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

Indeed as ever and 1st

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.

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.

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.

OldKingCole 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.

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?

TheScreamingEagles 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?

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?

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.

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

Tim_B said:

OldKingCole 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

Charles said:

Tim_B said:

OldKingCole 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?

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.

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....

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

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles 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.

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?

TheScreamingEagles 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...

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles 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

TheScreamingEagles 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.

TheScreamingEagles said:

@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.

OldKingCole 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).

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?

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.

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles 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..?

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.

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.

NickPalmer said:

OldKingCole 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).

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?

NickPalmer said:

OldKingCole 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).

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.

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.

NickPalmer said:

OldKingCole 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.

antifrank said:

NickPalmer said:

OldKingCole 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?

SouthamObserver said:

Morris_Dancer 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.

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.

Pulpstar said:

Gadfly said:

TheScreamingEagles 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.

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...



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

Business leaders writing to papers in support of Tories = Predators
Business leaders writing to papers in support of Labour = Producers

Simples.

TheScreamingEagles said:

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

SouthamObserver said:

Morris_Dancer 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

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.

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.

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)

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?

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.

Carnyx said:

Alistair said:

CarlottaVance 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.....

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'

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) .

@faisalislam: So three business organisations: CBI, EEF, IoD have also issued separate statements attacking the Labour move on zero hours contracts