"Hard working families"

And I didn't think this thread was about parties and politicians - more about irritating soundbites that make us grit our teeth!

No-one suggested he meant people don't work - just that we do go out sometimes so if he calls round canvassing he may not find me 'At Home'

No, he is always referring to us all as 'People at Home'.
The family member I mentioned wasn't watching the programme (he phoned in the middle of it and asked if Ed had mentioned 'The People at Home' yet as he says it so often!).

I suppose it is better than that old one: 'The Man in the Street'

He could have just said 'people watching this programme'.

No one's suggested he meant people who don't work, have they?
If the programme had been aired live during the day, he might have been on a stickier wicket...

I think he was saying "people at home" as he was looking directly at the camera, and presumably they were people at home watching. What else was he supposed to call them? He did not mean people who did not work, I do not think.

It takes all sorts as DM used to say!

All of us 'People at Home' as Ed Miliband calls us.

Getting back to the OP- and her blood boiling when she hears politicians talking about 'hard working families' - which I totally understand.
And totally understand all the issues about low wages and 0 hr contracts, etc. Totally.

And yet- I am sure we all know 'families' that work much harder than most, and some that work perhaps a lot less than they could. And some that do spend vast amounts of money on stuff they can't afford and get into all sorts of troubles- with others having to pick up the tab later. No? (in all walks of life too, and all along the 'spectrum).

I do feel for your daughter, it is a traumatic experience.

Prevention is better than cure.

Although I do know that contraception is not infallible.

I agree with you rosequartz on the availability of different methods of contraception, it makes it even harder to understand why so many abortions , and with a daughter who has been through so many IVF treatments over twenty years it makes me angry too

Sorry, I had not read all the posts, so shouldn't have joined in with a conversation when I hadn't.

I just read the bit about abortions and wasn't sure if you thought that was a good or a bad thing, and I was thinking it was more preventable now than in the past.

(although I do know that mistakes can happen for whatever reason!)

True rosequartz but people haven't changed . I was a single mother with two small children in the seventies and it was a struggle but I cannot and would not dismiss young widows now with - well I had to struggle in the seventies and this seems Sillyoldfools way of viewing things, life just happens and we should allow for this . The young mother I spoke of and whom Sillyoldfool thinks should have planned things with more care, she did, she was in a secure relationship , her mistake seems to be not knowing in advance her partner was going to walk out on her and their child

I know right enough, Anniebach!

But not all had abortions and managed somehow even if it was a struggle financially.
But there does seem to be more choice these days and it's free

I don't find it amazing rosequartz , always been single mothers, widowed mothers, married mothers with children unplanned

Which is amazing, isn't it, considering the choice and availability of contraception nowadays - and the morning-after pill!

Yes Sillyoldfool, and thousands had and still have abortions

Perhaps this young mum should have postponed having a child until her financial situation was more secure, many of us did back in the 70 s.

I wouldn't begrudge a student a zero hours contract, it seems a responsible thing to do to get some sort of work to defray their costs.

I wonder if the result of banning them will be that many of the people on them will be given very low hours contracts but be expected to work more hours when they employer wants them to. As the average hours on these contracts is around 25 per week we must assume some are getting very long hours.

Maybe now that we have more people employed than ever before employers will have to tempt people to work for them and the boot will be on the other foot. That is what is happening round here. An apprentice I know was made redundant because his company folded and he was instantly offered 3 jobs. He took the one which offered him good prospects and paid £2k a year more than he was on with the first company. We have 1.1% unemployment.

If you're offered a zero hour contract I assume they'll stop your benefits if you don't take it, even if it's not enough to live on?

It is a way of disguising employment figures NoTooOld, a person on a zero hours contract may only get four hours work but they are no longer unemployed, Cameron keeps saying they suit students but students do not have a home to keep. It must be hell never knowing from one week to the next if you can pay the rent, no plans for even the immediate future can be made, if you receive pay for working five days dare you spend because next week and following week you may not earn a penny or just have two hours work, it's brutal and I don't understand how anyone can defend it . Imagine being on a pension but never knowing if it will be paid weekly. Little wonder those big businesses signed that letter supporting the Tory party

The zero hours question is one that I plan to ask anyone who canvasses for my vote. Not that any party has ever asked me!

It Dickensian, I am also concerned about the financial gain made at the taxpayers expense when the employers avoid their NI contribution by employing ' casual workers'.

x

I can't imagine how much stress some of these people on zero hours contracts must be under. How on earth is a person supposed to survive if they cannot depend on a minimum number of hours' work, when the benefit system does not have the flexibility and speed of response to compensate for the periods during which a person has no employment income?

I cannot understand why there is not an outcry about the sort of cruel situation that Anniebach describes and which is probably causing great anxiety to thousands of individuals and families.

Those who say that people on zero hour contracts form only a tiny percentage of employed people, seem to be ignoring the fact that their numbers are increasing and unless something is done to curb these contracts, many more employers will introduce them.

Seems to me it is just a way of disguising the unemployment figures (zero hours contract, that is).

Exactly, Anniebach, and the Tories think there is no problem with them as lots of people like zero hours contracts.
When I had a cafe, I had students working for me during the holidays, but only for those who wanted the holidays off and could afford it. It was never enforced. But I never had zero hours contracts over 2o years ago. They had proper contracts with proper hours, which could be switched when necessary.
Too many workers are seen as dispensible these days.
Tory contempt for workers is shown by the fact that Cameron cannot even be bothered to debate his party's manifesto promises.

Was talking yesterday to a young Mum, she had started work in January in local tea rooms, she was told Monday no work for her this week - zero hours contract - the employer has his daughter on school hols doing the job. This young mum will now have two weeks without an income , she was in tears because she had gained some self respect not relying on the food bank , yet we are expected to understand the problems of this business man and ignore the distress of the young mother . Unemployment down my foot , it's the same as the thirties when men turned up at the pit head every morning in the hope of work, if not, the soup kitchen queue