The rising employment figures have always been a mystery, and an issue, for the BBC, they have never been able to accept that they must be a sign that something, somewhere is going right in the economy and the BBC has always sought to find something negative to say on the subject trying deliberately to undermine the perceived success of the economy….a central plank of the Tories’ election strategy.
Self-employment has been rising and this has often been portrayed by the BBC as a negative…dismissing the jobs as of low value and low status and therefore not a sign of a recovering economy but a sign of desperation by people forced out of work by government Austerity.
However that’s not usually true…most interviews with self-employed people go against the presenter’s narrative that the self-employed were forced into that line of work and are living in a miserable penury….the self-employed more often than not claim to love their work and are enjoying a good measure of success.
An example came up yesterday after the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the RSA released a study into self-employment. Not sure why they decided to do this study at this time just before an election in which jobs are an issue …especially as in 2003 the JRF released a study that said pretty much exactly the same things about self-employment.
They do admit that self-employment is in 2015…
….a trend that predates the crash: self-employment grew in nearly every year since the turn of the century. The implication is that self-employment has as much to do with long-term structural trends in our economy – new technologies, changing mindsets and shifting demographics – as with a short-term cyclical blip.
So not really a result of the economic crash or Coalition austerity policies but an increasing and already present trend…and one encouraged by Labour as noted by the JRF in 2003…
Policies to encourage entry into self-employment are increasingly linked to measures to combat social exclusion.
Listening to the BBC’s ‘Wake Up To Money’ and you get the idea that self-employment is a form of Coalition government imposed torture. An interview with one business woman, Carla, (21 mins) painted a picture of a person held over a barrel, forced to carry on working even at death’s door…. Adam Parson’s exclaiming ‘Wow! …a pretty extreme example of the pressures to keep working.’ when Carla described how she battled on after having a car crash.
By coincidence I heard the same woman being interviewed later on by Peter Allen (10:41) in an interview that had an altogether different tone and painted an entirely different picture of her life and business….Allen asked her ‘How’s it been?’ [Her self-employed life] She replied ‘Great!’
Allen asked ‘Has it made life better?’ [Being self-employed] She replied ‘Oh yes….I love what I do…it’s so much fun…the creativity you get to enjoy everyday is amazing!’
Sounds like she is enjoying self-employment despite the obvious pressures.
One good thing about Allen is that he often starts from the standard BBC world view but is happy to adjust his views when presented with facts that disprove it…..as when he was ‘shocked’ to hear that the richest in society actually pay a vast amount of tax…and a rising amount contrary to what we are often led to believe.
The ‘WUTM’ crew in contrast are averse to any change in narrative and plough on regardless of the facts or of what their expert guest commentators reveal when it goes against the doom and gloom line the comic duo of Clark and Parsons relentlessly peddle on the BBC…..such as low inflation apparently being a disaster waiting to happen or people starting to borrow more is a sign of desperation as they run out of money…rather than a sign of confidence in the future economy and rising wages.
Adam Parsons unfortunately doesn’t restrict himself to the death watch on WUTM but frequently pops up on other programmes giving us the benefit of his unique take on the world.
Today’s interviews with ‘Carla’ shows though how different things can be made to look by some in the Media when they have an axe to grind.
The BBC should be renamed ‘British “But…” Corporation’.
Whenever there’s good news about the economy, there is always a “But…”, and then it usually waffles on about ‘the bedroom tax’, ‘cost of living crisis’, zero hours contracts, etc, and then to a carefully edited(!) pre-recorded outside broadcast (they won’t do it live because they won’t get the responses they want) featuring a supposed ‘cross-section of the British public’.
This is where the BBC fails – in an effort to be unbiased, they can pick and choose in which way they demonstrate impartiality.
They can choose a cross section of race and ethnicity – or they can choose equal measures of differing political views. Either way, the BBC can broadcast material according to its own political agenda.
After the live broadcast of Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday, BBC News decided to speak to a group of young people (I guess they would be students) about their take on how the Commons session went. A couple of people in the group had never seen it before and I noted that they thought it was all a ‘bit like… you know… kind of… sort of like… IMMATURE.’
The BBC love to embrace young people (Jimmy Saville aside). Is that because most young people lack the wisdom of hindsight or experience and will gravitate towards an ideology rather than a party policy that will actually make a change for the better?
Yes, that is it! Exactly. We all fight our corner. The BBC is paid for by all of us (just about) and the dumber it can keep us politically, the more it can persuade us to vote for left-wing policies that keep it fed and watered.
Do we live in a democracy? Sort of.
There isn’t good news about the economy unless you are a gullible idiot !
Cameron premiership has been noteworthy because of his utter failure to actually achieve anything!
You name me one major thing he has done which will stand out as worthwhile in the annuls of history?
The economy – you see it as growing because a figure tells you so – I see it as shrinking because I see the reasons behind that figure!
Mass immigration which Cameron has encouraged has given a temporary blip to the economy, but which in a short time, after the election turn into a drag on the economy. It’s a Con ! If you can see it for what it is, unfortunately the gullible idiots can’t.
Public sector debt – The figures show it reducing (but only as a ratio of GDP – the reality behind this improvement is in fact the sale of the bank shares which raised £20 billion. Because the asset value is not counted it appears to the gullible idiots that an improvement has been made.
Employment is up! Unemployment is down ! Must be good right? Only if you’re a gullible idiot !
Unemployment is down because no at least one third of unemployed people are suspended for spurious reasons, and the government is refusing all information requests for the full figures on this.
Employment is up! really? But growing zero hours contracts and people forced onto self employment packages without any guaranteed hours. The reality is that although more people are technically employed the actual hours worked in the economy has not increased.
Couple all this with some of the needlessly cruel policies ever seen since Victorian times and Cameron’s time as PM has been an absolute disaster !
You’ve just listed all the problems that were caused by Labour in the first place.
Maybe that’s true, but that makes it even worse because Cameron has achieved even less in his 5 years !
Because his Lib Dem partners have constantly stepped in the way of progress.
The national debt will still be with us for the next few decades whoever gets into power. It’s the deficit that needs sorting before anything can be done to reduce the debt. At least in that respect Cameron is steering in the right direction even if it is still not on the quickest route.
That’s crap
How can Cameron be responsible for increased immigration from Europe when current EEC Regulations deem it illegal to refuse entry to those from other countries within the Union.
You name me one major thing he has done which will stand out…
According to the Torygraph: Gay marriage will be David Cameron’s enduring legacy
Sort of confirms your point… I’m sure he intends a ‘Yes’ vote in the referendum to be his legacy, though.
Micky Clarke took the BBC Shilling a long time ago, it’s probably why he appears to spend so much time on the Golf course.
According to the BBC, every silver lining has a cloud. So “lets concentrate on the cloud”.
Employment question is easy. Sack a full time worker and replace with 6 zero hours contractors and hey presto the employment figures rise by 5. Employment should now be replaced by measures of underemployment and productivity.
In the UK these measures will show that the economy is weak and depressed.
As to your comments on the economy,you seem to take it as read that things are on the up. I’d like know by what metrics you judge this. The so called recovery is consumer led (read more credit) with no attendant changes to our productive base.
Moreover since capital continues to provide a huge return in comparison to wages ,the rich will increasingly get richer and the poor,including middle income groups,poorer.
Whether you care about this is moot. The Governor of the Bank of England and the IMF have both commented that if this continues the economy will collapse due to lack of demand.
Apart from this the Country no longer controls its own corporate tax borders and has no hope of controlling the banking industry.
The charge levelled at Labour was that the Banks were under regulated,and notably atthe time the Tories wanted less. The big question is how do nation states regulate peer to peer transactions in the shadow banking system particularly when the effects through derivatives are felt universally. Has this question been answered. No!
So all is well with the UK economy? You have to be kidding!
>Employment should now be replaced by measures of underemployment and productivity.<
Who's to say whether someone is under-employed or not producing enough?
There are people around who prefer to work part-time, or be more flexible in their working hours. Labour law has developed over the last x years (across different governments) to allow greater flexibility in the workplace, and it is increasingly the role of management to trust staff to deliver against their responsibilities.
Changing the reporting criteria exclusively as you suggest doesn't really get to the right answer since it doesn't answer the questions that would inevitably arise.
Strangely I was thinking about zero hours contracts earlier regarding our fair sized regional theatre, which has gaps between productions, two shows some days, weekend working etc.etc.
Perhaps Manon would like to play the role of the Theatre and advise on what terms he would employ the front of house staff .
Then let him assume he runs a catering event company. Perhaps he can advise his employment terms for the waiting staff.
Always long on cheap generalisations, so I wait the “socialist” solution to the requirement to provide staff in the above situations.
you’ll have to ask a socialist for their opinion in relation to your question.
I on the other hand was talking about the state of the economy. I assume if it collapses youll end up with plenty more gaps in your schedule to worry about! Luvvies dontchajerst luvem!
Socialists portray zero hours as a problem to be “solved”.
You tell us that the employments statistics are fiddled by those zero hours contracts, so when a million, mainly private sector workers were thrown out of work in 2007/8 by the disastrous economic policies of people you have told us you believe know what they are doing, was that only 142,857 (by your ratio) of full time job equivalents that were lost, or did zero hours contracts only start in May 2010 in your belief?
If I replace the word “socialist” in my question with “a retired graduate” I would still like to know the terms on which you would employ people in the circumstances I describe.
Who’s to say whether someone is under-employed or not producing enough?
Productivity measures from the Government.They are not good.
On the issue of part time there are two permutations;those that want to work part time and can which is good and those that want to work full time but have to work part time which is bad in the sense they are less productive.
In respect of trust I am not sure that changes in work patterns and levels of renumeration necessarily imply that.
Back in the 1980s when unemployment forced many people into self-employment, the new business start-up Failure Rate was around 65-70% by end of year one.
Unfortunately, I cannot remember source or quote numbers, but I recall seeing or hearing recently that that failure rate – which remained as a standard for a long time – has actually fallen since 2007. In other words, new business start-ups are surviving better than before.
Can anyone find a source for this potential good news story?
Strangely many SMEs started as self employment. Often risking their house to provide finance to grow etc. Then they take on employees with all the nightmare of tax, national insurance, worker’s rights etc. Eventually they may do well, buy a nice house, perhaps send their kids to private school and then along comes the socialist who believes you have done too well so I need to confiscate a lot of your cash to pay for those whose get up and go starts whenever they decide to get up and pass the day watching day time television or procreating to get the benefits that another child brings.
Branson, Dyson etc did not start with money but they had the balls to have a go, and good luck to them.
I wonder what our retired graduate on a bus did in life. Did he ever risk anything, or work in the public sector?
As I understand it, Branson started with a goodly amount of seed capital from his father. Mind you, he has made good use of it.
his dad also bailed him out of a potential stretch.
Was that the one when he started Virgin Records and there was a little VAT episode with exported records which didn’t quite work out the way he hoped ?
Worked in public sector
Worked in Private sector
Company director
Self employed
Never driven a bus
I am aware of the rags to riches stories and would not denigrate the likes of Dyson. But I would question the paradigm that they represent in the context of modern industrial society. Once upon a time you had people like Einstein, James Clerk Maxwell and even the guy that beavered away for 8 years cracking Fermats last theorem.(Just remembered Andrew Wiles) The thing about modern invention is however these people are poor examples of how modern problems are solved .
Teams of experts are usually the norm with big money. LGs Rand D budget is 2 bill. Same is true in the quantum world where big solutions need ‘shared brains’.
Worked as a certain Prime Minister’s phone sanitiser
Invented the internet for Al Gore
Lost the IP for Google to Sergei and Larry in a bet
Vice President for Life on almost every Fortune 500 company.
Employed, unemployed, under employed, deployed, overjoyed.
Once dated Angelina Jolie.
Still drive my kids crazy with dad dancing. And jokes.
All as learned by the BIJ, and a source close to the BBC. Apparently.
Some may be true. Some not. Who on a blog forum knows?
But good to have the full CV of all who seldom post on the actual topic, to see they are fully qualified in making claims.
In combat, the knees of the few must serve the knees of the many.
For a self employed company director, ManOn, you seem to spend a hell of a lot of time on this forum. You seem to contribute to every thread, several times in some.
When do you find the time to submit an invoice?
He probably runs a transgender porno website.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/smallbusiness/article-2801698/Small-businesses-close-despite-improving-economy-HALF-fail-survive-five-years.html
This may be of interest.
A question that comes to mind is how small is a small business and whether that has changed,along with differing markets over the period.
Here is the EU definition of a small business… I don’t think this varies to much in GB terms, although the turnover sizes may differ of course..
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/facts-figures-analysis/sme-definition/index_en.htm
Thanks. That confirms what I heard. The climate for new business start ups (SMEs – one & the same thing) is better than it has been for many years, decades even.
The EU definition includes a category for microBusiness (up to 10 people) but, IIRC, from the 1970s in the UK SME has been thought of as 1 to 250, with 11 to 250 employed as being ‘Medium’ size.
Well bugger off to France on your old clapped bus . to experience Socialism at work , you will find a vibrant economy , in the eurozone . “Not” . Then hop across the pond & try Venezuela ,another socialist shithole .
notably atthe time the Tories wanted less
Source?
The reason is because there is an unlimited supply of cheap labour, so even if a million jobs are created wages will not rise as they will be filed by immigration.
Only UKIP are saying this and it is totally correct…
Yes, you see zero hours contracts a lot in the private business consulting world too… where consulting organisations do want people with specific skillsets and expertise or specialism to fit specific client facing roles when they materialise, but they don’t want to carry the cost of this skillset forever, if there is little or no multiple end client demand.
In such circumstances, there is nothing stopping the contractee (the contracted party) from touting his services and specialism around elsewhere in a similar way that the headline consulting organisation does.
Of course, there are zero hour contracts around where this activity is specifically prohibited, but my understanding is that this is now illegal.
The “socialist” solution is to have the organisations just take them on and let the cost go-hang, but of course private sector organisations have proper budgets to run and cannot do that, unlike Labour run public sector organisations (councils and the like) who also issue zero hour contracts in massive numbers.
Actually, I would quite like to see a breakdown of zero hours contracts issued, private sector vs public sector.
I am sure you are right although when I did contracting work it was one on fixed term basis.
As to socialist solutions I am unable to comment since my commentary was purel;y on the economics not the politics.
If you have an economy where there are labour intensive sectors then cost reduction will inevitably lead to labour cost reduction.
I was only pointing out the economic consequences of this race to the bottom. Capitalism simply wont run effectivly if no one has disponsable income. It is not my view;it is that of the IMF and Mark Carney who last time I looked could hardly be called socialist.
It is just the same old story from the BBC.
Good news from Labour is reported.
Good news from the Tories is reported, and then subjected to the famous BBC analysis to tell us why it’s not quite as good news as it first appears.
This analysis is usually broadly correct, as it is in this case where real unemployment is certainly much worse than government figures claim.
But if the BBC really was impartial it’d give us the benefit of its analysis all the time or not at all, not just when it suits their political outlook.
Self employed people are harder to control than those who owe their jobs and pensions to public sector corporations.
The BBC doesn’t like entrepreneurial, ambitious, hard working people who raise themselves up and succeed.
It’s hideously bourgeois and doesn’t fit their liberal left narrative in which there are rich oppressors who exploit the downtrodden majority.
For the BBC there have to be oppressors and victims. People who live on benefits, don’t want to work and perhaps turn to drugs or crime fit nicely as victims of the oppressive capitalist system which doesn’t work.
The BBC doesn’t like the idea that people are individuals who can make choices about their lives.
The metro lift liberal elite which infests the BBC is very uncomfortable with the idea that capitalism works reasonably well for most people, most of the time.
Apart from the fact we are far away from capitalism and what we have is increasingly failing to satisfy social need on a whole host of metrics.
As to choices that has been shown to be a bit of a fallacy.
Life is luck and whether you have an uncle called Bob.
what these extreme left wing marxist socialist scumbags need to do is get off their lazy Red arses and put themsleves through colllege and university and study something without an “ology” on the end of it and contribute something to society instead of taking and expecting me to pay for them to sit at home all day watching tv and playing games consoles
well my business has been in business for over 148 yrs and the one who nearly put a nail in the coffin was Gordon Brown.
Heavy industry requires predictable energy costs but under gorgeous Gordon my fuel bill went from £600 k per yr to £2.5 milion.
Short sightedness ecofascism and poor planning killed most of the british paper industry in one year.
Non of them tories labour or the limp dems have a clue about manufacturing. However I have liked the new rules regarding tribunals under the coalition.
I just want one of the parties to bite the bullet and start fracking properly. Cheap energy will help all of society, rich and poor alike. The US is booming in spite of Barry O not because of him and it is because of individual states allowing fracking.
UKIP seem the least worst option at the moment
The problem is manufacturing is a dirty word because all politics is being driven by the financial centre which likes a quick buck. Manufacturing needs proper investment and nurturing and gives opportunity and betterment for thousands. Until the financial sector is properly regulated such that effort brings rewards instead of speculation then we will never see a rise in us actually producing something.
As to UKIP, what do you think they will do for industry because as I see it they don’t actually have a ny firm policies except for the one?
are u an idiot with your triple first class dregree? we live in a post industrial country, we’re a service based economy not industrial based, you know, a developed country…helllooooo are u thick?
What like the underdeveloped country Germany famed for high spec manufacturing you mean?
Services can no way produce the same multipliers as manufacturing which is why the banksters have resorted to fraud ppi,libor etc. If you think we benifit from each doing each others laundary then think again!
Did you miss the £650m investment announced in new car manufacturing plants in the W. Midlands yesterday by private companies, which obviously spins off to increased demand for parts manufacture by sub-contractors.
It may not have got the coverage it deserves on the BBC. Can you think why?
Do you think they will be engaging people to work there on zero hour contracts?
Car production has seen a huge increase in recent years and a very large part of it exported.
The problem that the BBC have is that the jobs created in the past 5 years are a result of allowing the market to get on and make money so creating useful jobs that add to the wealth of the nation as a whole. This is something the BBC and the rest of left abhor. They don’t believe that the market is the generator of wealth for everyone, admittedly with a skewed distribution. In fact they believe that the free market is a dirty way to make a living. How exactly they think that money is made other than through the free market remains a mystery to me.
No matter how many times they see the disastrous result of socialism they still hanker after more. Of course being employed by the state they have a huge self interest in growing the state off the backs of those who actually earn wealth for the country.
Perhaps the silliest of the election tripe that has come from Labour is that they will ensure that we have many more well paid jobs. How?? But the BBC believes that government can create real well paid jobs that contribute to the wealth of the nation. All the last Labout gov did was to employ more and more people in the state sector who contributed nothing but needed more tax and borrowing to pay for. They took a strong economy and in 13 years ran it into the ground.Something their friends in the BBC are careful to never discuss. In fact can anyone name a Labour government that left the country financially stronger when it left office than it entered office ? If Labour win it will be the same all over again but with nutcase Miliband in charge it will be even worse.
An interesting Unison report on the “benefits” of increasing public sector pay identified the jobs spin off from the extra spending power of public sector workers – principally in the leisure and transport industry. Now where do wages tend to be low and often zero hour ones? Most would say in the leisure industry – so hardly creating the well paid jobs Labour bang on about!
Click to access 22329.pdf
Top of page two if you have the stomach to plod your way through such self serving nonsense.
As it was a little while ago and lots of jobs are being created in the private sector anyway the Unison members will not need a pay rise to stimulate the economy now!
You may also note that it talks about public sector pay rises since 2010. Mine and many others ground to a halt in 2008 while public sector ones carried on as normal. Did the recession start in 2010 – it certainly seems so from many selective reports such as how much worse off I am since 2010 as favoured by ED and co. I want to know how much since 2007/8!
The recession started after Osbournes first Budget. Up until then it was growing.
You have just lost any fig leaf of credibility you may have had with that ridiculous statement!
He’s on something, definitely.
Seem to remember Brown’s answer to the recession was to keep spending on even more public sector jobs. Socialists, eh – such short memories…
Apparently, it was a different time…
http://order-order.com/2015/03/27/192550/
Not so, ManotCO, it started in 2008 when food costs were increasing, the oil price rocketed and Gordon Brown doubled the income tax rate for people on low incomes. All at the same time.
Seem to recall it put a few more of our banks in a spot of bother.
Usual public sector union garbage. We haven’t had a real-terms increase for …’. Meaning they have had increases. Probably ‘merit awards’ as well. Not to mention dodgy awards by managers to get around the system. And they like to quote percentage rises in the private sector while ignoring the fact that many private sector workers have had periods of unemployment and maybe now earn half of what they did ten years ago.
My daugher-in-law is in the private sector and hasn’t had a rise for 4 years.
I remember how hard the private sector was hit when the recession kicked in but the hardship was hardly mentioned by the BBC. The public sector was well-protected by Brown (no surprise, a big chunk of his client state) but as soon as they started to ‘suffer’ (ha!) all hell was let loose by the BBC. Biased bastards.
Unfortunately the Freidman experiment did not translate government cuts into well paid jobs. If the Tories get back in it still wont despite obvious room for fiscal and monetary stimulus.
In rspect of manufacturing in general the UK has been falling behind since 1900.
Please advise your considered level of remuneration for a “well paid job” for further discussion.
The BBC might like to ask The Dead Eds that question too, along with how they’re going to create all these ‘well paid jobs’ they’ve promised us.
A quick search reveals these figures for 2014:
‘Full-time jobs accounted for 95% of the rise in employment over the past year, with private sector employment rising by 637,000.’
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/final-2014-employment-figures-show-all-time-record-number-of-people-in-jobs
The truth about zero hours contracts:
‘Almost two-thirds (64%) of
employers who use zero-hours
workers report that hourly rates for
these staff are about the same as
an employee doing the same role
on a permanent contract. Nearly a
fifth (18%) report that hourly rates
for zero-hours staff are higher than
permanent employees. Around one
in ten employers report (11%) that
they are lower….
….Most zero-hours contract workers
(52%) don’t want to work more
hours than they typically receive in
an average week. However, 38% say
they would like to work more hours,
with 10% undecided…..
Almost half of zero-hours contract
workers (47%) report they are
satisfied with having no minimum
contracted hours, with 27%
saying they are dissatisfied and
almost a quarter (23%) neither
satisfied nor dissatisfied…
….There is very little difference in
overall job satisfaction between
zero-hours contract workers and
the survey average. In all, 60%
of zero-hours contract workers
agree or strongly agree they are
satisfied with their job with 19%
disagreeing, compared with a
survey average of 59% agreeing
and 20% disagreeing.
On average 65% of zero-hours
workers say they are satisfied with
their work–life balance compared
with 58% of all employees.
In all, 29% of zero-hours contract
workers say they feel under excessive
pressure either every day (8%) or
once or twice a week (21%). This
compares with 41% of all employees
who feel under excessive pressure
either every day (13%) or once or
twice a week (28%)’
Click to access zero-hours-contracts_2013-myth-reality.pdf
One reason the UK attracts business is its flexible labour market – thanks Mrs T.
And leaving every single developed country bar one in our wake when it comes to growth.
All fantastic news for Britain – undreamed of 5 years ago.
The BBC hate it because it’s shown Ed Balls-up for what he is – a total economic incompetent – and they’ve never stopped concocting negative stories to keep the Labour spin alive. The latest shite they peddle is that the Dead Eds will create more highly-paid jobs. Quite how is is yet to be examined.
good post; I have used that exact same link/doc on other fora recently: why o why Cameron couldn’t have memorised just the first bit for his Paxman reply is beyond me.
It is fairly obvious too with many zero hours jobs being done by pensioners and students in FULL time education. having a few simple facts on each issue works wonders in shutting up lying socialist twats.
‘One good thing about Allen is that he often starts from the standard BBC world view but is happy to adjust his views when presented with facts that disprove it…..as when he was ‘shocked’ to hear that the richest in society actually pay a vast amount of tax…and a rising amount contrary to what we are often led to believe.’
Really?
Anyone with a modicum of interest in the economy, whether a journalist or simply a voter – should be aware of that. A bit like taxes paid annually into The Excheqeur by the financial services sector – something like 8% or £40 billion. One of those little facts you never hear on the bank-bashing BBC.
Still, we know what their journalists are like – a ‘shockingly’ incurious bunch.