Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Boost for the Tories as the economy once again becomes the

SystemSystem Posts: 12,215
edited April 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Boost for the Tories as the economy once again becomes the top issue

Good for CON. Economy moves to top slot in YouGov's issues trackers – those facing the country and you/your family pic.twitter.com/BLiBpch67N

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    edited April 2015
    Indeed as ever and 1st
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @tnewtondunn: EXCL: Ed Miliband misled 3 million TV viewers on Syria, claims David Cameron http://t.co/d8Cofpfoqg

    Thought this might come up...
  • There's a great article in The Times by Danny Finkelstein, references some 10,000 strong polling by Populus.

    If true could swing the election for the Tories. Potential 3% late swing in the campaign to the Tories according to this polling.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @TheEconomist: Labour MPs have exaggerated the pain of austerity, which is liable to hurt them in May http://t.co/DeZKNjLUVO http://t.co/NuXdokHhoU
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,471
    Anecdote:

    Many years back I did some contracting for a trade union organisation. The work should have lasted about nine weeks or so, but supplier delays meant that it lasted longer. Because of the organisation's rules, anyone who worked for them for more than three months automatically became a full-time employee.

    The result: with the work unfinished, my contract was ended. Which was fine; I had other work to do anyway, and if offered a full-time contract would have had to refuse and leave of my own accord.

    Whilst this was not a zero-hours contact (although the definition of that seems slightly nebulous), to me it highlight one of the dangers of this proposed change.

    BTW: it was an interesting place to work, with some great people in it. The work they did was absolutely vital.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @MattChorley: After "Bill Somebody" fiasco, Labour was v keen to stress it had business backers. No good now dismissing list of 100 as just "Tories"
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    edited April 2015
    Scott_P said:

    @tnewtondunn: EXCL: Ed Miliband misled 3 million TV viewers on Syria, claims David Cameron http://t.co/d8Cofpfoqg

    Thought this might come up...

    Yes, i remember the reporting of the event to be very different to what Ed says what happens. Dan Hodges i believe actually left the Labour Party because of it (though had already repeatedly criticised Miliband before this).

    As i recall, the PM called him in and said he didnt want to put a motion to the house without support from both sides, could he support it. Then miliband gave a series of requirements for labour to support, which the government did.

    From what i remember, at the point the motion was put to the house, the understanding was that it would get Labour's support.

    The PM was significantly diminished on that day, and the integrity of the leader of the opposition was destroyed for those who know what happened.
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    edited April 2015
    FPT
    Scott_P said:

    Tim_B said:

    What exactly is a 'zero hour contract'?

    A contract of employment with no minimum specified hours, and therefore no minimum salary. If they have work for you to do, you get paid. If they have no work on the day, you get no pay.
    Much like union work halls for construction and dock workers here - they dole out jobs according to who needs what. How is this bad?

    More to the point - how is this a vote winner?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,712
    FPT.
    There’s no problem with ZHC’s UNLESS the employer also says that the “employee” must always be available for work if required.

    Hospitals and silver service waitresses have worked on them for years quite satisfactorily. “Can you do a shift this weekend?” No, sorry,” “OK” ... employer tries next name on the list.

    I understand though that some fast food outlets insist that an employee must always be available, but can be sent home if the restuarant quietens down.
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669

    FPT.
    There’s no problem with ZHC’s UNLESS the employer also says that the “employee” must always be available for work if required.

    Hospitals and silver service waitresses have worked on them for years quite satisfactorily. “Can you do a shift this weekend?” No, sorry,” “OK” ... employer tries next name on the list.

    I understand though that some fast food outlets insist that an employee must always be available, but can be sent home if the restuarant quietens down.

    Yes, the MUST be available is a problem.
  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    Just been watching Rachel Reeves defend Labour's economic policy on SKY. Eamonn Holmes was very gentle on her but the woman knows nothing about business.

    Could someone please explain to the Labour party that the vast majority of people who work in the UK, work for employers and the signatories of the Telegraph letter employ more than 500,000 of the workforce.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538

    There's a great article in The Times by Danny Finkelstein, references some 10,000 strong polling by Populus.

    If true could swing the election for the Tories. Potential 3% late swing in the campaign to the Tories according to this polling.

    It places Con and Lab on 33% each, but doesn't give full figures.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,471

    FPT.
    There’s no problem with ZHC’s UNLESS the employer also says that the “employee” must always be available for work if required.

    Hospitals and silver service waitresses have worked on them for years quite satisfactorily. “Can you do a shift this weekend?” No, sorry,” “OK” ... employer tries next name on the list.

    I understand though that some fast food outlets insist that an employee must always be available, but can be sent home if the restuarant quietens down.

    Surely the 'must be available to work' is an exclusivity clause (as it means someone cannot get other work), and has already therefore been legislated against by the coalition?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,041

    There's a great article in The Times by Danny Finkelstein, references some 10,000 strong polling by Populus.

    If true could swing the election for the Tories. Potential 3% late swing in the campaign to the Tories according to this polling.

    Blue Dawn?
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191
    edited April 2015
    Moving average chart of the 100 most recent YouGov polls. Click to enlarge...

    Simple, Free Image and File Hosting at MediaFire
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    While Labour tries to occupy the moral high ground and lecture everyone else wasn't it actually the Labour Party that introduced Zero hour contracts in the first place?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Labour hates success. Official...
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    The zero hours policy has certainly got people talking, on here at least.

    Personally I suspect that both of the main parties' big moves overnight are vote losers, but they'll probably cancel each other out.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,004

    Anecdote:

    Many years back I did some contracting for a trade union organisation. The work should have lasted about nine weeks or so, but supplier delays meant that it lasted longer. Because of the organisation's rules, anyone who worked for them for more than three months automatically became a full-time employee.

    The result: with the work unfinished, my contract was ended. Which was fine; I had other work to do anyway, and if offered a full-time contract would have had to refuse and leave of my own accord.

    Whilst this was not a zero-hours contact (although the definition of that seems slightly nebulous), to me it highlight one of the dangers of this proposed change.

    BTW: it was an interesting place to work, with some great people in it. The work they did was absolutely vital.

    Another good example of the unintended consequences of poorly thought through policy, made up for a soundbite or Brownian "Dividing Line" rather than actually addressing a perceived issue. The problem of exclusive contracts with no guaranteed hours was legislated away already by the coalition, so why is Ed still going on about it?
  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    Just thinking what a build up to Michael Ashcroft's latest batch of constituency polls revisited has received with the Telegraph letter.

    Meanwhile we have 2 inches of snow on the ground this morning and a blizzard has just started. Thankfully I only have to drive to the village station this afternoon.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Tim_B said:

    FPT.
    There’s no problem with ZHC’s UNLESS the employer also says that the “employee” must always be available for work if required.

    Hospitals and silver service waitresses have worked on them for years quite satisfactorily. “Can you do a shift this weekend?” No, sorry,” “OK” ... employer tries next name on the list.

    I understand though that some fast food outlets insist that an employee must always be available, but can be sent home if the restuarant quietens down.

    Yes, the MUST be available is a problem.
    Which is why the Coalition make "exclusive" ZHCs (ie MUST be available) illegal...
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,963
    Good morning, comrades and capitalist pigdogs (you shall be taxed into penury!).

    High winds have damaged Silverstone's roof, but repairs shouldn't be a problem.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-32141042
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,759
    I agree Cons have had the best start since Parliament was dissolved.

    But I am not sure 100 Tories signing a letter to the press will have the effect that it had last time.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Tim_B said:

    FPT.
    There’s no problem with ZHC’s UNLESS the employer also says that the “employee” must always be available for work if required.

    Hospitals and silver service waitresses have worked on them for years quite satisfactorily. “Can you do a shift this weekend?” No, sorry,” “OK” ... employer tries next name on the list.

    I understand though that some fast food outlets insist that an employee must always be available, but can be sent home if the restuarant quietens down.

    Yes, the MUST be available is a problem.
    By the way, I'm planning to be in Atlanta on the 15th April if you have time for a coffee
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,041
    SMukesh said:

    I agree Cons have had the best start since Parliament was dissolved.

    But I am not sure 100 Tories signing a letter to the press will have the effect that it had last time.

    95 Tories, I'll have you know ;)
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    Charles said:

    Tim_B said:

    FPT.
    There’s no problem with ZHC’s UNLESS the employer also says that the “employee” must always be available for work if required.

    Hospitals and silver service waitresses have worked on them for years quite satisfactorily. “Can you do a shift this weekend?” No, sorry,” “OK” ... employer tries next name on the list.

    I understand though that some fast food outlets insist that an employee must always be available, but can be sent home if the restuarant quietens down.

    Yes, the MUST be available is a problem.
    Which is why the Coalition make "exclusive" ZHCs (ie MUST be available) illegal...
    Let's say you work for a restaurant - you are scheduled for the lunch shift, and you are cut at 2.30pm (after being there from say 11am) as the place is pretty much empty. Is that illegal?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,568
    A technical note is that I think yesterday's YG sample (result: tied) was Tory-leaning and today's (result, Lab+1) is Labour-leaning, because of sharp moves in the subsidiaries. Yestyerday, people thought the government was doing OKish (38 Yes, 48 No). Today, they don't (Yes 34, No 50). I dson't believe in a 6-point shift overnight.

    That said, the fact that voting intention is much the same illustrates the stability of the situation.
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,759
    So Lab doing well in London,Wales,North and their position has started to improve in Scotland.

    We look forward to the non-Lord`s marginal polls.If this shows no shift from previous,it`s game over for the Tories.
  • RobD said:

    There's a great article in The Times by Danny Finkelstein, references some 10,000 strong polling by Populus.

    If true could swing the election for the Tories. Potential 3% late swing in the campaign to the Tories according to this polling.

    Blue Dawn?
    I hope so.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,142
    Sometimes wonder how far through the campaign it will be before certain Labour figures wake up, smell the coffee, read the paper, and realise that the most aggressively anti-business agenda since the 1980s was not the best tack to take.....

    Which Labour figures will start to distance themselves from campaign. Y. Cooper for one seems to have been very quiet....
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @JoeWatts_: Cameron on Miliband's 'tough-on-Syria' claim: "He wasn’t standing up to Barack Obama or me — he was giving into Diane Abbott." #GE2015
  • @TSEofPB: Times Red Box YouGov Poll. More expect Miliband to do well in TV debate. http://t.co/xgWAteXWpP
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Anecdote:

    Many years back I did some contracting for a trade union organisation. The work should have lasted about nine weeks or so, but supplier delays meant that it lasted longer. Because of the organisation's rules, anyone who worked for them for more than three months automatically became a full-time employee.

    The result: with the work unfinished, my contract was ended. Which was fine; I had other work to do anyway, and if offered a full-time contract would have had to refuse and leave of my own accord.

    Whilst this was not a zero-hours contact (although the definition of that seems slightly nebulous), to me it highlight one of the dangers of this proposed change.

    BTW: it was an interesting place to work, with some great people in it. The work they did was absolutely vital.

    I think that drafted correctly Eds proposals on ZHC could be a good one. Provided that there was an option for the employee to decline the offer of a substantive contract.

    The problem comes in that some employers would just terminate the contract at 12 weeks. There does need to be a legal way for companies to take on short term staff to cover variations in workforce demand. Temporary work is often a good way to try out a person for a more permanent job.

    ZHC are widely abused though. The first act of the company that took over cleaning, portering and domestic services at my hospital was to try to force all transferred staff onto these ZHCs. There is an issue to be tackled.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,041

    RobD said:

    There's a great article in The Times by Danny Finkelstein, references some 10,000 strong polling by Populus.

    If true could swing the election for the Tories. Potential 3% late swing in the campaign to the Tories according to this polling.

    Blue Dawn?
    I hope so.
    I know it isn't going to happen.. but I do hope for a majority, however tiny.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,142
    edited April 2015
    Jim Murphy on Today programme. This election is apparently about Labour vs Tories. Sort of Nats can't win here written large across the Union.

    Is there anywhere in the UK outside of London that Labour are resonating.....
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited April 2015
    Labour talk about ZHCs as if they are a universally hated form of modern slavery. NOT TRUE. Many of those who use ZHCs love the flexibility. Students, jobbing actors, semi-retireds, etc - there are many classes of people who earn money, sometimes decent money, via a very loose and flexible arrangement that works for them. This is wholly to be encouraged. What does not work is for long term unemployed seeking full time work to be forced into exclusive contracts - which is precisely what the coalition has banned.

    Could Ed please just STFU now on this subject?
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    SMukesh said:

    I agree Cons have had the best start since Parliament was dissolved.

    But I am not sure 100 Tories signing a letter to the press will have the effect that it had last time.

    That's the problem with people like you and Labour in general that's going to cost you dear. Anyone that dares to speak out against the comrades is a Tory. Actually a number of these 100 are anything but hence its the overall message you should be listening too.

    Of course you won't listen, Labour never do and consequently it will cost them a majority and probably the entire election as a result.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,041

    @TSEofPB: Times Red Box YouGov Poll. More expect Miliband to do well in TV debate. http://t.co/xgWAteXWpP

    Poor Leanne Wood. I've only seen her in a few interview and she seems nice enough. Don't agree with her policies though...
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Mortimer said:

    Jim Murphy on Today programme. This election is apparently about Labour vs Tories. Sort of Nats can't win here written large across the Union.

    Is there anywhere in the UK outside of London that Labour are resonating.....

    @ian_mcdonald: @IanDunt I'm not sure that 'the SNP is getting in our way' is the most effective soundbite...
  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    There's a great article in The Times by Danny Finkelstein, references some 10,000 strong polling by Populus.

    If true could swing the election for the Tories. Potential 3% late swing in the campaign to the Tories according to this polling.

    Blue Dawn?
    I hope so.
    I know it isn't going to happen.. but I do hope for a majority, however tiny.
    A tiny majority scares me.

    Would be like 1992-1997 all over again.

    A bunch of [moderated] holding the government hostage because they are obsessed with Europe.

    That led to 13 years of a Labour government. We can't risk that again
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,173
    SMukesh said:

    So Lab doing well in London,Wales,North and their position has started to improve in Scotland.

    We look forward to the non-Lord`s marginal polls.If this shows no shift from previous,it`s game over for the Tories.

    I see Roseree has competition for POTY :)
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191

    There's a great article in The Times by Danny Finkelstein, references some 10,000 strong polling by Populus.

    If true could swing the election for the Tories. Potential 3% late swing in the campaign to the Tories according to this polling.

    Simple, Free Image and File Hosting at MediaFire
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Tim_B said:

    Charles said:

    Tim_B said:

    FPT.
    There’s no problem with ZHC’s UNLESS the employer also says that the “employee” must always be available for work if required.

    Hospitals and silver service waitresses have worked on them for years quite satisfactorily. “Can you do a shift this weekend?” No, sorry,” “OK” ... employer tries next name on the list.

    I understand though that some fast food outlets insist that an employee must always be available, but can be sent home if the restuarant quietens down.

    Yes, the MUST be available is a problem.
    Which is why the Coalition make "exclusive" ZHCs (ie MUST be available) illegal...
    Let's say you work for a restaurant - you are scheduled for the lunch shift, and you are cut at 2.30pm (after being there from say 11am) as the place is pretty much empty. Is that illegal?
    My understanding is not.

    What would be illegal would be the restaurant saying "you can't take any other jobs because we may need you to come into to work at some point in the future. But we won't pay you unless we call you in to work"
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411

    @TSEofPB: Times Red Box YouGov Poll. More expect Miliband to do well in TV debate. http://t.co/xgWAteXWpP

    I've sold Clegg and Wood on the SPIN, and backed them both on the outright. CLegg is a net loss if he wins though.

    Also backed Cameron and Sturgeon on the outright.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    Patrick said:

    Labour talk about ZHCs as if they are a universally hated form of modern slavery. NOT TRUE. Many of those who use ZHCs love the flexibility. Students, jobbing actors, semi-retireds, etc - there are many classes of people who earn money, sometimes decent money, via a very loose and flexible arrangement that works for them. This is wholly to be encouraged. What does not work is for long term unemployed seeking full time work to be forced into exclusive contracts - which is precisely what the coalition has banned.

    Could Ed please just STFU now on this subject?


    With the exception of those on retainers you could add the vast majority of consultancies onto that list as quite often the work demand fluctuates in precisely the same way.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    Last nights YG 2010:2015 vote ratios gave a implied 34.7-34.3 lead to the Tories.

    It's been weighted out.

    Seven of the last nine have been Tory leads.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Scott_P said:

    @JoeWatts_: Cameron on Miliband's 'tough-on-Syria' claim: "He wasn’t standing up to Barack Obama or me — he was giving into Diane Abbott." #GE2015

    Does CCHQ really want to fight the election on invading Syria? Is this Lynton Crosby's masterplan or has Dave been lured dangerously off-message?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,568

    FPT.
    There’s no problem with ZHC’s UNLESS the employer also says that the “employee” must always be available for work if required.

    Hospitals and silver service waitresses have worked on them for years quite satisfactorily. “Can you do a shift this weekend?” No, sorry,” “OK” ... employer tries next name on the list.

    I understand though that some fast food outlets insist that an employee must always be available, but can be sent home if the restuarant quietens down.

    That's right. The former is a loose ZHC, the latter is an exploitative ZHC, because it prevents you taking other work. Labour will ban the latter but not the former (for interest, the Green Party would ban both).
    Tim_B said:

    FPT

    Scott_P said:

    Tim_B said:

    What exactly is a 'zero hour contract'?

    A contract of employment with no minimum specified hours, and therefore no minimum salary. If they have work for you to do, you get paid. If they have no work on the day, you get no pay.
    Much like union work halls for construction and dock workers here - they dole out jobs according to who needs what. How is this bad?

    More to the point - how is this a vote winner?
    We used to have that system here - people would queue up at the docks every morning to see if work was available, and in the building trade it was called "the Lump". It's been regarded as discredited (because it ties up people from other potential work in what was seen as a humiliating way) by most people here for a very long time, and is long gone. It's an illustration of the difference in UK and US employment practice.

    The reason abolishing exploitative ZHCs a vote-winner is that they work as a trap. You're looking for work, and will lose your benefit if you don't accept it. You're offered a deal whereby employer X says he'll sometimes employ you, when he needs you, and you must always be available. In practice, he uses you say 2 days out of 5. Your income is pathetic, but if you quit you're "voluntarily unemployed" and you aren't entitled to benefit. You're not allowed to take other work. How do you escape?

  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,041

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    There's a great article in The Times by Danny Finkelstein, references some 10,000 strong polling by Populus.

    If true could swing the election for the Tories. Potential 3% late swing in the campaign to the Tories according to this polling.

    Blue Dawn?
    I hope so.
    I know it isn't going to happen.. but I do hope for a majority, however tiny.
    A tiny majority scares me.

    Would be like 1992-1997 all over again.

    A bunch of [moderated] holding the government hostage because they are obsessed with Europe.

    That led to 13 years of a Labour government. We can't risk that again
    A fair point. However much I like those bastards, they can still be bastards. So, we just have to win a hundred seat majority, that's all there is to it ;) hah!

    On a serious note, I wonder if Cameron would continue in coalition even if he had 326-336 seats?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538
    SMukesh said:

    So Lab doing well in London,Wales,North and their position has started to improve in Scotland.

    We look forward to the non-Lord`s marginal polls.If this shows no shift from previous,it`s game over for the Tories.

    They aren't doing particularly well in Wales, and are still far behind in Scotland.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    chestnut said:

    Last nights YG 2010:2015 vote ratios gave a implied 34.7-34.3 lead to the Tories.

    It's been weighted out.

    Seven of the last nine have been Tory leads.

    Yes, there is no way that poll corresponds to Labour on 36.

    Annoying as I'm holding Tory OM at the moment hoping for more Tory leads to sell it lower.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,004

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    There's a great article in The Times by Danny Finkelstein, references some 10,000 strong polling by Populus.

    If true could swing the election for the Tories. Potential 3% late swing in the campaign to the Tories according to this polling.

    Blue Dawn?
    I hope so.
    I know it isn't going to happen.. but I do hope for a majority, however tiny.
    A tiny majority scares me.

    Would be like 1992-1997 all over again.

    A bunch of [moderated] holding the government hostage because they are obsessed with Europe.

    That led to 13 years of a Labour government. We can't risk that again
    Agreed that Continuity Coalition would be better than a wafer-thin majority that wouldn't last long and be fraught with disagreement.

    Is it too much to wish that Labour's campaign in this election goes as well as Scotland 2011..?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    RobD said:

    @TSEofPB: Times Red Box YouGov Poll. More expect Miliband to do well in TV debate. http://t.co/xgWAteXWpP

    Poor Leanne Wood. I've only seen her in a few interview and she seems nice enough. Don't agree with her policies though...
    Her point (and central policy for PC) is that Wales should get the same per capita spending as Scotland. Not an unreasonable point as Wales is one of the poorer parts of the UK, and has some of the same rustbelt/rural geographic issues as Scotland.

    Any English politician could make the same valid point, so it does look as if the Barnett formula will be centre stage on Thursday. Could be interesting...
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538
    Mortimer said:

    Sometimes wonder how far through the campaign it will be before certain Labour figures wake up, smell the coffee, read the paper, and realise that the most aggressively anti-business agenda since the 1980s was not the best tack to take.....

    Which Labour figures will start to distance themselves from campaign. Y. Cooper for one seems to have been very quiet....

    An anti-business agenda is not necessarily unpopular.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    Gadfly said:


    There's a great article in The Times by Danny Finkelstein, references some 10,000 strong polling by Populus.

    If true could swing the election for the Tories. Potential 3% late swing in the campaign to the Tories according to this polling.

    Simple, Free Image and File Hosting at MediaFire
    Labour and Conservatives being swapped for Gov't means that all arguments can be made both ways on which way stuff will swing if you base off last time.

    Seen that frequently here.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672
    Moses_ said:

    SMukesh said:

    I agree Cons have had the best start since Parliament was dissolved.

    But I am not sure 100 Tories signing a letter to the press will have the effect that it had last time.

    That's the problem with people like you and Labour in general that's going to cost you dear. Anyone that dares to speak out against the comrades is a Tory. Actually a number of these 100 are anything but hence its the overall message you should be listening too.

    Of course you won't listen, Labour never do and consequently it will cost them a majority and probably the entire election as a result.

    Indeed. It's just a coincidence that so many if the signatories have long-established Tory links.

    I am a company director and was one of the founders of the company. People like Mr Dudley and Mr Thiam do not speak for me. Taking big pay rises on the back of salary freezes, job cuts and fleecing customers is not the way to do things in my book.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Does CCHQ really want to fight the election on invading Syria? Is this Lynton Crosby's masterplan or has Dave been lured dangerously off-message?

    Ed's duplicity, weakness and shameless deceit is entirely on message and plan
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865

    FPT.
    There’s no problem with ZHC’s UNLESS the employer also says that the “employee” must always be available for work if required.

    Hospitals and silver service waitresses have worked on them for years quite satisfactorily. “Can you do a shift this weekend?” No, sorry,” “OK” ... employer tries next name on the list.

    I understand though that some fast food outlets insist that an employee must always be available, but can be sent home if the restuarant quietens down.

    That's right. The former is a loose ZHC, the latter is an exploitative ZHC, because it prevents you taking other work. Labour will ban the latter but not the former (for interest, the Green Party would ban both).
    Tim_B said:

    FPT

    Scott_P said:

    Tim_B said:

    What exactly is a 'zero hour contract'?

    A contract of employment with no minimum specified hours, and therefore no minimum salary. If they have work for you to do, you get paid. If they have no work on the day, you get no pay.
    Much like union work halls for construction and dock workers here - they dole out jobs according to who needs what. How is this bad?

    More to the point - how is this a vote winner?
    We used to have that system here - people would queue up at the docks every morning to see if work was available, and in the building trade it was called "the Lump". It's been regarded as discredited (because it ties up people from other potential work in what was seen as a humiliating way) by most people here for a very long time, and is long gone. It's an illustration of the difference in UK and US employment practice.

    The reason abolishing exploitative ZHCs a vote-winner is that they work as a trap. You're looking for work, and will lose your benefit if you don't accept it. You're offered a deal whereby employer X says he'll sometimes employ you, when he needs you, and you must always be available. In practice, he uses you say 2 days out of 5. Your income is pathetic, but if you quit you're "voluntarily unemployed" and you aren't entitled to benefit. You're not allowed to take other work. How do you escape?

    Is this the same situation or different as to when Labour were in government?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,975
    "A good start for the Crosby campaign"

    A good start blown in one full page ad in the Telegraph. Whoever had the idea of getting 100 captains of industry to put their names to this must have been drinking too much Fosters.

    They have effectively made Labour's point that we are not 'all in this together' and the Tories are the party for the rich.

    Here is name NO 1 on the list followed by a recent article in the TELEGRAPH............

    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/mar/03/bps-bob-dudley-got-25-pay-rise-as-company-salaries-were-frozen


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/robert-colvile/11158607/Yes-CEOs-are-ludicrously-overpaid.-And-yes-its-getting-worse.html


  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669

    FPT.
    There’s no problem with ZHC’s UNLESS the employer also says that the “employee” must always be available for work if required.

    Hospitals and silver service waitresses have worked on them for years quite satisfactorily. “Can you do a shift this weekend?” No, sorry,” “OK” ... employer tries next name on the list.

    I understand though that some fast food outlets insist that an employee must always be available, but can be sent home if the restuarant quietens down.

    That's right. The former is a loose ZHC, the latter is an exploitative ZHC, because it prevents you taking other work. Labour will ban the latter but not the former (for interest, the Green Party would ban both).
    Tim_B said:

    FPT

    Scott_P said:

    Tim_B said:

    What exactly is a 'zero hour contract'?

    A contract of employment with no minimum specified hours, and therefore no minimum salary. If they have work for you to do, you get paid. If they have no work on the day, you get no pay.
    Much like union work halls for construction and dock workers here - they dole out jobs according to who needs what. How is this bad?

    More to the point - how is this a vote winner?
    We used to have that system here - people would queue up at the docks every morning to see if work was available, and in the building trade it was called "the Lump". It's been regarded as discredited (because it ties up people from other potential work in what was seen as a humiliating way) by most people here for a very long time, and is long gone. It's an illustration of the difference in UK and US employment practice.

    The reason abolishing exploitative ZHCs a vote-winner is that they work as a trap. You're looking for work, and will lose your benefit if you don't accept it. You're offered a deal whereby employer X says he'll sometimes employ you, when he needs you, and you must always be available. In practice, he uses you say 2 days out of 5. Your income is pathetic, but if you quit you're "voluntarily unemployed" and you aren't entitled to benefit. You're not allowed to take other work. How do you escape?

    If you're (say) a restaurant, and have regular shift schedules, that's fine. But once you have the 'you must be available for me at all times, regardless', that's clearly wrong.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Sean_F said:

    An anti-business agenda is not necessarily unpopular.

    An anti-job agenda is a tough sell
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,963
    Mr. Observer, Labour can't have it both ways, claiming it's pro-business "Look at all these nice quotes we have" and then claim any business being pro-Conservative is somehow not valid and shouldn't be listened to.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    SMukesh said:

    So Lab doing well in London,Wales,North and their position has started to improve in Scotland.

    We look forward to the non-Lord`s marginal polls.If this shows no shift from previous,it`s game over for the Tories.

    The situation has not started to improve in Scotland. Given the proportional swing the comres poll showed they could lose every seat.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    FPT.
    There’s no problem with ZHC’s UNLESS the employer also says that the “employee” must always be available for work if required.

    Hospitals and silver service waitresses have worked on them for years quite satisfactorily. “Can you do a shift this weekend?” No, sorry,” “OK” ... employer tries next name on the list.

    I understand though that some fast food outlets insist that an employee must always be available, but can be sent home if the restuarant quietens down.

    That's right. The former is a loose ZHC, the latter is an exploitative ZHC, because it prevents you taking other work. Labour will ban the latter but not the former (for interest, the Green Party would ban both).

    According to press reports this morning, Labour is apparently proposing banning both.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538
    Scott_P said:

    Sean_F said:

    An anti-business agenda is not necessarily unpopular.

    An anti-job agenda is a tough sell
    The people Labour is aiming at won't see it that way.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,041
    antifrank said:

    FPT.
    There’s no problem with ZHC’s UNLESS the employer also says that the “employee” must always be available for work if required.

    Hospitals and silver service waitresses have worked on them for years quite satisfactorily. “Can you do a shift this weekend?” No, sorry,” “OK” ... employer tries next name on the list.

    I understand though that some fast food outlets insist that an employee must always be available, but can be sent home if the restuarant quietens down.

    That's right. The former is a loose ZHC, the latter is an exploitative ZHC, because it prevents you taking other work. Labour will ban the latter but not the former (for interest, the Green Party would ban both).

    According to press reports this morning, Labour is apparently proposing banning both.
    Hasn't the latter already been banned?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672

    Mr. Observer, Labour can't have it both ways, claiming it's pro-business "Look at all these nice quotes we have" and then claim any business being pro-Conservative is somehow not valid and shouldn't be listened to.

    They should definitely be listened to. And their records and actions examined.

    Here's today's Mail on Mr Thiam from the Pru:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3020497/Men-Pru-share-huge-49m-payout-Pensions-firm-accused-greed-details-perks-senior-executives-revealed-days-shake-up.html
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    Mr. Observer, Labour can't have it both ways, claiming it's pro-business "Look at all these nice quotes we have" and then claim any business being pro-Conservative is somehow not valid and shouldn't be listened to.

    They should definitely be listened to. And their records and actions examined.

    Here's today's Mail on Mr Thiam from the Pru:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3020497/Men-Pru-share-huge-49m-payout-Pensions-firm-accused-greed-details-perks-senior-executives-revealed-days-shake-up.html
    The Mail had more pizazz yesterday. Martin Freeman should have "Red Ed's Hobbit Backer" put on his business cards.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    Roger said:

    "A good start for the Crosby campaign"

    A good start blown in one full page ad in the Telegraph. Whoever had the idea of getting 100 captains of industry to put their names to this must have been drinking too much Fosters.

    They have effectively made Labour's point that we are not 'all in this together' and the Tories are the party for the rich.

    Here is name NO 1 on the list followed by a recent article in the TELEGRAPH............

    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/mar/03/bps-bob-dudley-got-25-pay-rise-as-company-salaries-were-frozen


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/robert-colvile/11158607/Yes-CEOs-are-ludicrously-overpaid.-And-yes-its-getting-worse.html


    Roger

    I couldn't figure out why Martin Freeman wasn't on that list, do you know ?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,915
    Patrick said:

    Labour talk about ZHCs as if they are a universally hated form of modern slavery. NOT TRUE. Many of those who use ZHCs love the flexibility. Students, jobbing actors, semi-retireds, etc - there are many classes of people who earn money, sometimes decent money, via a very loose and flexible arrangement that works for them. This is wholly to be encouraged. What does not work is for long term unemployed seeking full time work to be forced into exclusive contracts - which is precisely what the coalition has banned.

    Could Ed please just STFU now on this subject?

    I don't know if Milicent actually believes that line.

    His problem is a) That he risks being outflanked by the goonish left and their publicity astutn machine - Greens, NUS, Occupidiots and so on, and b) That he and many of his MPs are owned by the rather extreme leaders of the big Trades Unions.

    He needs to work out who TU members actually vote for (mainly not Labour), then reform the relationship.
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669

    Mr. Observer, Labour can't have it both ways, claiming it's pro-business "Look at all these nice quotes we have" and then claim any business being pro-Conservative is somehow not valid and shouldn't be listened to.

    Labour = Luca Badoer
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191
    Pulpstar said:

    Gadfly said:


    There's a great article in The Times by Danny Finkelstein, references some 10,000 strong polling by Populus.

    If true could swing the election for the Tories. Potential 3% late swing in the campaign to the Tories according to this polling.

    Simple, Free Image and File Hosting at MediaFire
    Labour and Conservatives being swapped for Gov't means that all arguments can be made both ways on which way stuff will swing if you base off last time.

    Seen that frequently here.
    I would not disagree with that. The article in The Times does however resonate with one that appeared in The Telegraph back in January, which included this graphic...

    Simple, Free Image and File Hosting at MediaFire

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11366259/General-Election-2015-with-100-days-to-go-this-chart-should-scare-Ed-Miliband.html
  • Oh my (to be fair I'm on Grindr too)

    Nick Clegg to join Grindr for election campaign

    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/04/01/nick-clegg-to-join-grindr-for-election-campaign/
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    edited April 2015
    Business leaders writing to papers in support of Tories = Predators
    Business leaders writing to papers in support of Labour = Producers

    Simples.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,963
    Mr. B, shade harsh on Badoer :p
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,041

    Oh my (to be fair I'm on Grindr too)

    Nick Clegg to join Grindr for election campaign

    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/04/01/nick-clegg-to-join-grindr-for-election-campaign/

    I sincerely hope you have your twitter pic as your profile pic :);)
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,975
    Chestnut

    "Last nights YG 2010:2015 vote ratios gave a implied 34.7-34.3 lead to the Tories.
    It's been weighted out.
    Seven of the last nine have been Tory leads."

    You find ever more ingenious ways of finding Tory leads when the pollsters point the other way. Can you explain how Yougov managed to get this one so misleadingly wrong when all they needed to do was ask you?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Mr. Observer, Labour can't have it both ways, claiming it's pro-business "Look at all these nice quotes we have" and then claim any business being pro-Conservative is somehow not valid and shouldn't be listened to.

    They should definitely be listened to. And their records and actions examined.

    Here's today's Mail on Mr Thiam from the Pru:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3020497/Men-Pru-share-huge-49m-payout-Pensions-firm-accused-greed-details-perks-senior-executives-revealed-days-shake-up.html
    My investments with the pru have done very well. I did not buy their funds or annuities though, I bouth the shares for my own ISA. They are now doing very well in the fast maturing far east markets. With no real welfare state and a rapidly ageing population China is the new frontier for private pensions.
  • antifrank said:

    Mr. Observer, Labour can't have it both ways, claiming it's pro-business "Look at all these nice quotes we have" and then claim any business being pro-Conservative is somehow not valid and shouldn't be listened to.

    They should definitely be listened to. And their records and actions examined.

    Here's today's Mail on Mr Thiam from the Pru:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3020497/Men-Pru-share-huge-49m-payout-Pensions-firm-accused-greed-details-perks-senior-executives-revealed-days-shake-up.html
    The Mail had more pizazz yesterday. Martin Freeman should have "Red Ed's Hobbit Backer" put on his business cards.
    They should have called him Red Ed's porn star double backer.

    (Makes sense if you've seen Love Actually)
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Re: ZHC

    Recall some months ago on PB that the press had found that both the Labour Party and some Unions were employing people on ZHC.

    The problem is that most politicians and especially EdM have failed to realise that the world has moved on during the last 10+ years and has become a lot more competitive vis-a-vis the UK as well as becoming better skilled.

    Full time employment with all benefits for all may be an ideal, but the reality is that if the UK cannot sell enough of its products and services to export markets, then it will not be able to borrow enough money to pay for energy, raw materials and all the textiles, electronics and plastics that it imports from the Far East.

    In order to compete we have to improve both efficiency and skill sets and neither is a short term solution that can be fixed within five years after years of neglect and benign indifference.
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669

    Mr. B, shade harsh on Badoer :p

    You are quite right - if I was Helen Keller would wash my hands with soap :)
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Is this an April Fool?
    Michael Crick ✔ @MichaelLCrick
    Follow

    Ukip officials refuse to comment on late-night Nigel Farage visit to Ed Miliband's home. Lasted 3 hours, say sources
    https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/583164471016841217
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Oh my (to be fair I'm on Grindr too)

    Nick Clegg to join Grindr for election campaign

    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/04/01/nick-clegg-to-join-grindr-for-election-campaign/

    So it is true that LDs are prepared to swing both ways...
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    I'm getting increasingly perplexed by Mr Farage's non-sequiturs. Now he's sort of saying that too many immigrants are preventing kids playing football in the street...

    Err.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    Patrick said:

    Labour talk about ZHCs as if they are a universally hated form of modern slavery. NOT TRUE. Many of those who use ZHCs love the flexibility. Students, jobbing actors, semi-retireds, etc - there are many classes of people who earn money, sometimes decent money, via a very loose and flexible arrangement that works for them. This is wholly to be encouraged. What does not work is for long term unemployed seeking full time work to be forced into exclusive contracts - which is precisely what the coalition has banned.

    Could Ed please just STFU now on this subject?

    Labour are either consciously playing on the public's misunderstanding of these things, or they don't really understand them themselves.

    The more I listen to Ed, the more I think it's the latter.

    He has got Hollande written all over him, and I'd guess that we'd see rising prices, rising taxes and rising unemployment within a year of him being elected.

  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,975
    NAME No 1 one on the Tory/Telegraph list of Captains of Industry; (only 99 more to go)


    BP's BOB DUDLEY GOT 25% PAY RISE AS COMPANY SALARIES WERE FROZEN

    "The group’s chief executive took home $12.7m (£8.3m) last year after slashing 300 jobs and failing to meet safety targets"

    I wonder if Labour can get Cosby to work for them (if he isn't already)

  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,486
    Please can we have no polling related April fool's jokes, I don't think I can take it
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    Plato said:

    I'm getting increasingly perplexed by Mr Farage's non-sequiturs. Now he's sort of saying that too many immigrants are preventing kids playing football in the street...

    Err.

    If they're from Pakistan or India wouldn't they rather play cricket in the street?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,363
    edited April 2015
    Alistair said:

    SMukesh said:

    Pulpstar said:

    SMukesh said:

    So Lab pulling things back in Scotland which is not unexpected.Should put paid to the Alec Salmond masks.


    Which poll shows them pulling things back in Scotland ?
    Comes Scotland which has the gap at 6 in Scottish Labour seats.

    This is how STV reported that poll:

    The SNP is set for a landslide victory in Labour held seats at May's General Election, according to a new poll.

    Figures suggest 29 of Labour's 40 seats in Scotland could be won by the nationalists, with a 19-point swing in their favour since 2010.


    http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/315654-snp-set-for-landslide-victory-in-labour-held-seats-says-itv-comres-poll/
    And that's working on the assumption of UNS. As even the poll shows the swing is not uniform. The SNP are getting goldilocks swing of just enough in every constituency according to Ashcroft.
    Scotgoespop has been scathing on some Scottish Unionist (not NI) newspapers who have been reporting the poll as if a nationwide one and getting about half and half seats Scotland-wide. He has worked out the actual equivalent figures and they are pretty much the usual bog standard Labour massacre.

    But what is a goldilocks swing please??

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,132
    Plato said:

    I'm getting increasingly perplexed by Mr Farage's non-sequiturs. Now he's sort of saying that too many immigrants are preventing kids playing football in the street...

    Err.

    I think his basic riff is that life was better in the 1950s and that's what we want back.
  • @NickBolesMP: With heavy heart I am standing down as Conservative PPC in Grantham & Stamford in favour of @GeneralBoles. He's simply more popular than me.
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    Carnyx said:

    Alistair said:

    SMukesh said:

    Pulpstar said:

    SMukesh said:

    So Lab pulling things back in Scotland which is not unexpected.Should put paid to the Alec Salmond masks.


    Which poll shows them pulling things back in Scotland ?
    Comes Scotland which has the gap at 6 in Scottish Labour seats.

    This is how STV reported that poll:

    The SNP is set for a landslide victory in Labour held seats at May's General Election, according to a new poll.

    Figures suggest 29 of Labour's 40 seats in Scotland could be won by the nationalists, with a 19-point swing in their favour since 2010.


    http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/315654-snp-set-for-landslide-victory-in-labour-held-seats-says-itv-comres-poll/
    And that's working on the assumption of UNS. As even the poll shows the swing is not uniform. The SNP are getting goldilocks swing of just enough in every constituency according to Ashcroft.
    Scotgoespop has been scathing on some Scottish Unionist (not NI) newspapers who have been reporting the poll as if a nationwide one and getting about half and half seats Scotland-wide. He has worked out the actual equivalent figures and they are pretty much the usual bog standard Labour massacre.

    But what is a goldilocks swing please??

    The three bears sniff and lick a lot.....
  • roserees64roserees64 Posts: 251
    The Labour Party should thank the Telegraph for their 100 fat cat endorsement of the Tory Party, just what Labour needed. Some of these people enjoyed a 25% pay rise while their workers got none. Don't forget families are only now enjoying a 70 pence weekly rise in their income, the first since 2010.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,975
    edited April 2015




    Men from the Pru share huge £49m payout: Pensions firm accused of 'greed' after details of perks for senior executives are revealed days before shake-up


    Mr Thiam who recently awarded himself an £11,000,000 bonus says

    'VOTE TORY!! DONT ROCK THE BOAT'
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,363
    Tim_B said:

    Carnyx said:

    Alistair said:

    SMukesh said:

    Pulpstar said:

    SMukesh said:

    So Lab pulling things back in Scotland which is not unexpected.Should put paid to the Alec Salmond masks.


    Which poll shows them pulling things back in Scotland ?
    Comes Scotland which has the gap at 6 in Scottish Labour seats.

    This is how STV reported that poll:

    The SNP is set for a landslide victory in Labour held seats at May's General Election, according to a new poll.

    Figures suggest 29 of Labour's 40 seats in Scotland could be won by the nationalists, with a 19-point swing in their favour since 2010.


    http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/315654-snp-set-for-landslide-victory-in-labour-held-seats-says-itv-comres-poll/
    And that's working on the assumption of UNS. As even the poll shows the swing is not uniform. The SNP are getting goldilocks swing of just enough in every constituency according to Ashcroft.
    Scotgoespop has been scathing on some Scottish Unionist (not NI) newspapers who have been reporting the poll as if a nationwide one and getting about half and half seats Scotland-wide. He has worked out the actual equivalent figures and they are pretty much the usual bog standard Labour massacre.

    But what is a goldilocks swing please??

    The three bears sniff and lick a lot.....
    Sorry, still don't get it ...

  • chestnut said:

    Patrick said:

    Labour talk about ZHCs as if they are a universally hated form of modern slavery. NOT TRUE. Many of those who use ZHCs love the flexibility. Students, jobbing actors, semi-retireds, etc - there are many classes of people who earn money, sometimes decent money, via a very loose and flexible arrangement that works for them. This is wholly to be encouraged. What does not work is for long term unemployed seeking full time work to be forced into exclusive contracts - which is precisely what the coalition has banned.

    Could Ed please just STFU now on this subject?

    Labour are either consciously playing on the public's misunderstanding of these things, or they don't really understand them themselves.

    The more I listen to Ed, the more I think it's the latter.

    He has got Hollande written all over him, and I'd guess that we'd see rising prices, rising taxes and rising unemployment within a year of him being elected.

    Ed Miliband is playing to his 33% gallery. It may well prove a successful strategy. For sure he understands nothing whatever about the economy or business - but neither do his tribe. This is a GE campaign and all he needs to worry about is making the right noises to get his tribe into the voting booth - no matter how fucking inane they are. What we all need to worry about is that 33% is probably enough to see him and Eck running the country (down) .
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Seem to recall from ST YG polls that about one third of the VI have not been affected/not noticed the effects of 'cuts'/austerity. Would they be manly people employed by the public sector or on such pensions?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672
    Interesting ... Tory candidate for Hampstead & Kilburn opposes Trident, bedroom tax and HS2.

    http://www.camdennewjournal.com/candidatestrident#.VRufhdGAJ4I.twitter
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @faisalislam: So three business organisations: CBI, EEF, IoD have also issued separate statements attacking the Labour move on zero hours contracts
This discussion has been closed.