a better understanding that sheds light I'm happy to stand corrected or to learn something new. Many thanks.

I've no more clarity, sorry. It was more a question of where to find people in the figures/reports. And yes, it's different from being supplied by a contractor or having a direct contract. I suppose one of the major differences between 'people who are happy with zero-hours contracts' and those who are not would be whether they're being offered enough hours to make ends meet and/or fear turning down even one hour's work because they would be overlooked for future hours, or just find a bit of extra income useful/like to keep their hand in but don't really need to work. When I was freelancing (music business & media, mainly) I worked because I loved it, wanted to keep some independence and didn't turn down work if I could avoid it - people tend to give up calling you once you've said no for the third time. Before that, I'd been on a retainer, so I was paid when I wasn't needed in order that I'd be there when I was - and so that wouldn't go off to work for someone else during what could be a couple of months downtime. In a way, that could look like a zero-hours contract (as in I worked only when I was needed) but it was very well-paid work as well as something I loved doing - and that really isn't the case for far too many people in this country.