*Charlie looks at who sends out his payslips and looks to camera*

Clearly a stooge of Big HR.

It's the only sensible explanation.

Yes, couldn't agree more.

FWIW I'll be using this report a lot, it's really good, but in broad terms as I don't think the data sources are good enough for definitive occupational level analysis.

The main area that looks a bit iffy to me is in construction and allied professions and trades. As I say, I haven't had time yet to give the paper and its data the attention it deserves; I've been otherwise engaged this week.

Quite a few bits, and not always as broad as that - trade skills are also being underrated by the looks of it. Health data looks broadly ok although you won't go far wrong just assuming everything is in demand. Science is interesting, I don't actually think there's a lot wrong in broad terms.

I think they've done the best they can with the data available. If it were possible, I think the ESS should run every year but it's a massive undertaking to start with. We have to acknowledge that vacancy data as it stands is good for broad trends and largely fictional at occupational level.

It is notable that they seem to be underreporting demand in some areas where there is a trade press for vacancies rather than them going out into general boards and JobCentrePlus where the aggregators (whose data I think they're using) more easily pick them up.

Really liked that report, and I know the team that produced it are excellent, but I'm not convinced by the occupational level analysis. I haven't had time to really delve into it yet but my suspicion is they've slightly over-relied on vacancy data that isn't quite complete enough for the job.