According to the Office for National statistics there were 116,000 people employed on 'Zero-hour' contracts in late 2008, so for the OP to claim they were 'brought in' under a coalition government is simply wrong. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your rant.

How many are there now? Because there are over 300,000 in the social care sector alone and most people and institutions are of the belief that they have increased sharply recently.

In specific circumstances they can be ok, it suited me to be on a zero hours contract when I was doing my A-Levels and could vary the amount of work around my school work. But I was fortunate to have a reasonable employer, and for most people in the vast majority of situations it's a pretty crap way of having to live.

Very reasonable. Is that the dodgy handshake rate or the office rate?

I don't blame the guy for being annoyed though.
Especially as the use of this type of contract is rising fast and Cameron is, at the same time, making noises about "repatriating" powers from the EU, claiming that EU employment law makes for a workforce that is not "flexible" enough, noises that please his paymasters and also please the amoeboid rightwing little-Englander tendency at the UKIP end of his party who see any co-operation with our European neighbours as the end of swivel-eyes-ation as we know it.
Add to that the immunity from unfair dismissal complaints where someone is summarily sacked within the first two years of their employment, how flexible does he want it?

But, hey, let's pretend nothing has changed.

Tory-speak : "Flexible" means the employer is always right, such namby-pamby liberal ideas as employment rights, fairness, contract T's-and-C's, etc etc much be emasculated as much as possible.

But hey, don't let your apparent inability to think get in the way of you answering any questions directly, will you?

Osborne has stated that there will be no tax rises if the Tories win the next election and that the procted large shortfall that commentaors have said would need plugging from tax will be met by further reductions in spending, with welfare being considered an area that could take a bigger hit.

I suspect Ed will now announce that Labour would match Tory pledges if elected.

Welfare gets it in the neck again. Just how does that clown expect people to live ? Maybe he should consider stopping overseas aid instead ?

We have a subsidiary business that deals solely with construction industry subbies (their returns are pretty straightforward usually, even if the clents themselves aren't always!)

That's their going rate for a tax return.

Because the theory goes that everyone who is out of work is a malingerer and they are drawing billions in "unearned" income by sitting on their backsides doing nothing all day. The theory further states that the best way to get these people back to work is to starve them back to work, not in so many words, but basically the over-riding principle is that no-one should receive any money if they are not in work.

So far they seem to be carrying the general population with them thanks to a compliant (mainly printed) media doing all of the propaganda work on their behalf and probably at their bidding.

The fact that the unemployed figures contain people who are unable to work due to disability is also being re-written by the callous principle of simply sticking fingers in ears and repeating the mantra "You are fit to work regardless of what your medics say as they can't be trusted any more", the additional fact that the vast majority of benefits are paid to those IN work in order to bring them up to the "living wage" standard is simply brushed under the rug as you can't vilify those people in quite the same way if they are already doing what you recommend and proving that it still doesn't work.

Osborne said he'd eliminate the deficit in one parliamentary term by cutting spending.
But he didn't, nowhere near.
Why believe more of the same?