Joined: Nov 19 2005 Posts: 2359 Location: Marys Place, near the River, in Nebraska, Waitin' on A Sunny Day
JerryChicken wrote:One other point in the comments section of that report is the dodgy claim that 8000 people have moved into jobs rather than face the £500 a week benefit cap - they make a very valid point that to cover that sort of earning in a paid job you'd have to be on a salary of £36k at least, and as we all know those sorts of jobs are two a penny and you can just get up off your sofa having sat there on benefits for the last ten years and simply ask for one of those jobs for it to be so.
As pointed out, the number of claimants entitled to £500 a week is miniscule to the point where in the limited trials that IDS is speaking of there will not have been 8000 people claiming that amount.
The bloke is an idiot but is convinced that he is the most intelligent man in the country and that we are all the stupid ones, in future editions of the Oxford English Dictionary the word "Arrogant" will simply have "Ian Duncan Smith" as its definition.
About as much as a lie as this one was, straight from IDS' mouth:-
Not many people noticed the apology in the DM either. They should be made to print it on their front pages and main webpage at the very least. Not to mention the apology for conning the British Public into believing all benefit claimants are the root of all evil.
JerryChicken wrote:One other point in the comments section of that report is the dodgy claim that 8000 people have moved into jobs rather than face the £500 a week benefit cap - they make a very valid point that to cover that sort of earning in a paid job you'd have to be on a salary of £36k at least, and as we all know those sorts of jobs are two a penny and you can just get up off your sofa having sat there on benefits for the last ten years and simply ask for one of those jobs for it to be so.
As pointed out, the number of claimants entitled to £500 a week is miniscule to the point where in the limited trials that IDS is speaking of there will not have been 8000 people claiming that amount.
The bloke is an idiot but is convinced that he is the most intelligent man in the country and that we are all the stupid ones, in future editions of the Oxford English Dictionary the word "Arrogant" will simply have "Ian Duncan Smith" as its definition.
About as much as a lie as this one was, straight from IDS' mouth:-
Not many people noticed the apology in the DM either. They should be made to print it on their front pages and main webpage at the very least. Not to mention the apology for conning the British Public into believing all benefit claimants are the root of all evil.
A dog is the only thing on earth that loves you more than he loves himself.
When you rescue a dog, you gain a heart for life.
Handle every situation like a dog. If you can't Eat it or Chew it. Pee on it and Walk Away.
"No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin. " Anuerin Bevan
Joined: Nov 19 2005 Posts: 2359 Location: Marys Place, near the River, in Nebraska, Waitin' on A Sunny Day
Vic Meldrew wrote:The official fraud figure is unknown as those claiming fraudulently don't declare it! It could be as high as 24%, though I doubt it as we will never know. The official fraud figure should be the amount caught frauding figure.
The official title of that statistic is fraud & ERROR, that means under/over payment by the DWP so by your theory there could also be a lot more people being UNDERPAID and wouldn't even know about it.
A dog is the only thing on earth that loves you more than he loves himself.
When you rescue a dog, you gain a heart for life.
Handle every situation like a dog. If you can't Eat it or Chew it. Pee on it and Walk Away.
"No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin. " Anuerin Bevan
Joined: Nov 19 2005 Posts: 2359 Location: Marys Place, near the River, in Nebraska, Waitin' on A Sunny Day
Andy Gilder wrote:Couple of interesting results from a recent MORI poll:
Respondents believed that around 15% of girls under the age of 16 get pregnant, where the true figure is close to 0.6%
The perception was that 24% of the benefit bill is made up of fraudulent claims, whereas the official fraud figure is only 0.7%
The benefit cap is estimated to save £290m, yet 33% of respondents picked this from a list of suggestions to cut public spending where they were only able to choose one option. The list also included raising the pension age to 66 for both genders (estimated to save £5bn) and the new child benefit charge on higher earners (estimated saving of £1.7bn) among others.
It seems the propaganda wagon - fuelled by the BBC's slavish obsession of repeating every piece of government statement as fact - is rolling along nicely. Anyone who caught former Oxford University Conservative Association Nick Robinson's attempts to dismiss the opacity in Tory funding while riding the Falkirk scandal for all he could get out of it really shouldn't be surprised.
"Survey shows British people are Wrong about nearly everything"
I don't think its entirely the BBC's fault - try the propaganda machines of the Daily Mail, Express, The Sun for fuelling the fire. (and IDS for making up statistics to suit himself)
Andy Gilder wrote:Couple of interesting results from a recent MORI poll:
Respondents believed that around 15% of girls under the age of 16 get pregnant, where the true figure is close to 0.6%
The perception was that 24% of the benefit bill is made up of fraudulent claims, whereas the official fraud figure is only 0.7%
The benefit cap is estimated to save £290m, yet 33% of respondents picked this from a list of suggestions to cut public spending where they were only able to choose one option. The list also included raising the pension age to 66 for both genders (estimated to save £5bn) and the new child benefit charge on higher earners (estimated saving of £1.7bn) among others.
It seems the propaganda wagon - fuelled by the BBC's slavish obsession of repeating every piece of government statement as fact - is rolling along nicely. Anyone who caught former Oxford University Conservative Association Nick Robinson's attempts to dismiss the opacity in Tory funding while riding the Falkirk scandal for all he could get out of it really shouldn't be surprised.
"Survey shows British people are Wrong about nearly everything"
I don't think its entirely the BBC's fault - try the propaganda machines of the Daily Mail, Express, The Sun for fuelling the fire. (and IDS for making up statistics to suit himself)
A dog is the only thing on earth that loves you more than he loves himself.
When you rescue a dog, you gain a heart for life.
Handle every situation like a dog. If you can't Eat it or Chew it. Pee on it and Walk Away.
"No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin. " Anuerin Bevan
DaveO wrote:For the Tories to win they have to poll something like 5% more than Labour in a general election.
If they do then the country will get the government it deserves which will be one that sees all bar the very rich worse off as the NHS really will be destroyed and any welfare cut to the bone.
The Tories are certainly winning the propaganda war on the issue of the benefits cap but as El B points out the reality is it saves very little in comparison to other areas of expenditure.
It seems the people of the UK will cut their noses off to spite their own face. Whether they have been hoodwinked into this by propaganda or truly are just plain thick I don't know.
Labour is at fault with allowing this situation to devlop and Liam Byrne should just cross the house and be done with it.
What is sad is the argument against the simplistic cuts philosophy is easy to make.
Is dishing out £26K+ in benefits too much? Yes but why is it so high a figure?
Answer? It is rarely that high as this and is the exception rather than the rule but when it is this high you can guarantee housing benefit (not seen by the claimant) is the root cause so high rents need to be be tackled.
This is a very simple message and it beggars belief it isn't one being made strongly.
As to the propaganda though I heard some idiot from the Sun on the Jeremy Vine show at lunchtime and when this point was put to him his response was such people should simply move elsewhere in the country to where rents are lower.
We all know the obvious flaws with this argument such as who would clean the offices in Canary Wharf if this happened etc but it was yet another example of the simplistic logic peddled by people in a position to peddle it! And what is worse people in the UK believe it!
I think there are 40,000+ households over the cap - mainly in London (housing costs). Is the cap for all payments or those to non-working households? If the latter, then the point about cleaning Canary Wharf would not be valid.
The government who wishes to protect "the most vulnerable" tried, via Michael Gove, to cut free transport for disabled children to get to school. That was not publicised! Luckily, a charity sought judicial review (not surprisingly an area of legal redress this corrupt government seeks to deny access to) and his sneaky scheme has been reversed (at least in the short term).
Dally, in a prior thread, wrote:- as Farage is essentially a traditional, right-wing Tory could there be a possibility of a major shift to the right by the Tories and them doing a deal to take him in before the general election? If so, Labour is in big trouble.
Dally, today, wrote:Talking of stats and polls The Guardian reports this morning that the Tories and Labour are now both on 37% in opinion polls - Tories having recovered a big chunk of their UKIP protest vote. So, as I said 2 Eds are destroying Labour's chances. We'll see a Tory landslide if there is any semblance of economic recovery.
So, if UKIP support holds up, Labour is in big trouble but if the UKIP support subsides, it's a Tory landslide.
Neither is true ... as UKIP support rises, it mainly takes from the Tories and when UKIP support subsides, the Tories get the swivel-eyed back again ... and Labour's %-age support has largely been unaffected by UKIP, ditto for the hapless LibDems.
BTW, if you are going to quote the Guardian around here, be prepared to be rigorous about what you report from it ... in this instance, read the Guardian article again, as it says that Labour and Conservative are equal on 36% in a poll, not "polls" ... and the article also mentions that other polls (e.g. YouGov) disagree widely. It also mentions that senior Tories don't believe they are level.
Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice. Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.
Andy Gilder wrote:...It seems the propaganda wagon - fuelled by the BBC's slavish obsession of repeating every piece of government statement as fact - is rolling along nicely. Anyone who caught former Oxford University Conservative Association Nick Robinson's attempts to dismiss the opacity in Tory funding while riding the Falkirk scandal for all he could get out of it really shouldn't be surprised.
I'm glad it's not just me me who sees Robinson as the "embedded" spinmeister. Even when it's blatant (i.e. usually) that HMG has either feckdup or is lying, he always manages to make a final irrelevant comment on the opposition to take the heat off a little, along the lines of " ... so you can bet that Labour will be frantically checking their cupboards for skeletons too. ... Nick Robinson, BBC, The Palace of Westminster", not actually accusing but just casting that bit of murk.
Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice. Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.
Joined: Feb 25 2004 Posts: 2874 Location: Sometimes Workington, Sometimes Warrington, Often on the M6
JerryChicken wrote:One other point in the comments section of that report is the dodgy claim that 8000 people have moved into jobs rather than face the £500 a week benefit cap - they make a very valid point that to cover that sort of earning in a paid job you'd have to be on a salary of £36k at least, and as we all know those sorts of jobs are two a penny and you can just get up off your sofa having sat there on benefits for the last ten years and simply ask for one of those jobs for it to be so.
That's not really a fair comparison though, as many working people get benefits too. For example, a person with say 2 or 3 children who is working will not need to earn anywhere near £36,000 gross to have a net income more than the cap once you factor in other things like Child Benefit, Working Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit etc
I agree with your general point BTW, just think that the figures are a bit misleading.
I don't think its entirely the BBC's fault - try the propaganda machines of the Daily Mail, Express, The Sun for fuelling the fire. (and IDS for making up statistics to suit himself)
Absolutely. And no, I don't think it's just the general public's fault either. I think we (perhaps it's a particularly British thing?) expect media to be truthful - after all, if they lied all the time, they'd get sued into the ground - wouldn't they?
Take this as an example. Two years ago, the Times rang up UNISON and asked whether it was true that UNISON was, as an employer, ending final-salary pension schemes. The press office replied that, no, it wasn't, and went on to explain that a new system involving salary sacrifice had been agreed between the employer and the staff unions after negotiation. It gave the paper details and evidence to this effect.
The paper in question then went and printed what it wanted - which was that UNISON had ended final-salary pension schemes.
Now just to remind people, T'Other Half works there. He's in the pension scheme. He also just happens to be the NUJ rep, so he was actually involved in those negotiations. And he's in the scheme. So he knows what was going on - and has a vested interest in it and knowing the facts.
Anyway, UNISON complained - but then the Daily Mail essentially ran the same story.
Now, what do you do?
UNISON tried, under the auspices of the TUC, to get a correction/apology. None was forthcoming, even though it was an easily disprovable story. But what do you do? Spend the members' money dragging these rags through the courts?
About a year later, the Mail pulled a similar stunt, alleging that UNISON general secretary Dave Prentis had been given a massive rise in his pension. He hadn't. He had chosen to use the aforementioned salary sacrifice - an option open to all staff - to bolster his pension. In other words, he was deferring some pay and having it go in his pension pot instead.
It took the press office a solid week of banging away at it to get a correction. Every bit as small and hidden as the one mentioned above.
Those are the kind of reasons I support Leveson and the kind of reasons the bulk of the press wants to retain self-regulation.
Hull White Star wrote:"Survey shows British people are Wrong about nearly everything"
I don't think its entirely the BBC's fault - try the propaganda machines of the Daily Mail, Express, The Sun for fuelling the fire. (and IDS for making up statistics to suit himself)
Absolutely. And no, I don't think it's just the general public's fault either. I think we (perhaps it's a particularly British thing?) expect media to be truthful - after all, if they lied all the time, they'd get sued into the ground - wouldn't they?
Take this as an example. Two years ago, the Times rang up UNISON and asked whether it was true that UNISON was, as an employer, ending final-salary pension schemes. The press office replied that, no, it wasn't, and went on to explain that a new system involving salary sacrifice had been agreed between the employer and the staff unions after negotiation. It gave the paper details and evidence to this effect.
The paper in question then went and printed what it wanted - which was that UNISON had ended final-salary pension schemes.
Now just to remind people, T'Other Half works there. He's in the pension scheme. He also just happens to be the NUJ rep, so he was actually involved in those negotiations. And he's in the scheme. So he knows what was going on - and has a vested interest in it and knowing the facts.
Anyway, UNISON complained - but then the Daily Mail essentially ran the same story.
Now, what do you do?
UNISON tried, under the auspices of the TUC, to get a correction/apology. None was forthcoming, even though it was an easily disprovable story. But what do you do? Spend the members' money dragging these rags through the courts?
About a year later, the Mail pulled a similar stunt, alleging that UNISON general secretary Dave Prentis had been given a massive rise in his pension. He hadn't. He had chosen to use the aforementioned salary sacrifice - an option open to all staff - to bolster his pension. In other words, he was deferring some pay and having it go in his pension pot instead.
It took the press office a solid week of banging away at it to get a correction. Every bit as small and hidden as the one mentioned above.
Those are the kind of reasons I support Leveson and the kind of reasons the bulk of the press wants to retain self-regulation.
"You are working for Satan." Kirkstaller
"Dare to know!" Immanuel Kant
"Do not take life too seriously. You will never get out of it alive" Elbert Hubbard
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." Oscar Wilde
Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 14395 Location: Chester
Dally wrote:I think there are 40,000+ households over the cap - mainly in London (housing costs). Is the cap for all payments or those to non-working households? If the latter, then the point about cleaning Canary Wharf would not be valid.
The benefit cap applies across the board not just to non-working families. Another point IDS rarely mentions.
An interesting move releated to the benefits cap is to do with how housing benefit is paid. Currently except in a few trial areas it goes direct to the landlord.
The government wants it to go to the tenant. The reason being they then get to take responsibility for their finances apparently. So far it has led to greater rent arrears in all the trial areas but I think the main point is that it is much harder to cap a benefit the government or council pays on your behalf than it is one the individual must pay themselves from one lump sum of benefit.
It's much easier to give less money to an individual than it is to break a tenancy agreement on behalf of the tenant!
Quote:The government who wishes to protect "the most vulnerable" tried, via Michael Gove, to cut free transport for disabled children to get to school. That was not publicised! Luckily, a charity sought judicial review (not surprisingly an area of legal redress this corrupt government seeks to deny access to) and his sneaky scheme has been reversed (at least in the short term).
I knew about it as my youngest son is Autistic and gets free travel to his school which is one hour away.
Last league derby at Central Park 5/9/1999: Wigan 28 St. Helens 20 Last league derby at Knowsley Road 2/4/2010: St. Helens 10 Wigan 18
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 93 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
