|
According to the DWP
|
|
Topic Started: Feb 4 2015, 08:34 AM (524 Views)
|
|
RJD
|
Feb 4 2015, 08:34 AM
Post #1
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Quote:
-
According to the work and pensions department, there are now 700,000 fewer people in workless households as a result of the Coalition’s reforms. There are also 270,000 fewer people living in social housing who are without work, according to the figures. - LINK
Seems we now have a Welfare State growing at a rate slower than anytime since 1948 after the great binge when Labour took it from £127b in 1997 to £207b, not quite a doubling.
|
|
|
| |
|
HIGHWAY
|
Feb 4 2015, 08:40 AM
Post #2
|
- Posts:
- 4,040
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #54
- Joined:
- Jul 23, 2014
|
- RJD
- Feb 4 2015, 08:34 AM
- Quote:
-
According to the work and pensions department, there are now 700,000 fewer people in workless households as a result of the Coalition’s reforms. There are also 270,000 fewer people living in social housing who are without work, according to the figures.
- LINKSeems we now have a Welfare State growing at a rate slower than anytime since 1948 after the great binge when Labour took it from £127b in 1997 to £207b, not quite a doubling. Prepare for the anti Tory backlash,for speaking the truth
|
|
|
| |
|
papasmurf
|
Feb 4 2015, 08:48 AM
Post #3
|
- Posts:
- 17,277
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
RJD, that is not a link to the datasets, it is a link to the Torygraph giving Iain Duncan Smith's "beliefs" an airing, with no critical analysis. If you could be bothered to watch BBC Parliament from 09.30 hours this morning, The Work and Pensions Committee, you would see the other side of the coin. Or it will be here:-
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=17193
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Feb 4 2015, 09:45 AM
Post #4
|
- Posts:
- 33,954
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- papasmurf
- Feb 4 2015, 08:48 AM
RJD, that is not a link to the datasets, it is a link to the Torygraph giving Iain Duncan Smith's "beliefs" an airing, with no critical analysis. If you could be bothered to watch BBC Parliament from 09.30 hours this morning, The Work and Pensions Committee, you would see the other side of the coin. Or it will be here:- http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=17193 IDS certainly has form for being too optimistic in his reading of metadata so I would not believe that 700,000
|
|
|
| |
|
papasmurf
|
Feb 4 2015, 09:48 AM
Post #5
|
- Posts:
- 17,277
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Feb 4 2015, 09:45 AM
IDS certainly has form for being too optimistic in his reading of metadata so I would not believe that 700,000 I can find NO recent data release to back it up, (which in the case of IDS is par for the course.)
Anyone else is free to search for themselves:-
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Feb 4 2015, 09:55 AM
Post #6
|
- Posts:
- 33,954
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
It won't be in the data releases, he will have the metadata for forthcoming releases. I really don't think IDS has the necessary grey matter to realise what he reads
|
|
|
| |
|
papasmurf
|
Feb 4 2015, 10:00 AM
Post #7
|
- Posts:
- 17,277
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Feb 4 2015, 09:55 AM
It won't be in the data releases, he will have the metadata for forthcoming releases. Actually he won't. He only gets data releases 24 hours before they go public domain, which give him time to block there release, which has does frequently if they are going to be an embarrassment.
That makes the Telegraph article puzzling because there is no recent data release on the subjects of the article.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pre-release-access-to-statistics-order-2008/pre-release-access-to-statistics-order-2008
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Feb 4 2015, 10:04 AM
Post #8
|
- Posts:
- 33,954
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
No he gets metadata all the time
|
|
|
| |
|
papasmurf
|
Feb 4 2015, 10:07 AM
Post #9
|
- Posts:
- 17,277
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Feb 4 2015, 10:04 AM
No he gets metadata all the time I doubt it, he would not want facts to get in the way of his "beliefs."
|
|
|
| |
|
krugerman
|
Feb 4 2015, 10:35 AM
Post #10
|
- Posts:
- 1,152
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #11
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
The report ( in The Telegraph ) is full of deceptive information, for example when stating the word "welfare", does this mean only "out of work payments", or does it also mean working benefits ?, because as we all know there are different meanings.
Would the Conservative Party be proud if they reduced the Pensioners Winter Fuel Payments ?, are they proud of actually reducing Family Allowance to families on low pay ?, these are of course NOT "out of work benefits".
Are the Conservatives proud of reducing Job Seekers Allowance to unemployed people ?, and is the reason for today s proud and loud claims in The Telegraph a suggestion that most people claiming various welfare payments are not deserving, scroungers, shirkers. ?
The problem with The Nasty Party, is that it s often not what they say, its what they dont say, and they consistently leave the door to insinuation wide open, all part of dividing the workiing and middle class voters.
When did you ever hear a Tory say that most people on benefits are not scroungers ?
|
|
|
| |
|
ACH1967
|
Feb 4 2015, 11:04 AM
Post #11
|
- Posts:
- 4,225
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #56
- Joined:
- Jul 24, 2014
|
- krugerman
- Feb 4 2015, 10:35 AM
The report ( in The Telegraph ) is full of deceptive information, for example when stating the word "welfare", does this mean only "out of work payments", or does it also mean working benefits ?, because as we all know there are different meanings.
Would the Conservative Party be proud if they reduced the Pensioners Winter Fuel Payments ?, are they proud of actually reducing Family Allowance to families on low pay ?, these are of course NOT "out of work benefits".
Are the Conservatives proud of reducing Job Seekers Allowance to unemployed people ?, and is the reason for today s proud and loud claims in The Telegraph a suggestion that most people claiming various welfare payments are not deserving, scroungers, shirkers. ?
The problem with The Nasty Party, is that it s often not what they say, its what they dont say, and they consistently leave the door to insinuation wide open, all part of dividing the workiing and middle class voters.
When did you ever hear a Tory say that most people on benefits are not scroungers ?
You make some valid points and then ruin it by resorting to playground name calling.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tytoalba
|
Feb 4 2015, 12:32 PM
Post #12
|
- Posts:
- 7,583
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #36
- Joined:
- Jun 29, 2014
|
- krugerman
- Feb 4 2015, 10:35 AM
The report ( in The Telegraph ) is full of deceptive information, for example when stating the word "welfare", does this mean only "out of work payments", or does it also mean working benefits ?, because as we all know there are different meanings.
Would the Conservative Party be proud if they reduced the Pensioners Winter Fuel Payments ?, are they proud of actually reducing Family Allowance to families on low pay ?, these are of course NOT "out of work benefits".
Are the Conservatives proud of reducing Job Seekers Allowance to unemployed people ?, and is the reason for today s proud and loud claims in The Telegraph a suggestion that most people claiming various welfare payments are not deserving, scroungers, shirkers. ?
The problem with The Nasty Party, is that it s often not what they say, its what they dont say, and they consistently leave the door to insinuation wide open, all part of dividing the workiing and middle class voters.
When did you ever hear a Tory say that most people on benefits are not scroungers ?
Ill say it Papa. Most people on benefits are not scroungers, but we cannot deny that some are., and could do more for themselves. Now you can never say that again. My sons a conservative party county councillor and a town councillor and he would deny it without reservation, and with sympathy and with a great deal of concern for those in need of it, like his mother, who has a severely debilitating disease.
Wild broad sweeping statements like yours benefits nobody Its part of political rhetoric I accept, and we all understand that, some times with amusement, but lets keep it in perspective. As for winter fuel payments, I would suggest that most pensioner are not in fuel poverty and could manage without it, as they always did when it was not given.
|
|
|
| |
|
papasmurf
|
Feb 4 2015, 12:35 PM
Post #13
|
- Posts:
- 17,277
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Tytoalba
- Feb 4 2015, 12:32 PM
Ill say it Papa.
Why quote someone else, but mention me?
|
|
|
| |
|
somersetli
|
Feb 4 2015, 12:38 PM
Post #14
|
- Posts:
- 626
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #12
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Tytoalba
- Feb 4 2015, 12:32 PM
- krugerman
- Feb 4 2015, 10:35 AM
The report ( in The Telegraph ) is full of deceptive information, for example when stating the word "welfare", does this mean only "out of work payments", or does it also mean working benefits ?, because as we all know there are different meanings.
Would the Conservative Party be proud if they reduced the Pensioners Winter Fuel Payments ?, are they proud of actually reducing Family Allowance to families on low pay ?, these are of course NOT "out of work benefits".
Are the Conservatives proud of reducing Job Seekers Allowance to unemployed people ?, and is the reason for today s proud and loud claims in The Telegraph a suggestion that most people claiming various welfare payments are not deserving, scroungers, shirkers. ?
The problem with The Nasty Party, is that it s often not what they say, its what they dont say, and they consistently leave the door to insinuation wide open, all part of dividing the workiing and middle class voters.
When did you ever hear a Tory say that most people on benefits are not scroungers ?
Ill say it Papa. Most people on benefits are not scroungers, but we cannot deny that some are., and could do more for themselves. Now you can never say that again. My sons a conservative party county councillor and a town councillor and he would deny it without reservation, and with sympathy and with a great deal of concern for those in need of it, like his mother, who has a severely debilitating disease. Wild broad sweeping statements like yours benefits nobody Its part of political rhetoric I accept, and we all understand that, some times with amusement, but lets keep it in perspective. As for winter fuel payments, I would suggest that most pensioner are not in fuel poverty and could manage without it, as they always did when it was not given. As could well off households receiving child allowance.
|
|
|
| |
|
krugerman
|
Feb 4 2015, 01:25 PM
Post #15
|
- Posts:
- 1,152
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #11
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Tytoalba
- Feb 4 2015, 12:32 PM
- krugerman
- Feb 4 2015, 10:35 AM
The report ( in The Telegraph ) is full of deceptive information, for example when stating the word "welfare", does this mean only "out of work payments", or does it also mean working benefits ?, because as we all know there are different meanings.
Would the Conservative Party be proud if they reduced the Pensioners Winter Fuel Payments ?, are they proud of actually reducing Family Allowance to families on low pay ?, these are of course NOT "out of work benefits".
Are the Conservatives proud of reducing Job Seekers Allowance to unemployed people ?, and is the reason for today s proud and loud claims in The Telegraph a suggestion that most people claiming various welfare payments are not deserving, scroungers, shirkers. ?
The problem with The Nasty Party, is that it s often not what they say, its what they dont say, and they consistently leave the door to insinuation wide open, all part of dividing the workiing and middle class voters.
When did you ever hear a Tory say that most people on benefits are not scroungers ?
Ill say it Papa. Most people on benefits are not scroungers, but we cannot deny that some are., and could do more for themselves. Now you can never say that again. My sons a conservative party county councillor and a town councillor and he would deny it without reservation, and with sympathy and with a great deal of concern for those in need of it, like his mother, who has a severely debilitating disease. Wild broad sweeping statements like yours benefits nobody Its part of political rhetoric I accept, and we all understand that, some times with amusement, but lets keep it in perspective. As for winter fuel payments, I would suggest that most pensioner are not in fuel poverty and could manage without it, as they always did when it was not given. Whom does it benefit when cutting the amount of Job Seekers Allowance paid to unemployed people ?
Whom does it benefit when Family Allowance is cut to people on low incomes ?
Whom does it benefit when a middle aged couple who s son or daughter has left home, suddenly find themselves worse off because they are penalized for having a spare room, and please bear in mind that many such people are stuck, unable to find a 1 bed home because there is none in many areas.?
The problem with your Conservative Party is that they are always hitting the least well off in society, always seem to be taking from the poorest and the most vulnerable, whilst at the same time they give huge tax cuts to the wealthiest in society.
Next on the agenda - taking away all help with rent for all young people either on low pay or unemployed, more poor people forced into poverty, that s all I see this government doing.
|
|
|
| |
|
ACH1967
|
Feb 4 2015, 01:31 PM
Post #16
|
- Posts:
- 4,225
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #56
- Joined:
- Jul 24, 2014
|
- krugerman
- Feb 4 2015, 01:25 PM
- Tytoalba
- Feb 4 2015, 12:32 PM
- krugerman
- Feb 4 2015, 10:35 AM
The report ( in The Telegraph ) is full of deceptive information, for example when stating the word "welfare", does this mean only "out of work payments", or does it also mean working benefits ?, because as we all know there are different meanings.
Would the Conservative Party be proud if they reduced the Pensioners Winter Fuel Payments ?, are they proud of actually reducing Family Allowance to families on low pay ?, these are of course NOT "out of work benefits".
Are the Conservatives proud of reducing Job Seekers Allowance to unemployed people ?, and is the reason for today s proud and loud claims in The Telegraph a suggestion that most people claiming various welfare payments are not deserving, scroungers, shirkers. ?
The problem with The Nasty Party, is that it s often not what they say, its what they dont say, and they consistently leave the door to insinuation wide open, all part of dividing the workiing and middle class voters.
When did you ever hear a Tory say that most people on benefits are not scroungers ?
Ill say it Papa. Most people on benefits are not scroungers, but we cannot deny that some are., and could do more for themselves. Now you can never say that again. My sons a conservative party county councillor and a town councillor and he would deny it without reservation, and with sympathy and with a great deal of concern for those in need of it, like his mother, who has a severely debilitating disease. Wild broad sweeping statements like yours benefits nobody Its part of political rhetoric I accept, and we all understand that, some times with amusement, but lets keep it in perspective. As for winter fuel payments, I would suggest that most pensioner are not in fuel poverty and could manage without it, as they always did when it was not given.
Whom does it benefit when cutting the amount of Job Seekers Allowance paid to unemployed people ? Whom does it benefit when Family Allowance is cut to people on low incomes ? Whom does it benefit when a middle aged couple who s son or daughter has left home, suddenly find themselves worse off because they are penalized for having a spare room, and please bear in mind that many such people are stuck, unable to find a 1 bed home because there is none in many areas.? The problem with your Conservative Party is that they are always hitting the least well off in society, always seem to be taking from the poorest and the most vulnerable, whilst at the same time they give huge tax cuts to the wealthiest in society. Next on the agenda - taking away all help with rent for all young people either on low pay or unemployed, more poor people forced into poverty, that s all I see this government doing. Those of us who pay taxes.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tytoalba
|
Feb 4 2015, 01:45 PM
Post #17
|
- Posts:
- 7,583
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #36
- Joined:
- Jun 29, 2014
|
- krugerman
- Feb 4 2015, 01:25 PM
- Tytoalba
- Feb 4 2015, 12:32 PM
- krugerman
- Feb 4 2015, 10:35 AM
The report ( in The Telegraph ) is full of deceptive information, for example when stating the word "welfare", does this mean only "out of work payments", or does it also mean working benefits ?, because as we all know there are different meanings.
Would the Conservative Party be proud if they reduced the Pensioners Winter Fuel Payments ?, are they proud of actually reducing Family Allowance to families on low pay ?, these are of course NOT "out of work benefits".
Are the Conservatives proud of reducing Job Seekers Allowance to unemployed people ?, and is the reason for today s proud and loud claims in The Telegraph a suggestion that most people claiming various welfare payments are not deserving, scroungers, shirkers. ?
The problem with The Nasty Party, is that it s often not what they say, its what they dont say, and they consistently leave the door to insinuation wide open, all part of dividing the workiing and middle class voters.
When did you ever hear a Tory say that most people on benefits are not scroungers ?
Ill say it Papa. Most people on benefits are not scroungers, but we cannot deny that some are., and could do more for themselves. Now you can never say that again. My sons a conservative party county councillor and a town councillor and he would deny it without reservation, and with sympathy and with a great deal of concern for those in need of it, like his mother, who has a severely debilitating disease. Wild broad sweeping statements like yours benefits nobody Its part of political rhetoric I accept, and we all understand that, some times with amusement, but lets keep it in perspective. As for winter fuel payments, I would suggest that most pensioner are not in fuel poverty and could manage without it, as they always did when it was not given.
Whom does it benefit when cutting the amount of Job Seekers Allowance paid to unemployed people ? Whom does it benefit when Family Allowance is cut to people on low incomes ? Whom does it benefit when a middle aged couple who s son or daughter has left home, suddenly find themselves worse off because they are penalized for having a spare room, and please bear in mind that many such people are stuck, unable to find a 1 bed home because there is none in many areas.? The problem with your Conservative Party is that they are always hitting the least well off in society, always seem to be taking from the poorest and the most vulnerable, whilst at the same time they give huge tax cuts to the wealthiest in society. Next on the agenda - taking away all help with rent for all young people either on low pay or unemployed, more poor people forced into poverty, that s all I see this government doing. The beneficiaries of the cuts are the taxpayers, for it is they who pay for all benefits.
Is there anyone who thinks that there should be no cuts across the board, and the national debt should climb out of control? Do they want another Greece or Spain, where everyone is suffering including the poor?>
|
|
|
| |
|
krugerman
|
Feb 4 2015, 01:55 PM
Post #18
|
- Posts:
- 1,152
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #11
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- ACH1967
- Feb 4 2015, 01:31 PM
- krugerman
- Feb 4 2015, 01:25 PM
- Tytoalba
- Feb 4 2015, 12:32 PM
- krugerman
- Feb 4 2015, 10:35 AM
The report ( in The Telegraph ) is full of deceptive information, for example when stating the word "welfare", does this mean only "out of work payments", or does it also mean working benefits ?, because as we all know there are different meanings.
Would the Conservative Party be proud if they reduced the Pensioners Winter Fuel Payments ?, are they proud of actually reducing Family Allowance to families on low pay ?, these are of course NOT "out of work benefits".
Are the Conservatives proud of reducing Job Seekers Allowance to unemployed people ?, and is the reason for today s proud and loud claims in The Telegraph a suggestion that most people claiming various welfare payments are not deserving, scroungers, shirkers. ?
The problem with The Nasty Party, is that it s often not what they say, its what they dont say, and they consistently leave the door to insinuation wide open, all part of dividing the workiing and middle class voters.
When did you ever hear a Tory say that most people on benefits are not scroungers ?
Ill say it Papa. Most people on benefits are not scroungers, but we cannot deny that some are., and could do more for themselves. Now you can never say that again. My sons a conservative party county councillor and a town councillor and he would deny it without reservation, and with sympathy and with a great deal of concern for those in need of it, like his mother, who has a severely debilitating disease. Wild broad sweeping statements like yours benefits nobody Its part of political rhetoric I accept, and we all understand that, some times with amusement, but lets keep it in perspective. As for winter fuel payments, I would suggest that most pensioner are not in fuel poverty and could manage without it, as they always did when it was not given.
Whom does it benefit when cutting the amount of Job Seekers Allowance paid to unemployed people ? Whom does it benefit when Family Allowance is cut to people on low incomes ? Whom does it benefit when a middle aged couple who s son or daughter has left home, suddenly find themselves worse off because they are penalized for having a spare room, and please bear in mind that many such people are stuck, unable to find a 1 bed home because there is none in many areas.? The problem with your Conservative Party is that they are always hitting the least well off in society, always seem to be taking from the poorest and the most vulnerable, whilst at the same time they give huge tax cuts to the wealthiest in society. Next on the agenda - taking away all help with rent for all young people either on low pay or unemployed, more poor people forced into poverty, that s all I see this government doing.
Those of us who pay taxes. Well with an answer like that you are very clearly a Tory supporter, utterly selfish, and absolutely no thought what so ever of the consequences upon people who are struggling in life, but that s Tories for you.
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Feb 4 2015, 02:10 PM
Post #19
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
- RJD
- Feb 4 2015, 08:34 AM
Seems we now have a Welfare State growing at a rate slower than anytime since 1948 after the great binge when Labour took it from £127b in 1997 to £207b, not quite a doubling.
Seems that facts will get in the way of such appearances .........

But more relevant is this chart.

Seems the only time welfare spending was actually appreciably reduced in real terms was under Labour ........ and the huge increases in Welfare spending, despite efforts to mask it, were under Tory administrations ..... Thatcher in particular.
|
|
|
| |
|
ACH1967
|
Feb 4 2015, 02:15 PM
Post #20
|
- Posts:
- 4,225
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #56
- Joined:
- Jul 24, 2014
|
- krugerman
- Feb 4 2015, 01:55 PM
- ACH1967
- Feb 4 2015, 01:31 PM
- krugerman
- Feb 4 2015, 01:25 PM
- Tytoalba
- Feb 4 2015, 12:32 PM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Whom does it benefit when cutting the amount of Job Seekers Allowance paid to unemployed people ? Whom does it benefit when Family Allowance is cut to people on low incomes ? Whom does it benefit when a middle aged couple who s son or daughter has left home, suddenly find themselves worse off because they are penalized for having a spare room, and please bear in mind that many such people are stuck, unable to find a 1 bed home because there is none in many areas.? The problem with your Conservative Party is that they are always hitting the least well off in society, always seem to be taking from the poorest and the most vulnerable, whilst at the same time they give huge tax cuts to the wealthiest in society. Next on the agenda - taking away all help with rent for all young people either on low pay or unemployed, more poor people forced into poverty, that s all I see this government doing.
Those of us who pay taxes.
Well with an answer like that you are very clearly a Tory supporter, utterly selfish, and absolutely no thought what so ever of the consequences upon people who are struggling in life, but that s Tories for you. Once again the left resort to name calling when people don't agree with them. Utterly pathetic.
|
|
|
| |
|
papasmurf
|
Feb 4 2015, 02:28 PM
Post #21
|
- Posts:
- 17,277
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Affa
- Feb 4 2015, 02:10 PM
Seems the only time welfare spending was actually appreciably reduced in real terms was under Labour ........ and the huge increases in Welfare spending, despite efforts to mask it, were under Tory administrations ..... Thatcher in particular.
That is something that has puzzled me, New Labour were really harsh on benefit claimants, to the point long term on JSA was down to 40000 just before the 2008 crash. New Labour were at this meeting and got into bed with Unum. http://www.midmoors.co.uk/Unum/unum_in_uk.pdf In November 2001 a conference assembled at Woodstock, near Oxford. Its subject was ‘Malingering and Illness Deception’. The topic was a familiar one to the insurance industry, but it was now becoming a major political issue as New Labour committed itself to reducing the 2.6 million who were claiming Incapacity Benefit (IB). Amongst the 39 participants was Malcolm Wicks, then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Work, and Mansel Aylward, his Chief Medical Officer at the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP). Fraud - which amounts to less than 0.4 per cent of IB claims - was not the issue. The experts and academics present were the theorists and ideologues of welfare to work. What linked many of them together, including Aylward, was their association with the giant US income protection company UnumProvident, represented at the conference by John LoCascio. The goal was the transformation of the welfare system. The cultural meaning of illness would be redefined; growing numbers of claimants would be declared capable of work and ‘motivated’ into jobs.
Despite that New Labour has kept very quiet about it, and so have the conservatives.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Feb 4 2015, 02:42 PM
Post #22
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- papasmurf
- Feb 4 2015, 08:48 AM
RJD, that is not a link to the datasets, it is a link to the Torygraph giving Iain Duncan Smith's "beliefs" an airing, with no critical analysis. If you could be bothered to watch BBC Parliament from 09.30 hours this morning, The Work and Pensions Committee, you would see the other side of the coin. Or it will be here:- http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=17193 Why should I waste my time listening to that lot when the onus is on you to refute the claims, from the 5 minutes or so I watched no such evidence was offered. So the claim stands.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Feb 4 2015, 02:45 PM
Post #23
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Tytoalba
- Feb 4 2015, 12:32 PM
- krugerman
- Feb 4 2015, 10:35 AM
The report ( in The Telegraph ) is full of deceptive information, for example when stating the word "welfare", does this mean only "out of work payments", or does it also mean working benefits ?, because as we all know there are different meanings.
Would the Conservative Party be proud if they reduced the Pensioners Winter Fuel Payments ?, are they proud of actually reducing Family Allowance to families on low pay ?, these are of course NOT "out of work benefits".
Are the Conservatives proud of reducing Job Seekers Allowance to unemployed people ?, and is the reason for today s proud and loud claims in The Telegraph a suggestion that most people claiming various welfare payments are not deserving, scroungers, shirkers. ?
The problem with The Nasty Party, is that it s often not what they say, its what they dont say, and they consistently leave the door to insinuation wide open, all part of dividing the workiing and middle class voters.
When did you ever hear a Tory say that most people on benefits are not scroungers ?
Ill say it Papa. Most people on benefits are not scroungers, but we cannot deny that some are., and could do more for themselves. Now you can never say that again. My sons a conservative party county councillor and a town councillor and he would deny it without reservation, and with sympathy and with a great deal of concern for those in need of it, like his mother, who has a severely debilitating disease. Wild broad sweeping statements like yours benefits nobody Its part of political rhetoric I accept, and we all understand that, some times with amusement, but lets keep it in perspective. As for winter fuel payments, I would suggest that most pensioner are not in fuel poverty and could manage without it, as they always did when it was not given. 60% of those receiving the WFA, I am one of these, have no justifiable claim, same goes for Bus Passes and the like. But these are universal benefits, not means tested.
|
|
|
| |
|
papasmurf
|
Feb 4 2015, 03:14 PM
Post #24
|
- Posts:
- 17,277
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- RJD
- Feb 4 2015, 02:45 PM
60% of those receiving the WFA, I am one of these, have no justifiable claim, You could use it to buy food to donate to a food bank.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Feb 4 2015, 05:08 PM
Post #25
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- papasmurf
- Feb 4 2015, 03:14 PM
- RJD
- Feb 4 2015, 02:45 PM
60% of those receiving the WFA, I am one of these, have no justifiable claim,
You could use it to buy food to donate to a food bank. Why? I have already declared, at the last place, that I send the money to my favoured Charity. They used to have nice uniforms, a brass band and their own News-sheet. Some actually do rather than pontificate.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tigger
|
Feb 4 2015, 06:51 PM
Post #26
|
- Posts:
- 20,087
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #18
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- RJD
- Feb 4 2015, 02:42 PM
- papasmurf
- Feb 4 2015, 08:48 AM
RJD, that is not a link to the datasets, it is a link to the Torygraph giving Iain Duncan Smith's "beliefs" an airing, with no critical analysis. If you could be bothered to watch BBC Parliament from 09.30 hours this morning, The Work and Pensions Committee, you would see the other side of the coin. Or it will be here:- http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=17193
Why should I waste my time listening to that lot when the onus is on you to refute the claims, from the 5 minutes or so I watched no such evidence was offered. So the claim stands. But then how many of them receive state handouts whilst holding down one of these casual insecure jobs?
You cannot have a viable economy if those in work cannot afford even the basics and need taxpayer funded subsides, I'll repeat it again, tax assets and not productive work, we cannot afford to keep idle asset owners in the style to which they have become accustomed, we are rapidly reaching a point where we cannot afford them.
|
|
|
| |
|
Rich
|
Feb 4 2015, 07:10 PM
Post #27
|
- Posts:
- 14,458
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #30
- Joined:
- Jun 28, 2014
|
- Affa
- Feb 4 2015, 02:10 PM
- RJD
- Feb 4 2015, 08:34 AM
Seems we now have a Welfare State growing at a rate slower than anytime since 1948 after the great binge when Labour took it from £127b in 1997 to £207b, not quite a doubling.
Seems that facts will get in the way of such appearances .........  But more relevant is this chart.  Seems the only time welfare spending was actually appreciably reduced in real terms was under Labour ........ and the huge increases in Welfare spending, despite efforts to mask it, were under Tory administrations ..... Thatcher in particular. Surely it is reasonable to expect the welfare bill to grow commensurately with the amount of people coming into this country from places that are much poorer than ourselves.
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Feb 4 2015, 07:44 PM
Post #28
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
- Rich
- Feb 4 2015, 07:10 PM
Surely it is reasonable to expect the welfare bill to grow commensurately with the amount of people coming into this country from places that are much poorer than ourselves.
And why I say the Welfare Bill per capita is most significant. After five years of reduction it suddenly again increased circa 2005/05 .... the year of EU enlargement and the start of the Polish invasion.
We see a similar effect on UK unemployment figures ...... a steady decline which starts to rise again in 2004/05.
If the argument that business required these immigrants for the skills they bring were true, we would see UK production, UK GDP, showing a similar burst in 2005 ..... but we do not.
|
|
|
| |
|
papasmurf
|
Feb 4 2015, 07:46 PM
Post #29
|
- Posts:
- 17,277
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- RJD
- Feb 4 2015, 02:42 PM
Why should I waste my time listening to that lot when the onus is on you to refute the claims, from the 5 minutes or so I watched no such evidence was offered. So the claim stands.
You claim doesn't stand because had you watched all of it you would have seen the witch McVey not answering how did she think vulnerable people were supposed to live with no income because they had been sanctioned. (MPs on the W&P Committee have evidence of the problem from their own constituencies.) In real life the "emergency payments" are NOT automatic.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tytoalba
|
Feb 4 2015, 07:54 PM
Post #30
|
- Posts:
- 7,583
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #36
- Joined:
- Jun 29, 2014
|
- krugerman
- Feb 4 2015, 01:55 PM
- ACH1967
- Feb 4 2015, 01:31 PM
- krugerman
- Feb 4 2015, 01:25 PM
- Tytoalba
- Feb 4 2015, 12:32 PM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Whom does it benefit when cutting the amount of Job Seekers Allowance paid to unemployed people ? Whom does it benefit when Family Allowance is cut to people on low incomes ? Whom does it benefit when a middle aged couple who s son or daughter has left home, suddenly find themselves worse off because they are penalized for having a spare room, and please bear in mind that many such people are stuck, unable to find a 1 bed home because there is none in many areas.? The problem with your Conservative Party is that they are always hitting the least well off in society, always seem to be taking from the poorest and the most vulnerable, whilst at the same time they give huge tax cuts to the wealthiest in society. Next on the agenda - taking away all help with rent for all young people either on low pay or unemployed, more poor people forced into poverty, that s all I see this government doing.
Those of us who pay taxes.
Well with an answer like that you are very clearly a Tory supporter, utterly selfish, and absolutely no thought what so ever of the consequences upon people who are struggling in life, but that s Tories for you. Benefits cost money, so if there is not enough of it, what do we do about it, especially when demands are growing?Just print more, or tax more, until the pips squeak? Is living within out means a conservative attitude only, or is it just a sensible rational way of doing things.
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Feb 4 2015, 07:55 PM
Post #31
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
- Quote:
-
Retired gardener takes his own life after change in benefits system, inquest hears
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/03/retired-gardener-benefits-malcolm-burge-newham-council-london-government-welfare
Now the heartless right wingers on here will try to say that the man was mentally ill, that the council cannot be blamed ...... when Wall St bankers were jumping out of sky scraper windows it was understood that they did so because of their sudden financial insecurity .......... they were broken men. Pensioner Malcom Burge was a broken man, the council broke him.
- Quote:
-
Letters presented to the inquest revealed Mr Burge had tried repeatedly to seek help and telephone the council but had been bounced around an electronic switchboard.
Edited by Affa, Feb 4 2015, 08:08 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
marybrown
|
Feb 4 2015, 08:12 PM
Post #32
|
- Posts:
- 10,516
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #60
- Joined:
- Jul 27, 2014
|
Crock of shite..anyone normal would not contemplate suicide..
I'll have to try that next time I can't pay my bills..LOL..
HELP ME..I'm mental...
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Feb 4 2015, 08:56 PM
Post #33
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- marybrown
- Feb 4 2015, 08:12 PM
Crock of shite..anyone normal would not contemplate suicide..
I'll have to try that next time I can't pay my bills..LOL..
HELP ME..I'm mental... You are a very strong minded female. I wonder if you will be just as strong if life treats you badly in your old age ?
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Feb 4 2015, 09:03 PM
Post #34
|
- Posts:
- 33,954
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Affa
- Feb 4 2015, 07:55 PM
- Quote:
-
Retired gardener takes his own life after change in benefits system, inquest hears http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/03/retired-gardener-benefits-malcolm-burge-newham-council-london-government-welfareNow the heartless right wingers on here will try to say that the man was mentally ill, that the council cannot be blamed ...... when Wall St bankers were jumping out of sky scraper windows it was understood that they did so because of their sudden financial insecurity .......... they were broken men. Pensioner Malcom Burge was a broken man, the council broke him. - Quote:
-
Letters presented to the inquest revealed Mr Burge had tried repeatedly to seek help and telephone the council but had been bounced around an electronic switchboard.
Yes that shows you just what can happen when you have a Labour run council
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Feb 4 2015, 09:59 PM
Post #35
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Feb 4 2015, 09:03 PM
Yes that shows you just what can happen when you have a Labour run council
It can happen. it did happen. It can't happen, hasn't happened under a Conservative run council? Mine is a staunch Conservative council, their social housing policy none existent - they have/own no social housing. They sold them all off to housing agencies. Rents typically £100pw for a two-bed flat. Rates Council tax £100pm + ....... Add in water rates and utility bills, and the roof over your head costs £10,000+ over half of average take-home pay. I don't actually know of anyone struggling to survive these costs, my daughter managed it for a year or so on modest income (she got a better job and found a partner, eventually), but we were there to help when required. I'm always wary when driving about town and passing under the number of pedestrian walkways ........
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Feb 4 2015, 10:36 PM
Post #36
|
- Posts:
- 33,954
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
But the whole point is the case you submitted shows how Labour got it so so wrong.
|
|
|
| |
|
Rich
|
Feb 4 2015, 10:39 PM
Post #37
|
- Posts:
- 14,458
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #30
- Joined:
- Jun 28, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Feb 4 2015, 09:03 PM
- Affa
- Feb 4 2015, 07:55 PM
- Quote:
-
Retired gardener takes his own life after change in benefits system, inquest hears http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/03/retired-gardener-benefits-malcolm-burge-newham-council-london-government-welfareNow the heartless right wingers on here will try to say that the man was mentally ill, that the council cannot be blamed ...... when Wall St bankers were jumping out of sky scraper windows it was understood that they did so because of their sudden financial insecurity .......... they were broken men. Pensioner Malcom Burge was a broken man, the council broke him. - Quote:
-
Letters presented to the inquest revealed Mr Burge had tried repeatedly to seek help and telephone the council but had been bounced around an electronic switchboard.
Yes that shows you just what can happen when you have a Labour run council Rotherham was much the same, turning a blind eye to those that put their trust in them.
|
|
|
| |
|
Rich
|
Feb 4 2015, 10:41 PM
Post #38
|
- Posts:
- 14,458
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #30
- Joined:
- Jun 28, 2014
|
- Rich
- Feb 4 2015, 10:39 PM
- Steve K
- Feb 4 2015, 09:03 PM
- Affa
- Feb 4 2015, 07:55 PM
- Quote:
-
Retired gardener takes his own life after change in benefits system, inquest hears http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/03/retired-gardener-benefits-malcolm-burge-newham-council-london-government-welfareNow the heartless right wingers on here will try to say that the man was mentally ill, that the council cannot be blamed ...... when Wall St bankers were jumping out of sky scraper windows it was understood that they did so because of their sudden financial insecurity .......... they were broken men. Pensioner Malcom Burge was a broken man, the council broke him. - Quote:
-
Letters presented to the inquest revealed Mr Burge had tried repeatedly to seek help and telephone the council but had been bounced around an electronic switchboard.
Yes that shows you just what can happen when you have a Labour run council
Rotherham was much the same, turning a blind eye to those that put their trust in them. Apparently, Leeds and Keighley are under the microscope also.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tytoalba
|
Feb 4 2015, 11:41 PM
Post #39
|
- Posts:
- 7,583
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #36
- Joined:
- Jun 29, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Feb 4 2015, 09:03 PM
- Affa
- Feb 4 2015, 07:55 PM
- Quote:
-
Retired gardener takes his own life after change in benefits system, inquest hears http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/03/retired-gardener-benefits-malcolm-burge-newham-council-london-government-welfareNow the heartless right wingers on here will try to say that the man was mentally ill, that the council cannot be blamed ...... when Wall St bankers were jumping out of sky scraper windows it was understood that they did so because of their sudden financial insecurity .......... they were broken men. Pensioner Malcom Burge was a broken man, the council broke him. - Quote:
-
Letters presented to the inquest revealed Mr Burge had tried repeatedly to seek help and telephone the council but had been bounced around an electronic switchboard.
Yes that shows you just what can happen when you have a Labour run council Do you mean Redcar and Cleveland or Rotherham?
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Feb 4 2015, 11:43 PM
Post #40
|
- Posts:
- 33,954
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
No I clearly meant Newham's Labour run Council who totally effed up Burge's case that Affa raised
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|