George Osborne Is Rather Proud Of The Latest Economic Data

David Cameron and George Osborne have been lifted by a series of economic figures that experts described as "nothing but good news".
The Office for National Statistics revealed that the rate of unemployment has continued to fall, slipping by 97,000 to 1.86 million. The number of people in work increased by 103,000 over the period of October to December 2014 to hit 30.90 million.
Meanwhile, average earnings increased by 2.1% in the year to December, 0.3% higher than the previous month, in a continued sign of pay growing faster than inflation.
Tory cabinet ministers have lined up to welcome the news, with the Chancellor saying that "families are seeing the results of the long term economic plan".


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/02/18/uk-economy-boost_n_6703460.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

Look up the statistics of what those jobs actually are. Lordy, lordy, you'll swallow any shit and ask for more.

Is that why even Labour praised the news that unemployment was down again then?
How odd, most people would take this as good news no matter the party affiliation.

The ONS said the employment rate, or level of people in work, for those aged between 16 and 64 was 73.2% for the three months to December - a joint record high.
The employment rate last reached 73.2% in the December 2004 to February 2005 period, and has not been higher since comparable records began in 1971.
That meant 30.9 million people were in work in the final three months of 2014 - 608,000 more than in the same three months a year earlier.
Over the quarter, the number of self-employed fell 19,000 to 4.4 million.
Long-term unemployment also fell, by 210,000 among those out of work for more than a year, to 638,000.

However, for the October to December period, the unemployment rate for 16 to 24-year-olds was 16.2%, which was unchanged on the previous quarter.
David Kern, chief economist at the British Chambers of Commerce, said the failure of youth unemployment to fall further was a concern: "It is consistently higher than the adult employment rate, so we need to look at ways to bring this down further."
The number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance fell 38,600 in January to 823,000, the 27th straight monthly fall.

The rise in the employment rate is due to zero hours contracts, part time work etc, and the rise in wages is because the have taken BONUSES into account. And who gets the BONUSES - not those at the bottom who have not seen a penny increase and are still on minimum wages. Use your brain for one and stop kowtowing to the establishment and putting your arse up in the air to be kicked over and over again. Grow a pair.

Really they are all these types of jobs are they
Well watch the polls over the next weeks and we will see if people share your views after this news

Open wide, swallow the shit and ask for more. Very sad.

Sorry but that really made no sense at all.
Can we have that in some form of English please?

risingsun wrote:Open wide, swallow the shit and ask for more.  Very sad.

The reason why the Tories are happy is because higher employment means a reduction in the national deficit.

They couldn't give a rats ass about what type of job. But don't assume Labour do either.

Don't assume they done. Only ones saying they will make zero hours contracts illegal.

risingsun wrote:Don't assume they done.  Only ones saying they will make zero hours contracts illegal.

No they won't. Labour have admitted they can't as employers will just change from zero hours to 1 hour. Or similar low number.

Yes they will, and they have admitted no such thing. Wording the law so that employers cannot do that is being investigated at the moment.

Proud of it? They should be ashamed of themselves for what they have done. It's been the longest recovery in modern times and it comes after almost 5 years where they have introduced a low paid economy where people are worse off. They could have taken that route and done it in a couple years.

There's no plan and the latest figures are a sham.

ONS - In 2014, three million workers (9.9% of the working population) were underemployed and wanted to work more hours on average 11.3 hours. The welfare bill is out of control and going up. If they want to brag about their unemployment figures then lets see a drop in the welfare bill because that would be a better measure of rising employment with good full time jobs.

Get this shower out on May 7th.

Another lefty not happy that more people are in work.
Unbelievable where people are think good news is bad news and why Labour will not win this election with that mentality

risingsun wrote:Yes they will, and they have admitted no such thing.  Wording the law so that employers cannot do that is being investigated at the moment.

Labour want to introduce legislation where employees can demand a fixed hour contract if they work for the same employer for longer than 6 months and will automatically get a fixed hour contract after working regular hours for the same employer for 1 year (although the employee can opt out of this).

Do you not see potential loopholes in this?

I already have my lawyers preparing a draft contract for minimal hours (eg 1 hour) and a 5 month contract.

We've had a series of meetings with my staff and my nurses and carers are prepared to sign such contracts - as it suits their lifestyle.

The more complex the legislation, the greater the loopholes (like taxe avoidance). I dont think Labour will waste their time or money with legislation that is clearly flawed. Nor will they risk the higher unemployment , should they get into power.

It's just a vote winning tactic designed to fool people.

Of course i see the potential loopholes, and so do the Labour Party, which is why it hasn't been finalised and is being looked into in detail. And at least, unlike the Conservatives who actually like zero hours, they are trying to do something about it. I have a grandson on zero hours, it's a vile situation to be in.

risingsun wrote:Of course i see the potential loopholes, and so do the Labour Party, which is why it hasn't been finalised and is being looked into in detail.  And at least, unlike the Conservatives who actually like zero hours, they are trying to do something about it.  I have a grandson on zero hours, it's a vile situation to be in.

Vile? Don't be hysterical now. Some employees prefer such flexibility.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

risingsun wrote:Of course i see the potential loopholes, and so do the Labour Party, which is why it hasn't been finalised and is being looked into in detail.  And at least, unlike the Conservatives who actually like zero hours, they are trying to do something about it.  I have a grandson on zero hours, it's a vile situation to be in.

Vile? Don't be hysterical now. Some employees prefer such flexibility.

I don't do 'hysterical'. It is a vile situation where he doesn't know from one week to the next if he will have any work, if he does have work whether he will get a reasonable amount of money or whether it will just be a few hours. He cannot move out of his Mum's house, he cannot plan for anything, he feels that he is not contributing properly to the household because he can't often pay his way, in effect at 22 his life is on hold. That, is vile. Oh yes, they do like to say that some prefer the flexibility. What's flexible about never knowing where you stand.

Some people (esp working mums) like flexi-time and working arrangements they can change on a weekly basis, depending on their other commitments.

It may not suit a young ambitious lad, but such contracts can be used to get a foot in the door and advance. Anyway, good luck to him. At 22, you have many options and should never give up.

Your still running a "Care Home"then zack? I bet you hate having to look after us infidels still the moneys good isn't it?

nicko wrote:Your still running a "Care Home"then zack?  I bet you hate having to look after us infidels   still the moneys good isn't it?

No, the money is pretty shit now. Still earning mega bucks for my family but plan to sell and go into some thing more lucrative and where having a conscience is optional.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Some people (esp working mums) like flexi-time and working arrangements they can change on a weekly basis, depending on their other commitments.

It may not suit a young ambitious lad, but such contracts can be used to get a foot in the door and advance. Anyway, good luck to him. At 22, you have many options and should never give up.

'Flexitime' which I have done, and is a set number of hours a week, the timing of which is flexible and can be re-arranged to suit worker and employer when things happen, is NOT Zero Hours. With zero hours the employer can take the work away whenever he feels like it and leave you in limbo. It is not consensual in any way.

risingsun wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Some people (esp working mums) like flexi-time and working arrangements they can change on a weekly basis, depending on their other commitments.

It may not suit a young ambitious lad, but such contracts can be used to get a foot in the door and advance. Anyway, good luck to him. At 22, you have many options and should never give up.

'Flexitime' which I have done, and is a set number of hours a week, the timing of which is flexible and can be re-arranged to suit worker and employer when things happen, is NOT Zero Hours.  With zero hours the employer can take the work away whenever he feels like it and leave you in limbo.  It is not consensual in any way.

No employer is forcing zero hour contracts. They can choose to find work some where else. The fact is, many of these jobs wouldn't even exist without such contracts, so your only alternative would be no jobs.

The employer might not be forcing them, but the beneifts system is.  If offered a zero hours contract they have to take, and it means they come of the unemployed list, even if virtually unemployed and you might not have noticed the lack of jobs, but nearly 1 million young people have.  

Amazing all those years businesses managed before we had zero contracts.  It's just a way of the state subsidising businesses and Tories being able to twist the facts of unemployment going down when there are estimated to be nearly 2 million people on zero hours and having to claim benefits.

risingsun wrote:The employer might not be forcing them, but the beneifts system is.  If offered a zero hours contract they have to take, and it means they come of the unemployed list, even if virtually unemployed and you might not have noticed the lack of jobs, but nearly 1 million young people have.  

Amazing all those years businesses managed before we had zero contracts.  It's just a way of the state subsidising businesses and Tories being able to twist the facts of unemployment going down when there are estimated to be nearly 2 million people on zero hours and having to claim benefits.

It is the benefit system that has made this country less productive than others, esp. compared to India and China.

Frankly it's about time to stop this laziness.