General Election Is On

[Devils_Advocate]

The youth of today should think themselves lucky with their zero hours contracts and no idea how many hours the bosses are gonna let them work from one week to the next

[Imploding Turtle]

If you're saying it wasn't a theory, then I definitely don't understand what you said. Please explain.

It was a very basic attempt to estimate the burnley Labour-Leave vote based on the national Labour-Leave vote weighted for the Burnley Leave bias versus the national Leave bias.

51.89% of people nationally voted Leave. 66.6% of people in Burnley voted Leave. This is a +28.35% bias for Leave in Burnley compared to the national average. (66.6 being 28.5% larger than 51.89 for the thatdbright's of the class)

A BES study in 2017 showed that nationally about 30% of Labour voters voted leave. So, to keep it very simple, and to keep subjectivity out of it, i multiplied the BES studied national average with the increased likelihood of any one voter in Burnley voting to leave, which gave me 38.5%.

Did more people who voted Labour in burnley also vote leave in 2016? Maybe. Maybe not. But absent any data to estimate that i'm not going to just ******* guess based on my "feelings" that more 2017 Labour voters probably voted Leave, which seems to be what you're suggesting I should do. And to be honest, it doesn't ******* matter, because the point i was making is that BXP don't stand a ******* chance unless the Tory candidate drops out, and adding a few extra percent to the Labour-Leave vote isn't going to change that.

[dsr]

The youth of today should think themselves lucky with their zero hours contracts and no idea how many hours the bosses are gonna let them work from one week to the next

Why are you so dead against casual labour? Why should people who want a few hours of casual labour, be told they can't have it? Why should my nieces, who worked respectively at a golf club and a rugby club on a "can you come in" basis, be told that that is no longer an option?

Zero hours contracts is the new name for casual labour. It came in because HMRC insisted that all staff, even casuals, must be pre-registered with NIC numbers and tax details before they do any work. If it is abolished, then (for example) football clubs will have to dispense with all their matchday staff because they don't offer guaranteed work - who would that benefit?

The reasonable objection that I have heard to zero hours contracts is that the Benefits Agencies are counting rejection of a zero-hours job as making yourself unavailable for work. If they are doing that, then it is clearly outrageous and should be stopped. Casual labour is not and never has been suitable as sole earnings for someone with financial responsibilities. Casual labour is and has always been for earning a few quid extra - not for main employment.

[Imploding Turtle]

Why are you so dead against casual labour? Why should people who want a few hours of casual labour, be told they can't have it? Why should my nieces, who worked respectively at a golf club and a rugby club on a "can you come in" basis, be told that that is no longer an option?

Zero hours contracts is the new name for casual labour. It came in because HMRC insisted that all staff, even casuals, must be pre-registered with NIC numbers and tax details before they do any work. If it is abolished, then (for example) football clubs will have to dispense with all their matchday staff because they don't offer guaranteed work - who would that benefit?

The reasonable objection that I have heard to zero hours contracts is that the Benefits Agencies are counting rejection of a zero-hours job as making yourself unavailable for work. If they are doing that, then it is clearly outrageous and should be stopped. Casual labour is not and never has been suitable as sole earnings for someone with financial responsibilities. Casual labour is and has always been for earning a few quid extra - not for main employment.

As always, you are deliberately missing the ******* point.

No one's saying that your poor nieces be denied casual labour if that's what they prefer. The WHOLE ******* POINT is that there are people who don't want casual labour and are being denied the right to have a fixed-hours contract.

But let's say it absolutely had to be one or the other. Why should your nieces be the ones who get the convenience of working when they want? Why should someone else be denied the right to have a clear understanding in advance of how much they're going to work and how much they're going to earn?

Why is your nieces convenience more important than someone elses job/wage security?

[FactualFrank]

This is quite a thread.

[dsr]

As always, you are deliberately missing the ******* point.

No one's saying that your poor nieces be denied casual labour if that's what they prefer. The WHOLE POINT is that there are people who don't want casual labour and are being denied the right to have a fixed-hours contract.

But let's say it absolutely had to be one or the other. Why should your nieces be the ones who get the convenience of working when they want? Why should someone else be denied the right to have a clear understanding in advance of how much they're going to work and how much they're going to earn?

Why is your nieces convenience more important than someone elses job/wage security?

Why should my niece taking a job in a golf club affect anyone else's job? If you were to want a fixed hours job, how does my niece working in a rugby club stop you getting one?

Let's not say it has to be one or the other. I'm not aware of anyone proposing that fixed term contracts be made illegal, so speculation on why my nieces (and the entire BFC matchday staff) should be allowed to keep their jobs is pointless. The choice is that either casual labour continues to be legal, or that it doesn't.

[Devils_Advocate]

Why are you so dead against casual labour? Why should people who want a few hours of casual labour, be told they can't have it? Why should my nieces, who worked respectively at a golf club and a rugby club on a "can you come in" basis, be told that that is no longer an option?

Zero hours contracts is the new name for casual labour. It came in because HMRC insisted that all staff, even casuals, must be pre-registered with NIC numbers and tax details before they do any work. If it is abolished, then (for example) football clubs will have to dispense with all their matchday staff because they don't offer guaranteed work - who would that benefit?

The reasonable objection that I have heard to zero hours contracts is that the Benefits Agencies are counting rejection of a zero-hours job as making yourself unavailable for work. If they are doing that, then it is clearly outrageous and should be stopped. Casual labour is not and never has been suitable as sole earnings for someone with financial responsibilities. Casual labour is and has always been for earning a few quid extra - not for main employment.

No problem with the principle of zero hours contracts for people looking for casual work. The issue is the the way that companies are exploiting the current labour market leaving lots of people who need and want stable full time work reliant on zero contracts.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... tudy-finds

You know this though and again you are deliberately posting in a disingenuous manner and show once more your real lack of care or empathy of those at the bottom society. You may post in a polite and respectful manner but you really are a horrible person who I have a lot of pity for

[If it be your will]

If wondered about the zero-hours thing, and whether or not it should be banned. Causual labour can certainly suit both parties, but it can also be abusive, exploitative and soul destroying.

Rather than banning it outright, is there any merit in having a different legal minimum wage for those on zero-hours contracts? If this minimum wage was £20/hour, it would be used appropriately (i.e. sparingly) by employers, and would suit those that didn't necessarily need the financial security of a fixed contract. It might be a better option than an outright ban.

[thatdberight]

It was a very basic attempt to estimate the burnley Labour-Leave vote based on the national Labour-Leave vote weighted for the Burnley Leave bias versus the national Leave bias.

51.89% of people nationally voted Leave. 66.6% of people in Burnley voted Leave. This is a +28.35% bias for Leave in Burnley compared to the national average. (66.6 being 28.5% larger than 51.89 for the thatdbright's of the class)

A BES study in 2017 showed that nationally about 30% of Labour voters voted leave. So, to keep it very simple, and to keep subjectivity out of it, i multiplied the BES studied national average with the increased likelihood of any one voter in Burnley voting to leave, which gave me 38.5%.

Thanks for the mention.

The more you explain it in detail, the more glaring the error is. Never mind, you threw in "bias" and "weighted" to make it look learned. That will convince most people.

Keeping subjectivity out of it and gross error out of it are two very different things. Or three, if you count them.

Anyway, I have to go and rescue the 42.19% you've trapped in a dichotomy.

[Imploding Turtle]

Why should my niece taking a job in a golf club affect anyone else's job? If you were to want a fixed hours job, how does my niece working in a rugby club stop you getting one?

Let's not say it has to be one or the other. I'm not aware of anyone proposing that fixed term contracts be made illegal, so speculation on why my nieces (and the entire BFC matchday staff) should be allowed to keep their jobs is pointless. The choice is that either casual labour continues to be legal, or that it doesn't.

It. Doesn't. I never said it did. If you think I did then you made that up in your own mind.

[Imploding Turtle]

Thanks for the mention.

The more you explain it in detail, the more glaring the error is. Never mind, you threw in "bias" and "weighted" to make it look learned. That will convince most people.

Keeping subjectivity out of it and gross error out of it are two very different things. Or three, if you count them.

Anyway, I have to go and rescue the 42.19% you've trapped in a dichotomy.

You keep talking about this "error" i've made and yet can't mention it. Because you're lying. Do you not have anything better to do that to troll on the internet on a Saturday night? Some of us are trying to have a reasonably adult conversation. Go play with yourself. Or prove you're not full of ****.

[dsr]

No problem with the principle of zero hours contracts for people looking for casual work. The issue is the the way that companies are exploiting the current labour market leaving lots of people who need and want stable full time work reliant on zero contracts.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... tudy-finds

You know this though and again you are deliberately posting in a disingenuous manner and show once more your real lack of care or empathy of those at the bottom society. You may post in a polite and respectful manner but you really are a horrible person who I have a lot of pity for

If companies are abusing the casual wages / zero hours contracts rules, then go after those companies. Don't shut down those that are using them in the way they ought to be used.

That Guardian article really is stating the bleeding obvious. People who are trying to balance household budgets while on casual labour are struggling. Well, of course they are. Casual labour isn't suitable for main income. It never has been, and it never will be. They need to get a proper job, not a casual job, or else they need to change the social security rules to compensate for occasional work (which is something they have needed to change for years, actually.)

[TVC15]

Why should my niece taking a job in a golf club affect anyone else's job? If you were to want a fixed hours job, how does my niece working in a rugby club stop you getting one?

Let's not say it has to be one or the other. I'm not aware of anyone proposing that fixed term contracts be made illegal, so speculation on why my nieces (and the entire BFC matchday staff) should be allowed to keep their jobs is pointless. The choice is that either casual labour continues to be legal, or that it doesn't.

Your lack of understanding as to the impact zero hour contracts as had on people in poverty who want to work is embarrassing.

Without zero hour contracts your nieces (because obviously that’s what is important here !) would have exactly the same job and hours as they do now. How do you think these type of jobs existed before zero hours ? Casual labour has been around for a long time.

Let’s hope that when your nieces grow up they don’t end up in the unfortunate position of being on the bread line with bills to pay and a job where they are waiting anxiously on the phone to see if they have got any hours this week.

[RingoMcCartney]

The young have absolutely no idea what Corbyns idea of a Commy Britain is.

If they get to live it , they will fight against it harder than they fought to get into it.

There's a clip of on old Polish fella, who would have fought against the 3rd Reich, on you tube.

He's discussing how he sees the European union.

What he says is quite chilling. Remember, he and his nation, endured decades under the cosh of the Soviet union.

"I have seen your future. I have lived in your future.
Please believe me, it's not a very nice place to be"

[Imploding Turtle]

If companies are abusing the casual wages / zero hours contracts rules, then go after those companies. Don't shut down those that are using them in the way they ought to be used.

That Guardian article really is stating the bleeding obvious. People who are trying to balance household budgets while on casual labour are struggling. Well, of course they are. Casual labour isn't suitable for main income. It never has been, and it never will be. They need to get a proper job, not a casual job, or else they need to change the social security rules to compensate for occasional work (which is something they have needed to change for years, actually.)

I think the "bleeding obvious" problem is that as a result of our increasingly neoliberal system there are people who are in need of steady work who are forced into casual labour because there aren't non-casual jobs available to them. Companies know this, they know they can exploit the people who desperately need to work by offering them zero-hour contracts because they know these people have no choice but to accept them. Why? Well, because people you vote for have gutted the social safety net so much that people are struggling to feed themselves unless they are working, and the companies know this too. They know that if someone on benefits doesn't accept work then they'll lose their benefits, so they can offer zero-hour contract work and they know the person accepting it has no choice.

I have absolutely no problem with people requesting zero-hour contracts, but it should have to be requested by the employee and not mandated by the employer.

[thatdberight]

You keep talking about this "error" i've made and yet can't mention it. Because you're lying. Do you not have anything better to do that to troll on the internet on a Saturday night? Some of us are trying to have a reasonably adult conversation. Go play with yourself. Or prove you're not full of ****.

won't*

Because (as I think I already mentioned) it pleases me more not to. And, because I'm not a five-year old, I'm even immune to your "prove it then" jibe. To be honest, it's not worthy of the word 'proof'; it's not the modularity theorem, just some basic numerical sense.

[ksrclaret]

So to summarise:

dsr states that zero-hour contracts are good and should not be got rid of, as he niece likes to work at the rugby club

dsr also states that people need to get a proper job, as zero hour contacts aren't suitable as the main income

How does dsr suppose that people acquire these proper jobs, as the numbers of zero hour contacts continues to rise at the expense of fixed hourly contracts, in part to accommodate his niece's pocket money?

[RingoMcCartney]

You keep talking about this "error" i've made and yet can't mention it. Because you're lying. Do you not have anything better to do that to troll on the internet on a Saturday night? Some of us are trying to have a reasonably adult conversation. Go play with yourself. Or prove you're not full of ****.

Somebody attempting to have a , "reasonably adult conversation" would not address another participant with such , shooting yourself in the foot, infantile gibberish like that would they.

Anyway, reload and carry on!

[dsr]

I think the "bleeding obvious" problem is that as a result of our increasingly neoliberal system there are people who are in need of steady work who are forced into casual labour because there aren't non-casual jobs available to them. Companies know this, they know they can exploit the people who desperately need to work by offering them zero-hour contracts because they know these people have no choice but to accept them. Why? Well, because people you vote for have gutted the social safety net so much that people are struggling to feed themselves unless they are working, and the companies know this too. They know that if someone on benefits doesn't accept work then they'll lose their benefits, so they can offer zero-hour contract work and they know the person accepting it has no choice.

I have absolutely no problem with people requesting zero-hour contracts, but it should have to be requested by the employee and not mandated by the employer.

So you agree with what I said all along? See post 853.

The reasonable objection that I have heard to zero hours contracts is that the Benefits Agencies are counting rejection of a zero-hours job as making yourself unavailable for work. If they are doing that, then it is clearly outrageous and should be stopped. Casual labour is not and never has been suitable as sole earnings for someone with financial responsibilities. Casual labour is and has always been for earning a few quid extra - not for main employment.

[RingoMcCartney]

Zero hour contracts?

EU nationalist remoaner zealots supporting them.

Just a bunch of poor mans Mike Ashleys.....

[Imploding Turtle]

won't*

Because (as I think I already mentioned) it pleases me more not to. And, because I'm not a five-year old, I'm even immune to your "prove it then" jibe. To be honest, it's not worthy of the word 'proof'; it's not the modularity theorem, just some basic numerical sense.

But you could correct me about something. I would have to admit to an error. How often does that happen?

The fact is though, i've gone over them more than once already and there are no numerical errors. Which means you're wrong, and you're choosing to remain ignorant as to how you're wrong.

[thatdberight]

So to summarise:

dsr states that zero-hour contracts are good and should not be got rid of, as he niece likes to work at the rugby club

dsr also states that people need to get a proper job, as zero hour contacts aren't suitable as the main income

How does dsr suppose that people acquire these proper jobs, as the numbers of zero hour contacts continues to rise at the expense of fixed hourly contracts, in part to accommodate his niece's pocket money?

It's important not to get the zero hours contracts issue out of proportion. At the end of 2017, they represented 6% of all contracts of employment and 2.8% of all people in employment had a zero hours contract as their main job. Factoring in those who are self-employed and those for whom a zero hours contract is entirely what they want (there must be some but I'm not prepared to guess what proportion of the 2.8% that is), it's likely that this is a very small proportion of the working population who have a main job on a zero hours basis. Within that percentage there will then be a proportion for whom these arrangements are problematic and who would benefit from being in the 94%+ of arrangements that aren't on that basis.

[ksrclaret]

It's important not to get the zero hours contracts issue out of proportion. At the end of 2017, they represented 6% of all contracts of employment and 2.8% of all people in employment had a zero hours contract as their main job. Factoring in those who are self-employed and those for whom a zero hours contract is entirely what they want (there must be some but I'm not prepared to guess what proportion of the 2.8% that is), it's likely that this is a very small proportion of the working population who have a main job on a zero hours basis. Within that percentage there will then be a proportion for whom these arrangements are problematic and who would benefit from being in the 94%+ of arrangements that aren't on that basis.

That’s still a lot of people, over 1 million as a cautious estimate based on the figures you provided, assuming they are correct.

That’s way too many people with no working security.

Lots of issues affect small proportions of our population, sadly too many of them invariably fall on the poorest members, and lots seem not to care

[thatdberight]

That’s still a lot of people, over 1 million as a cautious estimate based on the figures you provided, assuming they are correct.

That’s way too many people with no working security.

Lots of issues affect small proportions of our population, sadly too many of them invariably fall on the poorest members, and lots seem not to care

I don't "not care", although I undoubtedly care less than some and certainly less than many proclaim they care. It's more like three quarters of a million (still a large number) and 70%+ of those on such contracts responding to ONS questions said they did not want more hours than they got. That's possibly a dangerous stat as it's not clear if that was only those who regarded it as their main job - although of course there's no reason to assume that would skew the numbers.

[If it be your will]

You keep talking about this "error" i've made and yet can't mention it. Because you're lying. Do you not have anything better to do that to troll on the internet on a Saturday night? Some of us are trying to have a reasonably adult conversation. Go play with yourself. Or prove you're not full of ****.

(Head above parapet)

Right, frustratingly, I can't logically pinpoint where your reasoning is wrong, yet I know something must be incorrect in the approach of increasing the leave vote of the individual parties in Burnley by 28% (to reflect for the 28% increase in Burnley's leave vote). This would result in very peculiar answers, such as: what percentage of Burnley's UKIP vote voted leave? If it was 95% nationally, it can't possibly be 122% in Burnley!

Yet if you do stick with "122% of Burnley UKIP voters voted leave, and -22% of Burnley's UKIP voters voted remain" - even though it is absurd - then the maths still do work out correctly by your method. So I too, am not convinced there is anything inherently wrong with your actual reasoning.

[dsr]

(Head above parapet)

Right, frustratingly, I can't logically pinpoint where your reasoning is wrong, yet I know something must be incorrect in the approach of increasing the leave vote of the individual parties in Burnley by 28% (to reflect for the 28% increase in Burnley's leave vote). This would result in very peculiar answers, such as: what percentage of Burnley's UKIP vote voted leave? If it was 95% nationally, it can't possibly be 122% in Burnley!

Yet if you do stick with "122% of Burnley UKIP voters voted leave, and -22% of Burnley's UKIP voters voted remain" - even though it is absurd - then the maths still do work out correctly by your method. So I too, am not convinced there is anything inherently wrong with your actual reasoning.

Burnley voted 66.6% leave, which is 28.35% higher than the 51.89% national average. So take the 30% Labour leave vote, increase it by 28.35%, and you get 38.5% of Labour voters in Burnley voted leave. Turtle calculated that one.

Similarly: Burnley voted 33.4% remain, which is 30.58% lower than the 48.11% national average. So take the 70% Labour remain vote, reduce it by 30.58%, and you get 48.5% of Labour voters in Burnley voted leave.

Can you spot the problem? Do you think anyone else will get it? When you start playing about with percentages, adding and subtracting them, then multiplying and dividing, and then expecting them still to add up to 100 at the end of it ... it isn't going to happen. Percentages don't work like that.

[If it be your will]

Burnley voted 66.6% leave, which is 28.35% higher than the 51.89% national average. So take the 30% Labour leave vote, increase it by 28.35%, and you get 38.5% of Labour voters in Burnley voted leave. Turtle calculated that one.

Similarly: Burnley voted 33.4% remain, which is 30.58% lower than the 48.11% national average. So take the 70% Labour remain vote, reduce it by 30.58%, and you get 48.5% of Labour voters in Burnley voted leave.

Can you spot the problem? Do you think anyone else will get it? When you start playing about with percentages, adding and subtracting them, then multiplying and dividing, and then expecting them still to add up to 100 at the end of it ... it isn't going to happen. Percentages don't work like that.

Wait, I need a piece of paper...

[thatdberight]

(Head above parapet)

If the "head above parapet" bit was about me, I apologise. It would never be my intention to stop a person trying to understand something nor do I feel superior to them if they can't or don't understand it. That would be a desperately destructive and, if followed consistently, self-destructive approach to life swinging between vainglory and self-abasement every few seconds. If I've given that impression, I apologise.

[TVC15]

Wait, I need a piece of paper...

And Carol Voderman

[If it be your will]

Burnley voted 66.6% leave, which is 28.35% higher than the 51.89% national average. So take the 30% Labour leave vote, increase it by 28.35%, and you get 38.5% of Labour voters in Burnley voted leave. Turtle calculated that one.

Similarly: Burnley voted 33.4% remain, which is 30.58% lower than the 48.11% national average. So take the 70% Labour remain vote, reduce it by 30.58%, and you get 48.5% of Labour voters in Burnley voted leave.

Can you spot the problem? Do you think anyone else will get it? When you start playing about with percentages, adding and subtracting them, then multiplying and dividing, and then expecting them still to add up to 100 at the end of it ... it isn't going to happen. Percentages don't work like that.

Yes, yes. I've got it now.

So what is the best way to predict the actual number of Labour/leave votes in Burnley? I'll have to think about that, but not right now.

[If it be your will]

And Carol Voderman

Hey! You have a go at working out the mathematically correct way to predict the % Burnley Labour+leave vote then! It's not easy when you don't do it every day. (Or at all, in my case.)

[If it be your will]

If the "head above parapet" bit was about me, I apologise. It would never be my intention to stop a person trying to understand something nor do I feel superior to them if they can't or don't understand it. That would be a desperately destructive and, if followed consistently, self-destructive approach to life swinging between vainglory and self-abasement every few seconds. If I've given that impression, I apologise.

It was actually more that I knew full well I was going to expose my ignorance of statistical analysis to the internet the second I pressed 'submit', yet couldn't resist doing it anyway. The need for the correct answer had become overwhelming.

[Jakubclaret]

If companies are abusing the casual wages / zero hours contracts rules, then go after those companies. Don't shut down those that are using them in the way they ought to be used.

That Guardian article really is stating the bleeding obvious. People who are trying to balance household budgets while on casual labour are struggling. Well, of course they are. Casual labour isn't suitable for main income. It never has been, and it never will be. They need to get a proper job, not a casual job, or else they need to change the social security rules to compensate for occasional work (which is something they have needed to change for years, actually.)

Zero hrs contracts work for some people & not others, it offers more flexibility for the employer in not being committed guaranteeing X amount of hours & the employee is not obliged to accept any work offered, it's ideal for both parties not to commit, people criticising the concept are missing the point of the employers not being in a position to forecast with any certainty how busy or idle they businesses will be one day or one week to the next, so how can the employer offer the employee a X number of hours when they don't know for themselves. It's ideal for a employee who's available whenever & somebody wanting to supplement a existing income with bonus flashcash.

[Imploding Turtle]

Burnley voted 66.6% leave, which is 28.35% higher than the 51.89% national average. So take the 30% Labour leave vote, increase it by 28.35%, and you get 38.5% of Labour voters in Burnley voted leave. Turtle calculated that one.

Similarly: Burnley voted 33.4% remain, which is 30.58% lower than the 48.11% national average. So take the 70% Labour remain vote, reduce it by 30.58%, and you get 48.5% of Labour voters in Burnley voted leave.

Can you spot the problem? Do you think anyone else will get it? When you start playing about with percentages, adding and subtracting them, then multiplying and dividing, and then expecting them still to add up to 100 at the end of it ... it isn't going to happen. Percentages don't work like that.

You're doing it wrong. The way I did it is right, and the way I know it's right is because you can convert the percentages into numbers, do all the working out with numbers, and then convert them back into percentages to get the same result as if you'd just done it my way originally.
I'm sure there is a way where you can work backwards like you tried to do by using subtraction with the lower percentages, but that's much more complex than just doing it the way I did it by calculating based on the Leave vote.

Anyway, how I know i'm right is, like I said, you can just use the figures instead of percentages to calculate the relative increase in Leave vote locally to the Leave vote nationally. Like this. Take the 40,290 turnout from 2017, multiply it by 51.89% gets you 20,906. Now, you can multiply that number by 128.35% to get to 26,833 (26833.4683635) or, like we all did when we were at school because we didn't know how the percentage button worked on our calculators, you can just take the 40,290 figure, divide it by 100 to give you 402.9 and then multiply that by 66.6 to give you 26,833.
A keen eye will notice that that's about 2,000 fewer than the Leave total, however it is based on a 62.3% turnout as opposed to the 67.3% turnout of the referendum. We can get it to 28,988 by going back to our school kids trick of dividing by 62.3 and multiplying by 67.3, to account for turnout and this gives us a difference from the actual Leave total of just 132. And this difference can be explained by rejected ballots and there being a slightly higher electorate in 2017 than in 2016 (by 248). And a couple of votes by roundings.

Or, in short, 40,290 * 0.5189 * 1.2835 * 1.0803 = 28,988

Where...
0.5189 is the leave vote percentage
1.2835 is the percentage increase from national Leave vote share to Burnley Leave vote share
1.0803 is the percentage increase to 2016 turnout level


This was fun. We should do it again some time.

Fake edit: Even though you're wrong, dsr, at least you actually put some effort into trying to explain why you thought I was wrong, unlike other people who just like to pretend they've found a flaw. Or thought they found a flaw and then realised they were wrong but couldn't admit their mistake because, like a moron, they had already mocked me for a mistake i hadn't made.

[TVC15]

Zero hrs contracts work for some people & not others, it offers more flexibility for the employer in not being committed guaranteeing X amount of hours & the employee is not obliged to accept any work offered, it's ideal for both parties not to commit, people criticising the concept are missing the point of the employers not being in a position to forecast with any certainty how busy or idle they businesses will be one day or one week to the next, so how can the employer offer the employee a X number of hours when they don't know for themselves. It's ideal for a employee who's available whenever & somebody wanting to supplement a existing income with bonus flashcash.

People criticising zero hours contracts are not missing the point at all.
The criticism clearly relates to the uncertainty that results for people who have little or no option than to take work on these types of contracts and the impact this can clearly have on their lives when having to pay bills, feed their children, pay rent etc when they do not know how many hours they are going to get.
For many people that is far more important than giving “flexibility” to employers to reduce hours when ever they choose to.
Employers already had a whole range of options available to them to flex their work force hours / resources before zero hours contracts - temporary / agency staff, contractors, part - time staff etc. Some people are happy to be employed under these types of contracts and choose to do this....and whilst clearly some people are happy with working zero hours for many they have no choice and it leads to real hardship.

[TheFamilyCat]

Zero hour contracts?

EU nationalist remoaner zealots supporting them.

Just a bunch of poor mans Mike Ashleys.....

Ringo once again proving that he can't/doesn't read posts properly.

And you're comparing the "EU nationalist remoaner zealots" to Brexit supporting Mike Ashley.

My, my you really did get yourself in a muddle again didn't you? No wonder you didn't post again.

[AndrewJB]

There's a clip of on old Polish fella, who would have fought against the 3rd Reich, on you tube.

He's discussing how he sees the European union.

What he says is quite chilling. Remember, he and his nation, endured decades under the cosh of the Soviet union.

"I have seen your future. I have lived in your future.
Please believe me, it's not a very nice place to be"

The mystic Pole! Never mind that the EU bears absolutely no similarity to Communist Poland, or the Third Reich, and never mind that even old Polish fellas can't see into the future. It's on YouTube, and he fought in the war!

[Jakubclaret]

People criticising zero hours contracts are not missing the point at all.
The criticism clearly relates to the uncertainty that results for people who have little or no option than to take work on these types of contracts and the impact this can clearly have on their lives when having to pay bills, feed their children, pay rent etc when they do not know how many hours they are going to get.
For many people that is far more important than giving “flexibility” to employers to reduce hours when ever they choose to.
Employers already had a whole range of options available to them to flex their work force hours / resources before zero hours contracts - temporary / agency staff, contractors, part - time staff etc. Some people are happy to be employed under these types of contracts and choose to do this....and whilst clearly some people are happy with working zero hours for many they have no choice and it leads to real hardship.

To be honest I don't really understand your gripe/concerns about zero hour contracts, surely working part time beats working nothing & you also get financial support boosting the wage overall from the government, it's only the same as signing up with a agency you are not always guaranteed set & permanent hrs there, it might lead to hardship in either circumstances or even working full time or even receiving benefits it could lead to hardship, that's just the way things are, giving up on the latest iPhone model ect might ease things for people & reduce the hardships.

[TheFamilyCat]

The mystic Pole! Never mind that the EU bears absolutely no similarity to Communist Poland, or the Third Reich, and never mind that even old Polish fellas can't see into the future. It's on YouTube, and he fought in the war!

He "would have" fought in the war. Whatever that means.

[AndrewJB]

Zero hrs contracts work for some people & not others, it offers more flexibility for the employer in not being committed guaranteeing X amount of hours & the employee is not obliged to accept any work offered, it's ideal for both parties not to commit, people criticising the concept are missing the point of the employers not being in a position to forecast with any certainty how busy or idle they businesses will be one day or one week to the next, so how can the employer offer the employee a X number of hours when they don't know for themselves. It's ideal for a employee who's available whenever & somebody wanting to supplement a existing income with bonus flashcash.

A lot of outsourced work has moved to zero hours. About six years ago a man on my street who worked security at Heathrow Airport described how his team were called in for training one day, and after several hours of waiting without information, they were told that the trainer couldn't make it. Because they hadn't been trained, they weren't considered "on the clock" and therefore they wouldn't be paid. There was nothing he could do to stop this from happening, as complaining would mean no more shifts.

You'd think Heathrow Airport could afford to hire and run their own security (and do so without zero hours contracts), but they outsourced it in order to boost their own profits.

[TVC15]

To be honest I don't really understand your gripe/concerns about zero hour contracts, surely working part time beats working nothing & you also get financial support boosting the wage overall from the government, it's only the same as signing up with a agency you are not always guaranteed set & permanent hrs there, it might lead to hardship in either circumstances or even working full time or even receiving benefits it could lead to hardship, that's just the way things are, giving up on the latest iPhone model ect might ease things for people & reduce the hardships.

Your comment about iPhones tells me everything I need to know about the type of person you are

[Lowbankclaret]

Burnley voted 66.6% leave, which is 28.35% higher than the 51.89% national average. So take the 30% Labour leave vote, increase it by 28.35%, and you get 38.5% of Labour voters in Burnley voted leave. Turtle calculated that one.

Similarly: Burnley voted 33.4% remain, which is 30.58% lower than the 48.11% national average. So take the 70% Labour remain vote, reduce it by 30.58%, and you get 48.5% of Labour voters in Burnley voted leave.

Can you spot the problem? Do you think anyone else will get it? When you start playing about with percentages, adding and subtracting them, then multiplying and dividing, and then expecting them still to add up to 100 at the end of it ... it isn't going to happen. Percentages don't work like that.

Correct, if you simply divide 100 by 15%
And then times the result by 15% you will not get 100.

[Lowbankclaret]

No matter my views on Brexit.

Zero hours contracts should be banned.

Unfortunately that would have an impact on some companies financial model.

Perhaps variable hour contracts with a set minimum, ie 16 hours min.

[Lowbankclaret]

Rolling average poll, possibly the most accurate one.

Showing Tories still going up.
Brexit party going down.

Labour fairly static.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng ... SApp_Other" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[CombatClaret]

giving up on the latest iPhone model ect might ease things for people & reduce the hardships.

Nice to mix the cliché up from avacados on toast and coffee from time to time.

[Jakubclaret]

A lot of outsourced work has moved to zero hours. About six years ago a man on my street who worked security at Heathrow Airport described how his team were called in for training one day, and after several hours of waiting without information, they were told that the trainer couldn't make it. Because they hadn't been trained, they weren't considered "on the clock" and therefore they wouldn't be paid. There was nothing he could do to stop this from happening, as complaining would mean no more shifts.

You'd think Heathrow Airport could afford to hire and run their own security (and do so without zero hours contracts), but they outsourced it in order to boost their own profits.

What can you do though about it ? People need the work & whilst people are desperate it will continue, outsourcing using agencies takes away the responsibilities towards employment rights, hols & sickness ect, it's been going on for years I've been through various agencies before & eventually found permanent work, what I will say is it can be a good stepping stone & lead to permanent work, if you are a good worker, timekeeper they'll keep you on & won't want to lose you. It's experimental for companies whilst non committal towards confident recruiting.

[If it be your will]

You're doing it wrong. The way I did it is right, and the way I know it's right is because you can convert the percentages into numbers, do all the working out with numbers, and then convert them back into percentages to get the same result as if you'd just done it my way originally.
I'm sure there is a way where you can work backwards like you tried to do by using subtraction with the lower percentages, but that's much more complex than just doing it the way I did it by calculating based on the Leave vote.

Anyway, how I know i'm right is, like I said, you can just use the figures instead of percentages to calculate the relative increase in Leave vote locally to the Leave vote nationally. Like this. Take the 40,290 turnout from 2017, multiply it by 51.89% gets you 20,906. Now, you can multiply that number by 128.35% to get to 26,833 (26833.4683635) or, like we all did when we were at school because we didn't know how the percentage button worked on our calculators, you can just take the 40,290 figure, divide it by 100 to give you 402.9 and then multiply that by 66.6 to give you 26,833.
A keen eye will notice that that's about 2,000 fewer than the Leave total, however it is based on a 62.3% turnout as opposed to the 67.3% turnout of the referendum. We can get it to 28,988 by going back to our school kids trick of dividing by 62.3 and multiplying by 67.3, to account for turnout and this gives us a difference from the actual Leave total of just 132. And this difference can be explained by rejected ballots and there being a slightly higher electorate in 2017 than in 2016 (by 248). And a couple of votes by roundings.

Or, in short, 40,290 * 0.5189 * 1.2835 * 1.0803 = 28,988

Where...
0.5189 is the leave vote percentage
1.2835 is the percentage increase from national Leave vote share to Burnley Leave vote share
1.0803 is the percentage increase to 2016 turnout level


This was fun. We should do it again some time.

Fake edit: Even though you're wrong, dsr, at least you actually put some effort into trying to explain why you thought I was wrong, unlike other people who just like to pretend they've found a flaw. Or thought they found a flaw and then realised they were wrong but couldn't admit their mistake because, like a moron, they had already mocked me for a mistake i hadn't made.

I tested your method by using really easy numbers like 'Imagine the Burnley electorate was 100, and imagine there was only two parties... (then 3...) etc' and then increase the Labour or Con (or whatever) leave vote by the required amount, that sort of thing with the aim of exposing the logical flaw. Yet it did seem to consistently work, even though I fully expected it not to. It even seemed to work (mathematically) when you had to make absurd claims like 'Burnley UKIP voters voted 122% leave'.

Yet at the same time dsr's post still leaves me with the feeling something is wrong somewhere. Come on then dsr, what is going wrong here?

[aggi]

Correct, if you simply divide 100 by 15%
And then times the result by 15% you will not get 100.

I'm now starting to see why you're so convinced the Brexit party will get loads of seats.

[TVC15]

Correct, if you simply divide 100 by 15%
And then times the result by 15% you will not get 100.

In the same way if you divide 100 by a pig and then times the result by a chocolate eclair you will also not get 100.

[Lowbankclaret]

I'm now starting to see why you're so convinced the Brexit party will get loads of seats.

Not sure what you mean by that !!

However based on the polls it’s becoming less and less likely the Brexit party will get any.

Looks like the Tories could get a good result based on current polling.

However there is a long way to go.

Boris is not daft like May.

He just promised pensioners a rise, May attacked her biggest supporters in 2017.