Twitter activity of Professor Blanchflower

You have to compare like with like to have any argument. There have been numerous redefinitions of " employment" which enable figures to be massaged. It is an apples and pears argument.

There has always been a difference in unemployed and " in work" , and the latter seems to have undergone various changes. Note that a lot of soundbites relate to being " in work" , not unemployed. People infer a simple relationship that is far more complex.

Sorry to take thread tangentially elsewhere but you are not considered unemployed if you do 1 hr/ fortnight ' s work and those that are not paid are still " employed" .

Zero hours contracts are particularly insidious as you can have zilch job security, no work.for periods of time( and no pay) yet your contract retains you as an employee .

Successive governments use redefinitions of terms to suit their agendas

An example of figure massaging

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/15/employment-figures-how-unpaid-get-counted

It is a bit like the definition of poverty - it has been tweaked to the extent that it cannot be compared to past figures either

 

I appreciate that figures such as unemployment can be defined in different ways, and that both Blanchflower’s and Guido Fawkes’s statements must be put in a political context. However, I think that we are way off topic now. I didn’t intend to make any political statement, neither left-wing nor right-wing. The question is whether a picture with the headline “100% wrong” can be used for satire.

 

Sorry - i' not a morning person ! Context not fully appreciated

 

Another person quoting JDC:
https://twitter.com/user/status/1095735758395244544

https://twitter.com/user/status/1095803704706510851

https://twitter.com/user/status/1095938111496953856

 

Concerned troll is very concerned. Simple rule of the internet, do not feed the trolls. It's what they want. You can never win, so why waste time with such bad faith people?

 

It reminds me of the comment by Nasim Marie Jafry on the dialogue between James David Chapman and Professor Danny Blanchflower. The Mutual Admiration Society in session ...

 

The guy is so obviously confused and struggling. Shame on Moss-Morris to enable him just to make a point. Unprofessional behavior from a psychologist.

 

Freudian slip there Rona?

 

If there only was a way to troll them away.

 

Whoooboy someone with the #MEAction logo as their icon on Twitter engaged with Chapman and got "please don't contact me ever again, MEAction!"

We contacted the original user and asked them not to use the logo (it was a well-meaning person) but too late.

More fuel for the harassment meme.

 

Scandal: Well-meaning person replies to tweet!

 

siiiiiiiigh

 

I don't feel able to reread all the posts about Blanchflower. Was it ever mentioned that his work seems to be mentioned approvingly by Richard Layard. (I presume that all know of Layard's connection to the IAPT project.)

In 2005 Layard published the book Happiness: Lessons from a New Science, in which he emphasised the importance of non-income variables on aggregate happiness. His book summarises the prior empirical findings produced by economists such as Richard Easterlin, David G Blanchflower, Andrew E Clark, Rafael Di Tella, Robert MacCulloch, and Andrew Oswald. In particular he stressed the role of mental health and argued that psychological treatments ought to be much more widely available.

from Wikipedia

and in this
eprints.lse.ac.uk/47440/1/Big%20ideas%20wellbeing%20and%20public%20policy%20%28lsero%29.pdf

Big Ideas: wellbeing and public policy. (2012)

It would seem that he has a dog in the fight.