Forked tongue?

Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Pages:
1
…
10
11
12

Forked tongue?
Topic Started: Oct 2 2014, 07:14 AM (3,876 Views)
RJD	Oct 2 2014, 07:14 AM Post #1
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Quote: Iain Duncan Smith’s disclosure that the teething problems have been resolved and that the Universal Credits system will be rolled out across the country ahead of the election was momentous. Many critics, not just on the Left, cheerfully predicted that Mr Duncan Smith’s welfare reforms would fail. They are now irreversible, and as a result Mr Cameron’s Coalition will be able to claim a place among Britain’s great reforming governments. Well considered the claims made in the lefty Press, bloggers and here one would think he has not a snowball in Hell's chance of achieving that objective. We will see if he meets his milestone, but he is correct in one claim and that is no future Gov. is going to unpick this system and as a consequence he will be able to claim he inflicted the reform welcomed by the vast majority, the next step for a new Gov. must be to make further inroads against those barriers to making work always a first choice.

Replies:
Affa	Nov 10 2014, 05:39 PM Post #401
Senior Member Posts: 11,999 Group: Members Member #58 Joined: Jul 26, 2014	One death is regrettable ....... it should not be about numbers, at all. The debate should be about the merit (or not) of sanctioning people on benefits, and whether it serves a worthwhile purpose? The motivation for it will often be a factor in determining how moderating the system is prescribed and performed. If the motivation is justified then the the process will reflect that justice - if the motivation is to get people back to work (and off benefits) why is it then that jobs are not provided? I'd praise the system to high heaven if it told every person it assessed, 'we have a job for you. You no longer qualify as incapable for work'.



RJD	Nov 10 2014, 05:48 PM Post #402
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Affa Nov 10 2014, 05:39 PM One death is regrettable ....... it should not be about numbers, at all. The debate should be about the merit (or not) of sanctioning people on benefits, and whether it serves a worthwhile purpose? The motivation for it will often be a factor in determining how moderating the system is prescribed and performed. If the motivation is justified then the the process will reflect that justice - if the motivation is to get people back to work (and off benefits) why is it then that jobs are not provided? I'd praise the system to high heaven if it told every person it assessed, 'we have a job for you. You no longer qualify as incapable for work'. "Jobs provided". provided by whom? The State perhaps? On another thread I link an article where a new factory in the Midlands is looking for 300 employees, so it has gone to Hungary to find them. Not as if there is full employment in the region. As for numbers of deaths, not my claim, but Mr Smurf once led us to believe that it would be a least 600,000 imminent ones, this he move to on or before next GE for convenience. I just like to remind him from time to time that he has a habit of making outrageous claims.



Affa	Nov 10 2014, 06:14 PM Post #403
Senior Member Posts: 11,999 Group: Members Member #58 Joined: Jul 26, 2014	RJD Nov 10 2014, 05:48 PM "Jobs provided". provided by whom? The State perhaps? Why take that phrase out of context and make it mean something else? Quote: The motivation for it will often be a factor in determining how moderating the system is prescribed and performed. If the motivation is justified then the the process will reflect that justice - if the motivation is to get people back to work (and off benefits) why is it then that jobs are not provided? I'd praise the system to high heaven if it told every person it assessed, 'we have a job for you. You no longer qualify as incapable for work'. Was the argument too subtle for you? The intention here is to show that "getting people off benefits and into work", of "making work pay" is BS. Sanctioning people, taking away their invalidity status is doing neither - it has the only purpose of reducing the benefits, the result being increased stress and hardship for the least capable in society. I resist using more colourful language, only to say I recently saw the stage production of a rather intriguing musical (Apollo theatre), which does make a political commentary on the corruption of government, politics, by the (insert show title here)



RJD	Nov 11 2014, 08:02 AM Post #404
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Affa Nov 10 2014, 06:14 PM RJD Nov 10 2014, 05:48 PM "Jobs provided". provided by whom? The State perhaps? Why take that phrase out of context and make it mean something else? Quote: The motivation for it will often be a factor in determining how moderating the system is prescribed and performed. If the motivation is justified then the the process will reflect that justice - if the motivation is to get people back to work (and off benefits) why is it then that jobs are not provided? I'd praise the system to high heaven if it told every person it assessed, 'we have a job for you. You no longer qualify as incapable for work'. Was the argument too subtle for you? The intention here is to show that "getting people off benefits and into work", of "making work pay" is BS. Sanctioning people, taking away their invalidity status is doing neither - it has the only purpose of reducing the benefits, the result being increased stress and hardship for the least capable in society. I resist using more colourful language, only to say I recently saw the stage production of a rather intriguing musical (Apollo theatre), which does make a political commentary on the corruption of government, politics, by the (insert show title here) Your reply appears to be devoid of substance. The State has the responsibility to decide who should be considered capable of work and the Medical Profession claim that work is therapeutic. If such also improves the size of the family purse why do you object? We have long known that Politicians allowed such lists to expand in order to hide true levels of unemployment, this action seeks to correct that.



papasmurf	Nov 11 2014, 08:19 AM Post #405
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	RJD Nov 10 2014, 05:32 PM Why keep up? I do not see a single example where the Coroner has put the reason for such deaths as directly attributable to the DWP. You have not kept up RJD. Coroners have been attributing deaths and suicides to welfare reforms recently on a regular basis. It is one of the main reasons the Work and Pensions Committee is carrying out an investigation into benefit sanctions. (I have posted the references, you never read them, you prefer to remain in ignorance.)



ACH1967	Nov 11 2014, 08:32 AM Post #406
Senior Member Posts: 4,226 Group: Members Member #56 Joined: Jul 24, 2014	papasmurf Nov 11 2014, 08:19 AM RJD Nov 10 2014, 05:32 PM Why keep up? I do not see a single example where the Coroner has put the reason for such deaths as directly attributable to the DWP. You have not kept up RJD. Coroners have been attributing deaths and suicides to welfare reforms recently on a regular basis. It is one of the main reasons the Work and Pensions Committee is carrying out an investigation into benefit sanctions. (I have posted the references, you never read them, you prefer to remain in ignorance.) Post one example where the coroner "clearly" and directly attributes the reason for deaths as the DWP.



papasmurf	Nov 11 2014, 08:35 AM Post #407
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	ACH1967 Nov 11 2014, 08:32 AM Post one example where the coroner "clearly" and directly attributes the reason for deaths as the DWP. I have several times, you must be like RJD, never bothered to read them. https://welfaretales.wordpress.com/category/death-after-fit-to-work-decision/ Edited by papasmurf, Nov 11 2014, 08:46 AM.



AndyK	Nov 11 2014, 08:58 AM Post #408
Senior Member Posts: 2,474 Group: Members Member #69 Joined: Aug 11, 2014	papasmurf Nov 11 2014, 08:35 AM ACH1967 Nov 11 2014, 08:32 AM Post one example where the coroner "clearly" and directly attributes the reason for deaths as the DWP. I have several times, you must be like RJD, never bothered to read them. https://welfaretales.wordpress.com/category/death-after-fit-to-work-decision/ Actually that report attributes death to.... Quote: Mr Winter said he was satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that Mr Drakard had been responsible for his own death.



papasmurf	Nov 11 2014, 09:02 AM Post #409
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	AndyK Nov 11 2014, 08:58 AM Mr Winter said he was satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that Mr Drakard had been responsible for his own death. That is one of the limited decisions a Coroner can make, he would not have mentioned the benefits aspect at all if they were not a factor.



RJD	Nov 11 2014, 10:25 AM Post #410
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	papasmurf Nov 11 2014, 08:35 AM ACH1967 Nov 11 2014, 08:32 AM Post one example where the coroner "clearly" and directly attributes the reason for deaths as the DWP. I have several times, you must be like RJD, never bothered to read them. https://welfaretales.wordpress.com/category/death-after-fit-to-work-decision/ You have either not read the link or you do not understand what was said. But that is the history of your postings here.



ACH1967	Nov 11 2014, 11:58 AM Post #411
Senior Member Posts: 4,226 Group: Members Member #56 Joined: Jul 24, 2014	And they we have it I get accused of not reading the links and clearly the poster posting the link hadn't read it either. What a prick.



RJD	Nov 11 2014, 12:17 PM Post #412
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	ACH1967 Nov 11 2014, 11:58 AM And they we have it I get accused of not reading the links and clearly the poster posting the link hadn't read it either. What a prick. Par for the course and one of the main reasons I stopped following his links as they often turned out to say the exact opposite of what he claimed. Not good with details our Mr Smurf all froth.



Affa	Nov 11 2014, 01:51 PM Post #413
Senior Member Posts: 11,999 Group: Members Member #58 Joined: Jul 26, 2014	I'm reminded of the way the Last Conservative government instructed coroners (and doctors) to not include MRSA on death certificates, deaths usually being attributed to respiratory or heart failure in such cases. What this did was to hide the extent of the MRSA problem. The number of contacted occurrences never collated ...... and as a consequence it got a lot worse. MRSA contributed/es to premature death, and that has been made relevant - doctors are required to record every instance of it. Sanctioning of invalidity claimants contributes towards vulnerable people becoming more stressed, and the consequences of that are frightful, even when death is not the outcome. It is shameful to try to justify the pettiness of this government as an attack on cheats when there is so much evidence that the victims of this policy are often the most vulnerable.



RJD	Nov 11 2014, 04:19 PM Post #414
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Affa Nov 11 2014, 01:51 PM I'm reminded of the way the Last Conservative government instructed coroners (and doctors) to not include MRSA on death certificates, deaths usually being attributed to respiratory or heart failure in such cases. What this did was to hide the extent of the MRSA problem. The number of contacted occurrences never collated ...... and as a consequence it got a lot worse. MRSA contributed/es to premature death, and that has been made relevant - doctors are required to record every instance of it. Sanctioning of invalidity claimants contributes towards vulnerable people becoming more stressed, and the consequences of that are frightful, even when death is not the outcome. It is shameful to try to justify the pettiness of this government as an attack on cheats when there is so much evidence that the victims of this policy are often the most vulnerable. If you have such evidence then share it. IDS claims he has evidence that hundreds of thousands of erstwhile Claimants are now working. Can you prove him wrong? Clearly nobody wishes to inconvenience those truly in need of our support, but unless you devise a stress free method of measuring and forming such judgements then we are stuck with the modus operandi. The previous regime is not acceptable to Joe Public he/they demand that the State judges, judges correctly we hope.



ACH1967	Nov 12 2014, 08:52 AM Post #415
Senior Member Posts: 4,226 Group: Members Member #56 Joined: Jul 24, 2014	RJD Nov 11 2014, 04:19 PM Affa Nov 11 2014, 01:51 PM I'm reminded of the way the Last Conservative government instructed coroners (and doctors) to not include MRSA on death certificates, deaths usually being attributed to respiratory or heart failure in such cases. What this did was to hide the extent of the MRSA problem. The number of contacted occurrences never collated ...... and as a consequence it got a lot worse. MRSA contributed/es to premature death, and that has been made relevant - doctors are required to record every instance of it. Sanctioning of invalidity claimants contributes towards vulnerable people becoming more stressed, and the consequences of that are frightful, even when death is not the outcome. It is shameful to try to justify the pettiness of this government as an attack on cheats when there is so much evidence that the victims of this policy are often the most vulnerable. If you have such evidence then share it. IDS claims he has evidence that hundreds of thousands of erstwhile Claimants are now working. Can you prove him wrong? Clearly nobody wishes to inconvenience those truly in need of our support, but unless you devise a stress free method of measuring and forming such judgements then we are stuck with the modus operandi. The previous regime is not acceptable to Joe Public he/they demand that the State judges, judges correctly we hope. My brother who is perfectly capable of working, i know this because I am his brother, got his benefits increased and back paid. Personally I don't mind because he needs all the help he can get. My great nephew on the other hand, who suffers from regular fits, had his benefit reduced. Go figure. I am sure there are reasons. I am not so sure they are good reasons. No system is perfect but bad systems can cause a lot of harm.



RJD	Nov 12 2014, 01:08 PM Post #416
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	ACH1967 Nov 12 2014, 08:52 AM RJD Nov 11 2014, 04:19 PM Affa Nov 11 2014, 01:51 PM I'm reminded of the way the Last Conservative government instructed coroners (and doctors) to not include MRSA on death certificates, deaths usually being attributed to respiratory or heart failure in such cases. What this did was to hide the extent of the MRSA problem. The number of contacted occurrences never collated ...... and as a consequence it got a lot worse. MRSA contributed/es to premature death, and that has been made relevant - doctors are required to record every instance of it. Sanctioning of invalidity claimants contributes towards vulnerable people becoming more stressed, and the consequences of that are frightful, even when death is not the outcome. It is shameful to try to justify the pettiness of this government as an attack on cheats when there is so much evidence that the victims of this policy are often the most vulnerable. If you have such evidence then share it. IDS claims he has evidence that hundreds of thousands of erstwhile Claimants are now working. Can you prove him wrong? Clearly nobody wishes to inconvenience those truly in need of our support, but unless you devise a stress free method of measuring and forming such judgements then we are stuck with the modus operandi. The previous regime is not acceptable to Joe Public he/they demand that the State judges, judges correctly we hope. My brother who is perfectly capable of working, i know this because I am his brother, got his benefits increased and back paid. Personally I don't mind because he needs all the help he can get. My great nephew on the other hand, who suffers from regular fits, had his benefit reduced. Go figure. I am sure there are reasons. I am not so sure they are good reasons. No system is perfect but bad systems can cause a lot of harm. As they did by encouraging welfare dependency. As I have reported here I know two youngish men, under 60, who decided to take early retirement from full time work and squeeze the State to get as much as possible in order to survive. Not a life style choice I would recommend, but one they both easily achieved. How many more fall into this category? How do we inhibit them from taking this course? For me it makes absolutely zero sense to reward those that are capable of work to the extent that finding work, for them, is not rewarding. Claiming that the system does not do such is pure BS, it does. The contentious issue is the one of measuring whether or not individuals are capable of working and here, by design, there must be Yardsticks. Whether these Yardsticks are soft or hard is subjective, there will always be significant differences of opinions and yes our Civil Servants and their Agents will get it all wrong far too often.



papasmurf	Nov 12 2014, 01:19 PM Post #417
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	RJD Nov 12 2014, 01:08 PM As they did by encouraging welfare dependency. Low wages have created welfare dependency RJD. I feel like making you a present of this book but you would not read it:- http://www.policypress.co.uk/display.asp?K=9781447320036 Good times, bad times The welfare myth of them and us Author/Editor(s): John Hills Format: Paperback, 336 pages, 214 x 138 mm ISBN 9781447320036 Published: 12 Nov 2014 About This Book Two-thirds of UK government spending now goes on the welfare state and where the money is spent – healthcare, education, pensions, benefits – is the centre of political and public debate.,Much of that debate is dominated by the myth that the population divides into those who benefit from the welfare state and those who pay into it – 'skivers' and 'strivers', 'them' and 'us'. ,This ground-breaking book, written by one of the UK’s leading social policy experts, uses extensive research and survey evidence to challenge that view. It shows that our complex and ever-changing lives mean that all of us rely on the welfare state throughout our lifetimes, not just a small ‘welfare-dependent’ minority. ,Using everyday life stories and engaging graphics, Hills clearly demonstrates how the facts are far removed from the myths. "This hugely important book shows how populist understandings of the welfare state are wrong. Its message needs to reach the voting public before it is too late."David Blanchflower, Dartmouth College (New Hampshire) and University of Stirling, and formerly of the Monetary Policy Committee, Bank of England "A lively and provocative book that will overturn your assumptions about the welfare state. A great read, and a 'must read' for policy-makers and the public alike."Jane Waldfogel, Columbia University School of Social Work, New York "Hills shows that social policy is about stabilising income over the life course, compensating for the vagaries of markets and life circumstances, enhancing opportunity for disadvantaged children and facilitating asset accumulation. Good Times, Bad Times makes it clear that there is considerable scope for improvement in public social programmes. For those wishing to understand one of our most important and politically divisive institutions, this book is required reading."Lane Kenworthy, University of California, San Diego “This is a beautifully researched academic howl of rage against the current myth of 'welfare’. Anyone who wants to understand the state of welfare – and of the welfare state – in the second decade of the 21st century really needs to read this book."Nicholas Timmins, Institute for Government and King's Fund



Affa	Nov 12 2014, 02:05 PM Post #418
Senior Member Posts: 11,999 Group: Members Member #58 Joined: Jul 26, 2014	RJD Nov 12 2014, 01:08 PM As they did by encouraging welfare dependency. Aren't soundbites beautiful, don't you just adore them? What's the true story behind increased Welfare dependency, and why so many these days and not in the past? EDITED ..... because I just realised what the topic title is(RJD's), and could not escape the irony of it. Edited by Affa, Nov 12 2014, 02:09 PM.



RJD	Nov 12 2014, 06:23 PM Post #419
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Affa Nov 12 2014, 02:05 PM RJD Nov 12 2014, 01:08 PM As they did by encouraging welfare dependency. Aren't soundbites beautiful, don't you just adore them? What's the true story behind increased Welfare dependency, and why so many these days and not in the past? EDITED ..... because I just realised what the topic title is(RJD's), and could not escape the irony of it. Not in the past, dependency is still part of the system, but a little less so. Not a sound bite a reality even though you wish it were. I really do not think you help yourself by burying your head and either claiming it does not exist or you cannot see what is in front of your nose.



RJD	Nov 12 2014, 06:30 PM Post #420
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	papasmurf Nov 12 2014, 01:19 PM RJD Nov 12 2014, 01:08 PM As they did by encouraging welfare dependency. Low wages have created welfare dependency RJD. I feel like making you a present of this book but you would not read it:- http://www.policypress.co.uk/display.asp?K=9781447320036 Good times, bad times The welfare myth of them and us Author/Editor(s): John Hills Format: Paperback, 336 pages, 214 x 138 mm ISBN 9781447320036 Published: 12 Nov 2014 About This Book Two-thirds of UK government spending now goes on the welfare state and where the money is spent – healthcare, education, pensions, benefits – is the centre of political and public debate.,Much of that debate is dominated by the myth that the population divides into those who benefit from the welfare state and those who pay into it – 'skivers' and 'strivers', 'them' and 'us'. ,This ground-breaking book, written by one of the UK’s leading social policy experts, uses extensive research and survey evidence to challenge that view. It shows that our complex and ever-changing lives mean that all of us rely on the welfare state throughout our lifetimes, not just a small ‘welfare-dependent’ minority. ,Using everyday life stories and engaging graphics, Hills clearly demonstrates how the facts are far removed from the myths. "This hugely important book shows how populist understandings of the welfare state are wrong. Its message needs to reach the voting public before it is too late."David Blanchflower, Dartmouth College (New Hampshire) and University of Stirling, and formerly of the Monetary Policy Committee, Bank of England "A lively and provocative book that will overturn your assumptions about the welfare state. A great read, and a 'must read' for policy-makers and the public alike."Jane Waldfogel, Columbia University School of Social Work, New York "Hills shows that social policy is about stabilising income over the life course, compensating for the vagaries of markets and life circumstances, enhancing opportunity for disadvantaged children and facilitating asset accumulation. Good Times, Bad Times makes it clear that there is considerable scope for improvement in public social programmes. For those wishing to understand one of our most important and politically divisive institutions, this book is required reading."Lane Kenworthy, University of California, San Diego “This is a beautifully researched academic howl of rage against the current myth of 'welfare’. Anyone who wants to understand the state of welfare – and of the welfare state – in the second decade of the 21st century really needs to read this book."Nicholas Timmins, Institute for Government and King's Fund No the State devised the system of welfare that resulted for some in dependency, you might claim that this is as a consequence to global competition which in turn has driven down wages for those without skills. Low wages are a factor but not the designer. That said the question is always one of degree and the level of addiction for some was too great and engrained. Low wages will always be with us as long as we have a surplus, massive surplus, of people without anything to offer an Employer other than a bit of manual dexterity and it will get worse not better. This is one of the reasons I have been hammering the education/training drum for the last 20 years or more. Dumbing down education and deskilling the populous was a very dumb idea.



papasmurf	Nov 12 2014, 06:37 PM Post #421
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	RJD Nov 12 2014, 06:30 PM No the State devised the system of welfare that resulted for some in dependency, you might claim that this is as a consequence to global competition I blame bad employers RJD. Poaching skilled workers instead of training them was bound to end in tears, and it has.



RJD	Nov 12 2014, 06:43 PM Post #422
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	papasmurf Nov 12 2014, 06:37 PM RJD Nov 12 2014, 06:30 PM No the State devised the system of welfare that resulted for some in dependency, you might claim that this is as a consequence to global competition I blame bad employers RJD. Poaching skilled workers instead of training them was bound to end in tears, and it has. Of course you do, you blame everyone you wish to hate. Employers are not responsible for the provision of basic education that is the job of the State. Next you will be claiming that Apprentices need to be indentured for life. It's a free World, well in the UK anyway, and people are free to change their jobs if they so wish. Best you find out how easy or difficult it is to get young Brits who have the basic skills, work ethic and determination to see through our rather slimmed down Apprenticeship-Lite programmes. Stick them with an old fashioned 5 year Apprenticeship and see what happens.



papasmurf	Nov 12 2014, 06:47 PM Post #423
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	RJD Nov 12 2014, 06:43 PM Of course you do, you blame everyone you wish to hate. Not at all RJD, I blame employers who would rather poach skilled workers from someone/somewhere else, than run apprentice schools. In case you have forgotten, the necessary education is part of apprentice training.



Affa	Nov 12 2014, 11:08 PM Post #424
Senior Member Posts: 11,999 Group: Members Member #58 Joined: Jul 26, 2014	RJD Nov 12 2014, 06:23 PM Affa Nov 12 2014, 02:05 PM RJD Nov 12 2014, 01:08 PM As they did by encouraging welfare dependency. Aren't soundbites beautiful, don't you just adore them? What's the true story behind increased Welfare dependency, and why so many these days and not in the past? EDITED ..... because I just realised what the topic title is(RJD's), and could not escape the irony of it. Not in the past, dependency is still part of the system, but a little less so. Not a sound bite a reality even though you wish it were. I really do not think you help yourself by burying your head and either claiming it does not exist or you cannot see what is in front of your nose. Not a 'soundbite' you say, but a fact. What Fact? Produce some evidence to establish that there has been a deliberate policy to encourage people to resort to welfare dependency by choice. Why would any party of government do such a ridiculous thing - Labour certainly not. If they sought to garner votes anywhere is was in the blue collar, middle classes, former Tory core that made sense. This chart would show if such a thing were true, it must have been a Tory ploy, because Labour worked to get people off benefits and into work.



Affa	Nov 12 2014, 11:12 PM Post #425
Senior Member Posts: 11,999 Group: Members Member #58 Joined: Jul 26, 2014	Affa Nov 12 2014, 11:08 PM Not a 'soundbite' you say, but a fact. But the real proof ......... http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/02/unemployment-benefit-forty



Affa	Nov 12 2014, 11:28 PM Post #426
Senior Member Posts: 11,999 Group: Members Member #58 Joined: Jul 26, 2014	RJD Nov 12 2014, 06:30 PM Dumbing down education and deskilling the populous was a very dumb idea. It was, as was replacing teachers with assistants, classes sharing text books and a whole raft of failures in education resulting in a 2001 International report placing the UK near the bottom on education standards after a survey of under thirty year old adults. From what you say I guess you fully supported this >> The Dearing Report (1997) Higher Education in the learning society http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/dearing1997/dearing1997.html



Deleted User	Nov 12 2014, 11:31 PM Post #427
Deleted User	Affa Nov 12 2014, 11:12 PM Affa Nov 12 2014, 11:08 PM Not a 'soundbite' you say, but a fact. But the real proof ......... http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/02/unemployment-benefit-forty I rarely bother with graphs and tables of endless statistics because afterall there are lies, damned lies and statistics. On this occasion however I particularly noted the very high average salary suggested for 2010 at over £30,000 pa; a figure I instinctively distrusted so I dug a little deeper and from the ONS low and behold: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8909797/Average-salary-falls-3pc-in-face-of-high-inflation.html As I say there are lies, damned li................. etc
Deleted User


Affa	Nov 12 2014, 11:43 PM Post #428
Senior Member Posts: 11,999 Group: Members Member #58 Joined: Jul 26, 2014	Major Sinic Nov 12 2014, 11:31 PM I rarely bother with graphs and tables of endless statistics because afterall there are lies, damned lies and statistics. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8909797/Average-salary-falls-3pc-in-face-of-high-inflation.html As I say there are lies, damned li................. etc Strange that you condemn statistics, call them lies, and yet use the Telegraph statistics to attempt to justify your argument ...... ??????



Affa	Nov 12 2014, 11:51 PM Post #429
Senior Member Posts: 11,999 Group: Members Member #58 Joined: Jul 26, 2014	Major Sinic Nov 12 2014, 11:31 PM As I say there are lies, damned li................. etc Oh; and btw ....... if you do accept the Telegraph figure for average earnings, the %age rate for UB is still lower than when we had a Tory government >>> I feel the need to explain these stats ..... they establish that unemployment benefits were lower as a percentage of average wages during the Blair government. So far from "encouraging benefit dependency", the incentive was to find a job. Highlighted by the fact that the numbers on Welfare fell, number in work rose, and for the first time since the war the Welfare bill was actually reduced.



Steve K	Nov 13 2014, 12:00 AM Post #430
Once and future cynic Posts: 33,990 Group: Admins Member #20 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Affa Nov 12 2014, 11:43 PM Major Sinic Nov 12 2014, 11:31 PM I rarely bother with graphs and tables of endless statistics because afterall there are lies, damned lies and statistics. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8909797/Average-salary-falls-3pc-in-face-of-high-inflation.html As I say there are lies, damned li................. etc Strange that you condemn statistics, call them lies, and yet use the Telegraph statistics to attempt to justify your argument ...... ?????? Well this is strange. You yourself used Tradingeconomics data and they say that NewStatesman data is wrong BUT The ONS data http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ashe/patterns-of-pay/1997---2013-ashe-results/ref-tables-pop-2013.xls (table 3) does seem to say it was that high Confusing? Edited by Steve K, Nov 13 2014, 12:14 AM.



Steve K	Nov 13 2014, 12:03 AM Post #431
Once and future cynic Posts: 33,990 Group: Admins Member #20 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Affa Nov 12 2014, 11:08 PM . . .This chart would show if such a thing were true, it must have been a Tory ploy, because Labour worked to get people off benefits and into work. But actually the chart indicates Labour in 1997 took over an economy where unemployment was rapidly reducing and left it in 2010 with unemployment increasing and no lower than when they took power



RJD	Nov 13 2014, 10:11 AM Post #432
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Affa: What Fact? Produce some evidence to establish that there has been a deliberate policy to encourage people to resort to welfare dependency by choice. Again you seek to twist words for reasons of dogma. I did not use the word "deliberate" which completely changes the meaning of the sentence. I said that Politicians designed such systems whether this was deliberate or accidental is incidental. Affa: Why would any party of government do such a ridiculous thing - Labour certainly not. If they sought to garner votes anywhere is was in the blue collar, middle classes, former Tory core that made sense. But it did and if you researched the meaning of the words "Welfare Dependency" you might start to understand how. As you are a self declared denyer of truths of established facts I have no intention of wasting my time digging up that which is freely available in the public domain just to hear that you deny it's existence. This matter has been exhaustedly analysed and even Labour MP's admitted that there was a trap. I suspect that Labour just ignored consequences and did not seek to entrap individuals. Let's face it Labour has a habit of burying it's collective head in the sand with matters it does not wish to address, take immigration for example.



Affa	Nov 13 2014, 10:38 AM Post #433
Senior Member Posts: 11,999 Group: Members Member #58 Joined: Jul 26, 2014	Steve K Nov 13 2014, 12:00 AM Quote: Strange that you condemn statistics, call them lies, and yet use the Telegraph statistics to attempt to justify your argument ...... ?????? Well this is strange. You yourself used Tradingeconomics data and they say that NewStatesman data is wrong But I wasn't the hypocrite that disliked the evidence of statistics, so denied the credibility of statistics, and then presented statistical evidence to try to prove that stance. You are behaving disingenuously by making the erroneous observation you do here (a disappointing lapse in integrity). We should all know that statistical evidence can be misleading, and so are better served if we examine the data source and collection method, always. I am inclined to respect Tradingeconomics because it is A-political, International, but alas restricted to basing its findings on government released data (which cannot be trusted)



Affa	Nov 13 2014, 11:00 AM Post #434
Senior Member Posts: 11,999 Group: Members Member #58 Joined: Jul 26, 2014	RJD Nov 13 2014, 10:11 AM Again you seek to twist words for reasons of dogma. I did not use the word "deliberate" which completely changes the meaning of the sentence. I said that Politicians designed such systems whether this was deliberate or accidental is incidental. ......... .......... As you are a self declared denyer of truths of established facts I have no intention of wasting my time digging up that which is freely available in the public domain just to hear that you deny it's existence. ..... I suspect that Labour just ignored consequences and did not seek to entrap individuals. Let's face it Labour has a habit of burying it's collective head in the sand with matters it does not wish to address, The levelled accusation of "Encouraging Welfare Dependency" implies a deliberate action. One often accompanied by "to strengthen its voter core" or such like. I am not wrong to have believed that was your intended allegation too. But you do not "just hear" me deny the rhetoric that tries to justify the imposition of Austerity measures, you hear an explanation of why it is denied. Thus far you have singularly failed to discredit that explanation - and so resort to dismissal instead of debate. You walk away because you have no defence against the evidence I have several times presented. And finally you sort of admit that Labour did not deliberately increase benefit payments 'to encourage benefit dependency', but say it was a 'consequence' of '?' (not saying?). The reality is this - Increased Welfare dependency is the result of there being more people than jobs, and that wages in real terms have fallen over time. An undeniable fact when it is recognised that 'in-work' top up benefits, once virtually unheard of, are all the time increasing.



RJD	Nov 13 2014, 11:21 AM Post #435
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Affa: The levelled accusation of "Encouraging Welfare Dependency" implies a deliberate action. One often accompanied by "to strengthen its voter core" or such like. I am not wrong to have believed that was your intended allegation too. Interpret as you wish. It exists. It was designed by Politicians and for me it's effect on those that find themselves dependent is much more interesting than the motivations. Stick to what effect it has on individuals and whether or not we should reduce or increase it's effect. I am for a reduction. Affa: But you do not "just hear" me deny the rhetoric that tries to justify the imposition of Austerity measures, you hear an explanation of why it is denied. Thus far you have singularly failed to discredit that explanation - and so resort to dismissal instead of debate. You walk away because you have no defence against the evidence I have several times presented. I do not understand how you are able to deny that which clearly exists and I do not believe you have a viable alternative to cutting our cloth. The UK must export and die and the value of £Sterling is fundamental to our survival. We cannot simply print money to cover the cost of imports. Affa: And finally you sort of admit that Labour did not deliberately increase benefit payments 'to encourage benefit dependency', but say it was a 'consequence' of '?' (not saying?). Why are you more interested in Labours reputation than the plight of the unemployed? Affa: The reality is this - Increased Welfare dependency is the result of there being more people than jobs, and that wages in real terms have fallen over time. An undeniable fact when it is recognised that 'in-work' top up benefits, once virtually unheard of, are all the time increasing. So now you recognise that Welfare Dependency does exist. Make your mind up as only the other day you were in denial. The question is a fundamental one of whether or not you support a system that discourages individuals from applying for existing jobs. Yes jobs do exist, not enough, not enough no doubt, but we are still seeing companies searching abroad for Factory Workers, these will receive exactly the same in-work benefits as indigenous Brits. So clearly something is amiss. As for the quality of such jobs we have found that industry and commerce cannot find all the skilled people it requires, we find that skilled workers wages have kept themselves ahead of inflation and the fundamental problem is a massive oversupply of unskilled labour, not only here in the UK but globally. We need to rebalance our economy away from consumption of imported products towards production and you will not achieve this without a radical reform of the economy which must reduce the cost of the State and remove taxes that inhibit employment. Increasing taxation on an already highly taxed country will not create more useful jobs. It is jobs stupid.



Affa	Nov 13 2014, 11:52 AM Post #436
Senior Member Posts: 11,999 Group: Members Member #58 Joined: Jul 26, 2014	RJD Nov 13 2014, 11:21 AM So now you recognise that Welfare Dependency does exist. Make your mind up as only the other day you were in denial. That requires evidence ....... when and where have I denied the evidence of Welfare Dependency? Maybe this is not welcomed, I don't know, but you RJD are a very intelligent, hard working, and informed observer of current affairs and government. I would find it difficult to argue against your 'politics' if you did not resort to Daily Mail type BS and soundbites for your evidence. I admit to being less of a talent. Yet I feel confident in challenging you, your politics, every time, purely because I am convinced you will resort to falsities every time. If you did not, if you made your case with factual evidence (as I know you capable of) then I might avoid you, might even be convinced to believe as you do ........ integrity does matter, though our politicians seem to no longer believe it is so.



Steve K	Nov 13 2014, 01:22 PM Post #437
Once and future cynic Posts: 33,990 Group: Admins Member #20 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Affa Nov 13 2014, 10:38 AM Steve K Nov 13 2014, 12:00 AM Quote: Strange that you condemn statistics, call them lies, and yet use the Telegraph statistics to attempt to justify your argument ...... ?????? Well this is strange. You yourself used Tradingeconomics data and they say that NewStatesman data is wrong But I wasn't the hypocrite that disliked the evidence of statistics, so denied the credibility of statistics, and then presented statistical evidence to try to prove that stance. You are behaving disingenuously by making the erroneous observation you do here (a disappointing lapse in integrity). We should all know that statistical evidence can be misleading, and so are better served if we examine the data source and collection method, always. I am inclined to respect Tradingeconomics because it is A-political, International, but alas restricted to basing its findings on government released data (which cannot be trusted) What? You remove material parts of my post 430 in your quote with no indication that you had done so and as a result give a very false impression and you have the effin cheek to call me disingenuous and lapsing in integrity? I repeat tradingeconomics says your sarcastic attack on MS is very misplaced. The ONS that you despise seems to back your New Statesman point. Since they all claim ONS provenance it is a confusing position. Edited by Steve K, Nov 13 2014, 02:02 PM.



C-too	Nov 13 2014, 01:42 PM Post #438
Honourable Member Posts: 17,686 Group: Members Member #49 Joined: Jul 12, 2014	Steve K Nov 13 2014, 12:03 AM Affa Nov 12 2014, 11:08 PM . . .This chart would show if such a thing were true, it must have been a Tory ploy, because Labour worked to get people off benefits and into work. But actually the chart indicates Labour in 1997 took over an economy where unemployment was rapidly reducing and left it in 2010 with unemployment increasing and no lower than when they took power Unemployment was still very high in 1997, still higher than in the dip of 1990. There was no guarantee that unemployment would have continued to fall under the Tories. And there was the huge bills left behind for saving the NHS and rescuing state schools. Unemployment under NL was, except perhaps for 1997/98, lower than at any time under the tory governments as shown, right up to the meltdown.



Steve K	Nov 13 2014, 02:26 PM Post #439
Once and future cynic Posts: 33,990 Group: Admins Member #20 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Well the Unemployment Figures tell the sad story May 1997: Labour take over and unemployment is 2,007,000, economically inactive is 7,660,000 May 2010: Labour leave office and unemployment is up to 2,403,000, economically inactive is up to 8,213,000 Damning



RJD	Nov 13 2014, 02:40 PM Post #440
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Affa: Maybe this is not welcomed, I don't know, but you RJD are a very intelligent, hard working, and informed observer of current affairs and government. Not true I was once intelligent and hardworking, now I am a decrepit OAP struggling to get back into my garden. Affa: I would find it difficult to argue against your 'politics' if you did not resort to Daily Mail type BS and soundbites for your evidence. But I don't. I prefer ONS, Fullfact etc., but if the daily Misery has also based a story on solid evidence I do not think it wise to dismiss such. Shooting the Messenger just because you do not like the Message is not acceptable too me. Affa: I admit to being less of a talent. You underrate yourself. Affa: Yet I feel confident in challenging you, your politics, every time, purely because I am convinced you will resort to falsities every time. If you did not, if you made your case with factual evidence (as I know you capable of) then I might avoid you, might even be convinced to believe as you do ........ integrity does matter, though our politicians seem to no longer believe it is so. You are free to provide supporting evidence, if you do not then I know where to file your postings. This one goes straight into the box marked "vacuous" as it adds absolutely nothing to the debate. Why did you demean yourself with such tripe?



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)

Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
…
10
11
12