| 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: |
| Forked tongue? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Oct 2 2014, 07:14 AM (3,874 Views) | |
| RJD | Oct 2 2014, 07:14 AM Post #1 |
Prudence and Thrift
  ![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
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: | |
|---|---|
| RJD | Nov 13 2014, 02:42 PM Post #441 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
Do you make these comments with a straight face? |
|
|
|
| Affa | Nov 13 2014, 03:10 PM Post #442 |
|
Senior Member
|
What?
I have read post 430 and own up to not seeing the balanced reporting it contained first time - i read it as a another unwarranted personal criticism (there are lots of those here). But you are wrong to say I do not accept ONS data, I do. Understanding that ONS data can be, and often is, flawed is not the same as disregarding its findings. I edit posts for brevity, remove that which is not relevant to my reply, and assume that there is no confusion. There is no intention to misrepresent ANYONE. I have noted your overly sensitive nature. Edited by Affa, Nov 13 2014, 03:29 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Nov 13 2014, 03:19 PM Post #443 |
|
Deleted User
|
|
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Nov 13 2014, 03:24 PM Post #444 |
|
Deleted User
|
|
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Nov 13 2014, 03:33 PM Post #445 |
|
Senior Member
|
But it does not link to the source. |
|
|
|
| Affa | Nov 13 2014, 03:49 PM Post #446 |
|
Senior Member
|
[/quote] But the ONS does support the Statesman figures Steve K gave a link to ONS figures ......... http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ashe/patterns-of-pay/1997---2013-ashe-results/ref-tables-pop-2013.xls Keep digging. All this irate sensitivity and complaining is distracting from the actual topic - There has been no increase in unemployment benefit rates in real terms, in historical terms, quite the opposite. The point made to rubbish the "encouraging Welfare dependency" soundbite as Tory BS. Edited by Affa, Nov 13 2014, 03:51 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Nov 13 2014, 03:51 PM Post #447 |
|
Deleted User
|
I don't think you have any qualifications whatsoever to provide you with the credibility to comment about the quality of evidence. |
|
|
|
| Affa | Nov 13 2014, 04:01 PM Post #448 |
|
Senior Member
|
I hoped to encourage you not to continue demeaning yourself. |
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Nov 13 2014, 04:05 PM Post #449 |
|
Deleted User
|
But the ONS does support the Statesman figures Steve K gave a link to ONS figures ......... http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ashe/patterns-of-pay/1997---2013-ashe-results/ref-tables-pop-2013.xls Keep digging. All this irate sensitivity and complaining is distracting from the actual topic - There has been no increase in unemployment benefit rates in real terms, in historical terms, quite the opposite. The point made to rubbish the "encouraging Welfare dependency" soundbite as Tory BS. Above quote from Affa The first figure I looked at from your New Statesman table shows clearly weekly pay was £600.90. It does not quote a source like the Telegraph. The ONS figures you quote in this post quite clearly show show annual pay at £25882 which equates to £497.00 per week ( in line with the graph provided by the Telegraph). Could you explain how the two sources you quote show a substantial difference of almost 21% for the same period and the same criteria and yet you maintain that the New Statesman figures are sourced from the ONS figures. Keep digging! |
|
|
|
| Affa | Nov 13 2014, 04:22 PM Post #450 |
|
Senior Member
|
The ONS figure for 2010 average wage at £598.6 pw .......... Table 3. A discrepancy of £2.30 from what the Statesman reported = negligable. The MALE average 2010 = £693.6 pw average. per ONS. Edited by Affa, Nov 13 2014, 04:27 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Nov 13 2014, 05:46 PM Post #451 |
|
Deleted User
|
Affa this thread is so appropriate for you! Forked Tongue! You have to be the most disingenuous and duplicitous poster on this forum. The New Statesman table you proffered clearly states the average gross weekly wage at £600.09. The ONS tabulation provided subsequently clearly shows the average gross weekly wage (Table 1) at £497.00. In an attempt to try to win, what is in truth, a minor point, you misquote the ONS tabulation and attempt to suggest that the mean weekly gross wage is in fact the average weekly gross wage. Either that or you really don't recognise the difference between 'mean' and 'average'. I am prepared to believe either! You can stop digging now; you have finished your hole! What is beyond dispute however, as so ably illustrated by you, is that 'There are lies, damned lies and statistics' and you make it impossible for a man of godwill to take you at your word! |
|
|
|
| C-too | Nov 13 2014, 05:57 PM Post #452 |
Honourable Member
|
Not if you put your thinking cap on, the slide into meltdown began in2007, was in full flow by 2008. |
|
|
|
| C-too | Nov 13 2014, 06:00 PM Post #453 |
|
Honourable Member
|
When you have no answers just return to your childhood. |
|
|
|
| Steve K | Nov 13 2014, 06:01 PM Post #454 |
Once and future cynic
|
I don't think there's any dishonesty or bad faith MS. There is something wrong in the sources. FWIW 'Mean' is the proper statistical term for 'average'. 'Median' is the population distribution one too often confused with it but I can assure you the OS data does say the "mean gross weekly earnings (£)" for 2010 are £598.6 |
|
|
|
| Steve K | Nov 13 2014, 06:03 PM Post #455 |
|
Once and future cynic
|
so? Labour ended with worse unemployment than they inherited. A fact they cannot get away from |
|
|
|
| C-too | Nov 13 2014, 06:14 PM Post #456 |
|
Honourable Member
|
You appear to be implying that the international meltdown, which NL did not cause, had no effect on unemployment and that NL were to blame for the high level of unemployment in 2010. If so that would be to delude yourself. The meltdown had a big effect causing high unemployment right across Europe and America. |
|
|
|
| Steve K | Nov 13 2014, 06:23 PM Post #457 |
|
Once and future cynic
|
That's no more a valid get out of jail free card than the Tories can claim external factors caused the high unemployment of the eighties. The meltdown happened 5 years after Labour were on the record warned about it and 10 years after they came to power with "no more boom and bust" promises. They did nothing of note to ease structural unemployment and arguably much to worsen it. The record stands, unemployment was higher at the end of their reign than when they took over. |
|
|
|
| Affa | Nov 13 2014, 06:39 PM Post #458 |
|
Senior Member
|
To play that game, let's also assert that the numbers in full time employment were also very much higher - millions. To focus on the figures produced during a recession, a recession not brought on by proliferate governance as some try to claim, does not accurately portray the true picture where policy on job creation and employment are concerned - the general case being an accusation of producing a million non-jobs. Two opposite allegations there. one of destroying jobs, the other of creating non-jobs. Neither being exactly true. To address the pre-Blair (nineties) employment situation (fall in unemployment). That decade was notable for a huge unprecedented level of inward investment. A result largely of the forming of the Single Market as agreed at Maastricht. |
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Nov 13 2014, 07:00 PM Post #459 |
|
Deleted User
|
The ONS tabulation also says the weekly gross average wage is £497 (Table 1) while the weekly gross mean wage is £598 (Table 3). As I say lies, damned lies and statistics! |
|
|
|
| Affa | Nov 13 2014, 07:29 PM Post #460 |
|
Senior Member
|
And as I said, the evidence is, regardless of which figures you prefer, that Unemployment benefits have lagged wages - and therefore the allegation of benefit payments being too high, being an incentive to become benefit dependant, are completely false. UB benefit was more substantial decades ago when nobody had heard mention of a "benefit culture" ...... a life on benefits was not a preferred choice then when there were paying jobs, when work actually did pay. Today these divisive accusations are the spin, the lies, that this government uses to push through its nasty policies. |
|
|
|
| Steve K | Nov 13 2014, 11:40 PM Post #461 |
|
Once and future cynic
|
which cell ref are you looking at in Table 1? The Table 1 I'm looking at is all about median gross wages |
|
|
|
| C-too | Nov 14 2014, 12:09 AM Post #462 |
|
Honourable Member
|
While high unemployment in the early 1980s was completely understandable what was not understandable or forgivable was the fact that the Tories turned their backs on the unemployed and gave us some 17 years of high/mass unemployment. So your get out of jail comment makes no sense. No one forecast the misselling of subprime mortgages and the subsequent collapse of them followed by the slipping into the international financial markets via Wall Street, of the toxic debts caused by that collapse. ABSOLUTELY NO ONE! ---- It's time for you to stop confusing the issue and to stop fooling yourself. If you think 'no more boom and bust' which referred to the ending of UK governments using inflation and interest rates to control the economy, also referred to international boom and bust then you heavily undermine your credibility. Your arguments and conclusions on unemployment under NL are an insight into your level of political bias which is completly exposed by the graph shown earlier. |
|
|
|
| johnofgwent | Nov 14 2014, 04:18 AM Post #463 |
It .. It is GREEN !!
|
A job it is lamentably but demonstrably failing miserably at "In just under half of primary and secondary schools inspected in 2013-2014, pupils develop good or better numeracy skills. In the remaining schools, pupils’ numerical skills are at best average. This is because only around half of schools have developed suitable provision for numeracy, although this is an increase on the baseline survey." http://www.estyn.gov.uk/download/publication/337974/numeracy-in-key-stages-2-and-3-an-interim-report-november-2014/ The above is the second of three reports on a study of the effectivemess of education in wales, which has been CONTINUOUSLY controlled by a LABOUIR administration since 1997. The phraseology above beggars belief. What it actually says is that OVER HALF of the schools in wales FAIL to give the pupils that attend them a decent standard of numeracy because they have NOT put in place suitable provision to ensure it. Now I understand why my four year old grand-daughter's teachers are amazed at her ability. At the age of four my grandmother was "helping" her mother count the pennies in the till at the end of the day in the family pie shop. At the same age I could do the same. I have gone to some lengths to make sure madam can do the same. He real party trick is counting up to five hundred in steps of twenty, a trick she does with twenty pound notes, and when she gets to five hundred she grabs the pile yells MINE and runs off to the room she sleeps in when staying here. I blame her mum ... Given the inability of most school leavers to mentally count the right change when serving me in a shop or pub, I understand the amazement of my grand-daughter's teachers at her abiluty. But then again I'm not following a national curriculum... |
|
|
|
| RJD | Nov 14 2014, 10:01 AM Post #464 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
I think that if you look closely at the graph you can see that the rate of unemployed reduction stopped sometime during 2001 and started to increase thereafter, with the big spike coming with the melt down that was exacerbated by lax regulation, high State spending fuelled by taxation and borrowing. The increased number looking for work commenced on Labour's watch, the fact that this was exacerbated by increased immigration is irrelevant, they increased and the Gov. did nothing positive to arrest this, in fact it made things worse. Today we see a rapid jobs in growth that are claimed to be not worth the bother by the left, but are they really claiming that the NMW + tax benefits < JSA? I do not think so, the left are just doing the angry thing without bothering to do the solution thing. Why has there been a rapid increase in jobs, low paid jobs? 1). increase in the basic tax threshold which is an investment by this Gov. in the unemployed. 2). NMW + tax credits are more attractive than JSA 3). Zero Hour Contracts give Employers much greater flexibility. Here the question is "how many jobs will be destroyed if we ban ZHC outright"? 4). Welfare reform has encouraged many who are capable of working to find such. 5). The vast majority of those in the labour market have no skills on offer and as a consequence will only find low paid menial tasks. 6). The Brownian debt fuelled consumption model is now an Osbrownian model. We have not even started to rebalance our economy away from debt fuelled consumption to higher rates of production, in particular higher rates of higher value adding production. This Gov. has only tinkered with reducing the size of the State, it has made a start, but the difficult tasks have been put off until post 2015 when real austerity measures must kick in no matter who is in Office. Milli admits this, but offers no details of what is to be done. Milli knows we are choking ourselves on debt fuelled consumption and that the economy is desperate for rebalancing, but offers no solutions. If he thinks doing a Hollande is the solution then he clearly has learned absolutely nothing from recent history. These people these Politicians behave as if the UK is some sort of island shielded from the cold winds emanating from within the global market. The EU lot are even worse. Change is inevitable and for the next few decades it will be very painful medicine. |
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Nov 14 2014, 10:09 AM Post #465 |
|
Senior Member
|
That is an Iain Duncan Smith "belief," it CANNOT be backed up with any evidence. |
|
|
|
| Oddball 2014 | Nov 14 2014, 10:09 AM Post #466 |
|
Regular Member
|
'All in this together', was always political bullshit, is always political bullshit, and always will be political bullshit. “I will tell you the secret to getting rich on Wall Street. You try to be greedy when others are fearful. And you try to be fearful when others are greedy.” ― Warren Buffett |
|
|
|
| Tytoalba | Nov 14 2014, 11:13 AM Post #467 |
|
Senior Member
|
To protect yourself if you invest in shares is to run a stop loss system. and increase it as the share price rises. http://www.michaelwalters.com/stoploss.phtml |
|
|
|
| RJD | Nov 14 2014, 11:55 AM Post #468 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
He says he has. Now it is down to you to show where those that were once claiming such benefits have gone. |
|
|
|
| RJD | Nov 14 2014, 12:00 PM Post #469 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
Of course it is BS as the Poor were never expected to contribute and the rich to contribute even more which they have. Now the big question is how to improve the lot of those at the bottom end of the earnings scale without shooting ourselves in the foot. A good start was the basic tax threshold which can be increased again, another is to get rid of taxes on jobs as the Employees pay for these and finally reduce VAT. But all of these require a much smaller Gov. spend and that does not seem likely. If you think that squeezing pips further will do the trick then take a trip to France. |
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Nov 14 2014, 12:20 PM Post #470 |
|
Senior Member
|
No, it is up to Iain Duncan Smith to back up his "beliefs." There is NO dataset anywhere on the DWP database to back him up. He stated that when he appeared before the Work and Pensions Committee on November the 5th. (Transcript not yet available but I watched the repeat on BBC Parliament yesterday.) http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=16373 |
|
|
|
| RJD | Nov 14 2014, 12:29 PM Post #471 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
So whilst you do not believe IDS has the evidence to back up his claims you also have nothing to disprove them. Best shut up then and wait until Fullfact or ONS or whoever comes out with something solid. Clearly if IDS is whistling in the wind so are you. That said his objectives of getting those that can into work must be applauded. |
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Nov 14 2014, 12:34 PM Post #472 |
|
Senior Member
|
The point is RJD on the 5th of November at a Work and Pensions Committee meeting he stated he had no evidence, and the comments were his PERSONAL beliefs and NOT related to the DWP. He has no evidence. Just a sample:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22462265 9 May 2013 Last updated at 16:51 Duncan Smith criticised over benefit cap figures The statistics watchdog has criticised figures used by Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith to argue that his benefits cap was working. He said that the cap was having "the desired impact" as 8,000 people who would have been affected had got jobs. But the watchdog said that was not backed by the figures, which also did not comply with the code of practice. A cap on the total benefits working age people can receive is being rolled out across England, Scotland and Wales. The UK Statistics Authority was asked by unions to investigate comments made by Mr Duncan Smith in a Daily Mail interview, which coincided with the release of figures by his department on households which could be hit by the cap, and on Jobcentre Plus work with people who could be affected. 'Behavioural change' The figures state that although 8,000 people who would potentially have been hit by the cap had got jobs, they were "not intended to show the additional numbers entering work as a direct result of the contact". And they point out that although the number of households expected to be affected had fallen by 16,000 from 56,000 to 40,000 - that was due to policy changes and changes due to the "normal benefit caseload change", and did not assume any "behavioural change" as a result of the cap. Continue reading the main story “ Start Quote His ideas don't work so he's now literally making up stories” End Quote Liam Byrne Labour But the article suggested that the 16,000 "decided to act" after Mr Duncan Smith's department wrote to them, telling them their benefits were to be cut. And the secretary of state is quoted as saying: "The benefit cap sets a strong incentive for people to move into work and even before the cap comes in we are seeing thousands of people seeking help and moving off benefits ... Already we've seen 8,000 people who would have been affected by the cap move into jobs. This clearly demonstrates that the cap is having the desired impact." Andrew Dilnot, the chairman of the UK Statistics Authority, has written to Mr Duncan Smith to say the two sets of figures released in April "do not comply fully with the principles of the Code of Practice [for official statistics]". 'Further assurance' He said he had been assured, following an earlier statistics complaint against the department, that DWP staff had been told about their obligations to make sure statistics met official guidelines adding that the watchdog now sought "further assurance" on the matter. And he told the TUC's Nicola Smith, who made the complaint that Mr Duncan Smith's quoted comments linking the 8,000 jobseekers to the benefits cap were "unsupported by the official statistics published by the department". TUC General Secretary Frances O'Grady said: "Only people with weak arguments need to make up statistics. Of course we need a welfare system that guards against abuse, but this government is now causing real hardship and worry to many who have done nothing to cheat the system and are desperate to work." And Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Liam Byrne accused Mr Duncan Smith of "living in la la land". "His ideas don't work so he's now literally making up stories," he said. "For the third time in just six months, the head of the UK Statistics Authority has written to ministers to warn them about their misuse of statistics." But a spokesman for the DWP said: "The secretary of state has long held the position that the benefit cap would have an impact on the behaviour of claimants. "As the minister for employment made clear in a recent interview, DWP staff and claimants are telling us the cap is impacting behaviour and leading to those affected finally entering the world of work." Edited by papasmurf, Nov 14 2014, 12:39 PM.
|
|
|
|
| johnofgwent | Nov 14 2014, 01:12 PM Post #473 |
|
It .. It is GREEN !!
|
I might applaud the objective. I wont be rushing to applaud the method anytime soon |
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Nov 14 2014, 01:22 PM Post #474 |
|
Senior Member
|
Quite:- http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2014/11/12/iain-duncan-smith-to-meet-universal-credit-target-in-700-yea Iain Duncan Smith to meet Universal Credit target in 700 years' time By Adam Bienkov Wednesday, 12 November 2014 3:42 PM Ian Duncan Smith promised that more than a million people would be signed up to his universal credit scheme by April 2014, with twelve million signed up by 2017. However, new figures released today reveal the DWP currently have just 17,850 people on their caseload. This means that at the current rate of progress, it will take them almost 700 more years to meet their original target of twelve million. I think by that point even Duncan Smith may have to admit that there are problems with the scheme. Duncan Smith has remained fiercely defensive of the programme despite it being dogged by multiple difficulties over the years. An investigation by the NAO last year found that the scheme suffered from "weak management, ineffective control and poor governance," and had "not achieved value for money". Earlier this year, the Major Projects Authority revealed that the scheme had been 'reset' by auditors, following earlier assessments that the scheme was at serious risk of failure. The work and pensions secretary has repeatedly blocked publication of reports detailing the failure of the scheme. Edited by papasmurf, Nov 14 2014, 01:23 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Tigger | Nov 14 2014, 01:24 PM Post #475 |
|
Senior Member
|
I do hope you are not taking share advice/snake oil from a former Daily Mail Columnist!  You will not find the best deals on mass market outfits like this, the better schemes tend to seek you out rather than the other way around....... |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
 ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community. Learn More · Sign-up Now |
|
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |
12:37 AM Jul 14