Blair on C-span(question for you "over there")
Discussion
Each week on cable, I watch "Prime Minister's Questions" from the House of Commons. Tonight, Blair noted that 5,000,000,000 Pounds a year less is being spent on benefits(welfare?) than in 1997. If this is true, that would be a different direction than I thought you all were heading. Is this true, or spun from a different angle?
Based on every claimant getting around 10-15k a year, that is fewer than half a million less people on benefits than there were 8 yrs ago.
How many government jobs have been created in that time i wonder...and how much has that cost us?
Also, he may be talking selectively as usual. He is probably referring jsut to unemployment benefit and ignoring the fact that incapacity benfit may have gone up by more than what we save on unemployment as people move from one benefit system to another etc.
In other words, don't believe a a word he says as if it is true it is probably meaningless.
How many government jobs have been created in that time i wonder...and how much has that cost us?
Also, he may be talking selectively as usual. He is probably referring jsut to unemployment benefit and ignoring the fact that incapacity benfit may have gone up by more than what we save on unemployment as people move from one benefit system to another etc.
In other words, don't believe a a word he says as if it is true it is probably meaningless.
The procedure is:
Announce a problem, massaging histoic figures to make it look worse
Create "targets" to solve the problem
Appoint civil servants to manage the problem
Appoint civil servants to manage the first lot
Appoint civil servants to manage the second lot
...
...
When the results come in and they are worse,
a/ explain that it would have been even worse but for the positive action taken blah blah blah
b/ tweak the targets and appoint more civil servants
c/ blame the legacy of the previous Tory adminstration
d/ reclassify the statistics to make the figure better.
You know have a different problem to address, so start again. However we do have rather a lot of jobs in the public sector now, which is just as well as we have no manufacturing base to speak of any more.
As already mentioned, we don't have a lot of good old fashioned dole wallahs any more, but long term incapacity benefit can be had if you stub your toe badly.
Announce a problem, massaging histoic figures to make it look worse
Create "targets" to solve the problem
Appoint civil servants to manage the problem
Appoint civil servants to manage the first lot
Appoint civil servants to manage the second lot
...
...
When the results come in and they are worse,
a/ explain that it would have been even worse but for the positive action taken blah blah blah
b/ tweak the targets and appoint more civil servants
c/ blame the legacy of the previous Tory adminstration
d/ reclassify the statistics to make the figure better.
You know have a different problem to address, so start again. However we do have rather a lot of jobs in the public sector now, which is just as well as we have no manufacturing base to speak of any more.
As already mentioned, we don't have a lot of good old fashioned dole wallahs any more, but long term incapacity benefit can be had if you stub your toe badly.
jimbeaux said:
Each week on cable, I watch "Prime Minister's Questions" from the House of Commons. Tonight, Blair noted that 5,000,000,000 Pounds a year less is being spent on benefits(welfare?) than in 1997. If this is true, that would be a different direction than I thought you all were heading. Is this true, or spun from a different angle?
Before Tony Blair became a politician he was a lawyer.
Does that answer your question?
Two points
1. A very small proportion of social security payments go to those classified as 'unemployed'(around 7%) I think. The biggest share is spent on the elderly and then 'family' and the 'disabled'
2. Any analysis of welfare benefits should include the 13 billion spent on 'tax credits', which in reality are simply benefits paid to those in work.
1. A very small proportion of social security payments go to those classified as 'unemployed'(around 7%) I think. The biggest share is spent on the elderly and then 'family' and the 'disabled'
2. Any analysis of welfare benefits should include the 13 billion spent on 'tax credits', which in reality are simply benefits paid to those in work.
Eric Mc said:
Old age pensions make up by far the biggest "Welfare" benefits.
Do people begrudge pensioners their state pension? After all, most have contributed all their working lives.
Not at all Eric, I am all in favour of a decent state pension
What I do begrudge is the nearly 50% of the £120 bn(?) of the social security budget which is spent on the headings 'family' and 'disabled', (apart from that spent on the genuinely disabled of course)
jimbeaux said:
Each week on cable, I watch "Prime Minister's Questions" from the House of Commons. Tonight, Blair noted that 5,000,000,000 Pounds a year less is being spent on benefits(welfare?) than in 1997. If this is true, that would be a different direction than I thought you all were heading. Is this true, or spun from a different angle?
Unless you see it in writing, with references to source information, don't take anything from a politician at face value. And even then you should check the sources.
And defining "genuinely" disabled is notoriously difficult. My stepdaughter has had bouts of very bad health over the years and has been in and out of work as a result. However, some of the tests and questions she has to cope with to "prove" her disability are terribly insulting and demeaning.
She is working at the moment with a very understanding employer. Her only "welch" of the system is a disability sticker for her car.
I know that there are people out there who play the system but trying to ascertain who's for real and who's trying it on is not easy.
She is working at the moment with a very understanding employer. Her only "welch" of the system is a disability sticker for her car.
I know that there are people out there who play the system but trying to ascertain who's for real and who's trying it on is not easy.
Figures related to not working must be the most massaged of all.
Since 1997 we have 800,000 less on the 'dole'
However, 2.8m on incapacity which is up substantially since 1997, 800,000 more civil servants than 1997 and still just under a millon on JSA (£52m a week just for them).
When it comes to benefit spending, I bet its near on double since 1997.
Since 1997 we have 800,000 less on the 'dole'
However, 2.8m on incapacity which is up substantially since 1997, 800,000 more civil servants than 1997 and still just under a millon on JSA (£52m a week just for them).
When it comes to benefit spending, I bet its near on double since 1997.
Ha, welcome to New Labour, Jim.
They will quote the one bit that sounds good, but not mention the other 99 that don't. Brown's budget speeches are a case in point - 59 minutes bragging about a trivial concession that costs him about £2M a year, and 1 minute glossing over the part where he claws it all back and grabs another £50M as well.
The more cynical I get, the more cynical I find I need to be.
They will quote the one bit that sounds good, but not mention the other 99 that don't. Brown's budget speeches are a case in point - 59 minutes bragging about a trivial concession that costs him about £2M a year, and 1 minute glossing over the part where he claws it all back and grabs another £50M as well.
The more cynical I get, the more cynical I find I need to be.
Sorry to hear of your family problem Eric, however the facts are that the disability payments are so far out it is untrue. I had a driver who worked for me with only one leg who was removed from the disability scheme as he could work. When they cut his other leg off he still had to prove his disability before he could reclaim benefit.
I had another driver who became disabled by eating too much, he was grossly overweight and his van stopped at every pie shop, he was disabled because he had low esteem which made him depressed. Now there are thousands of this type of case, if the system did not support the workshy who use the system to their own ends, we could pay decent pensions, and look after the genuinely unemployed. The system will make genuine people feel bad with questions and tests in the hope they don't claim, the proffesional cheats will have no problems lying to get cash. We have to have a caring system but no one so open to abuse on such massive scales
I had another driver who became disabled by eating too much, he was grossly overweight and his van stopped at every pie shop, he was disabled because he had low esteem which made him depressed. Now there are thousands of this type of case, if the system did not support the workshy who use the system to their own ends, we could pay decent pensions, and look after the genuinely unemployed. The system will make genuine people feel bad with questions and tests in the hope they don't claim, the proffesional cheats will have no problems lying to get cash. We have to have a caring system but no one so open to abuse on such massive scales
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff