You know damn well that the only reason the unemployment rate is so low is the sham that is zero hour contracts. If someone was offered 3 hours work a week they would not be classed as 'unemployed'
Like most people, you don't seem to fully understand what zero hours contracts are.
Most people on them are happy with the number of hours they work. These contracts are typically used for part time positions to people who want part time positions (students for example).
They have little impact on unemployment figures, because a student working in a coffee shop on a zero hours contract wouldn't be classed as unemployed if they didn't have that job.
Nobody would accept a job for 3 hours a week unless that's the number of hours they wanted to work, because they would be better off on benefits.
I'm not a fan of zero hours contracts where they are abused. I think they are fine in the example I have given above. I think there should be more protection where they are used in a way they were not intended for.
It's a bit like saying people who are self-employed are skewing the unemployment figures. They don't have 'contracts' with themselves, they have no guaranteed work or hours, but people don't claim they are skewing the unemployment figures.
If zero hours contracts create more flexibility in the part-time jobs market then they are fine, but I think there should be greater protections too.