The Politics Thread

[Strokes]

I guess it all comes down to, who is funding the statistics. I would imagine whoever commissions for a survey on such things may have a little sway over the way in which results are presented.

Don't make me take this shiny hat off please.

[Carl the Llama]

Is the argument here that UK fraud detectors are so incompetent that the cases where they did detect fraud are a complete anomaly and we should disregard any conclusions inferred from involving them in a complex statistical analysis?

 

Why do you think this Strokes, what have you been hiding from the government?

 

 

I guess it all comes down to, who is funding the statistics. I would imagine whoever commissions for a survey on such things may have a little sway over the way in which results are presented.
Don't make me take this shiny hat off please.

The documents explaining the process that Alf linked are from DWP, so that would be old Irritable Drivel Syndrome's responsibility.

 

So anything surely they'd cook the numbers upwards to justify their policies instead of leaving rather damning evidence that their attacks on the poor are without substantive cause.

 

Edit: Don't know why I wrote "war on terror" there.  Can't even remember what my line of thought there was so I can't put what I meant in.  In any case, sentence fixed.

[Strokes]

Is the argument here that UK fraud detectors are so incompetent that the cases where they did detect fraud are a complete anomaly and we should disregard any conclusions inferred from involving them in a complex statistical analysis?

 

Why do you think this Strokes, what have you been hiding from the government?

 

 

The documents explaining the process that Alf linked are from DWP, so that would be old Irritable Drivel Syndrome's responsibility.

 

So anything surely they'd cook the numbers upwards to justify their war on terror instead of leaving rather damning evidence that their attacks on the poor are without substantive cause.

I'm not saying they are wrong, I'm saying they are a guess, so are not really evidence of anything. I've provided some anecdotal evidence of shit guesswork by the same organisation and yet I'm you seem to think I'm saying the figures are higher.

I hide plenty from the government, I'm not going to put it all on here though.

[Carl the Llama]

I'm not saying they are wrong, I'm saying they are a guess, so are not really evidence of anything. I've provided some anecdotal evidence of shit guesswork by the same organisation and yet I'm you seem to think I'm saying the figures are higher.

I hide plenty from the government, I'm not going to put it all on here though.

The point still stands that, from a policy perspective, it's in the current government's best interests to skew that particular estimate as high as they can.  That they only estimate fraudulently received benefits at 0.7% of all benefits paid says to me they have nowhere near enough evidence of abuse to use terms like scroungers as a political buzzword to rally the employed, rich, and retired against the disabled, unskilled, and hard working but unemployed members of society.

 

And yes I did kind of assume you were implying the real figure to be higher, mainly because you were posting as a defence of Moose's comments and I thought that included his assertions that the figures are useless because there's so much more fraud than that.  Sorry.

[Carl the Llama]

I promised myself I'd stay out of political debates on FT because they can be quite polarising experiences.  Gonna (try to) leave the table now while I've still got my relatively impartial and not completely raving hat on.

[Strokes]

The point still stands that, from a policy perspective, it's in the current government's best interests to skew that particular estimate as high as they can. That they only estimate fraudulently received benefits at 0.7% of all benefits paid says to me they have nowhere near enough evidence of abuse to use terms like scroungers as a political buzzword to rally the employed, rich, and retired against the disabled, unskilled, and hard working but unemployed members of society.

And yes I did kind of assume you were implying the real figure to be higher, mainly because you were posting as a defence of Moose's comments and I thought that included his assertions that the figures are useless because there's so much more fraud than that. Sorry.

My point still stands, if the actual figure is non existence and impossible to prove, how can they skew it as high as possible. The real figure doesn't exist.

I was just being argumentative not really saying whether it's higher or lower because it really is impossible to guage.

I actually think 0.7% is an incredibly high figure if true, that's a lot of people involved when you consider, welfare dependants make several different benefit claims. It's not 0.7% of the benefit pot is fraudulent unless I'm reading it wrong, it's 0.7% of claims are fraudulent.

[Strokes]

I promised myself I'd stay out of political debates on FT because they can be quite polarising experiences.  Gonna (try to) leave the table now while I've still got my relatively impartial and not completely raving hat on.

Carl I'm not having a go pal, I respect your opinion, I might stuggle to articulate it sometimes in my brash approach. Sometimes I re read what I have wrote and cringe, I don't mean to be rude.

[Carl the Llama]

No you haven't been, that's why I'm getting out now while things are friendly because I do know what politics does to this place (and myself).

 

My point still stands, if the actual figure is non existence and impossible to prove, how can they skew it as high as possible. The real figure doesn't exist.
I was just being argumentative not really saying whether it's higher or lower because it really is impossible to guage.
I actually think 0.7% is an incredibly high figure if true, that's a lot of people involved when you consider, welfare dependants make several different benefit claims. It's not 0.7% of the benefit pot is fraudulent unless I'm reading it wrong, it's 0.7% of claims are fraudulent.

It's 0.7% "of amount spent on benefits".  I understood that to be the pot, you may well be about to correct me.

I'm not saying let's not bother worrying about people unfairly claiming benefits, but in the grand scheme of things it's really not anywhere near as big an issue as other dangers facing the economy.  So it worries me that the government are so keen to stress it as a reason to get wound up and vote for them again.  Smacks of stomping on a minority to gain popularity with a misled majority, it's the sort of thing you expect to hear of happening in North Korea, not a western democracy.

 

And now I'm off, I can feel the morphosis taking hold.

[Strokes]

No you haven't been, that's why I'm getting out now while things are friendly because I do know what politics does to this place (and myself).

 

It's 0.7% "of amount spent on benefits".  I understood that to be the pot, you may well be about to correct me.

I'm not saying let's not bother worrying about people unfairly claiming benefits, but in the grand scheme of things it's really not anywhere near as big an issue as other dangers facing the economy.  So it worries me that the government are so keen to stress it as a reason to get wound up and vote for them again.  Smacks of stomping on a minority to gain popularity with a misled majority, it's the sort of thing you expect to hear of happening in North Korea, not a western democracy.

 

And now I'm off, I can feel the morphosis taking hold.

I'm off too, I've had way to much booze to be taken seriously tonight in any case.

[Rincewind]

Could this be another broken promise?

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/iain-duncan-smith-targets-poor-3109721

 

Have they got anyone left to attack?

[MooseBreath]

Could this be another broken promise?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/iain-duncan-smith-targets-poor-3109721

Have they got anyone left to attack?

You've got to start checking dates on things before you post them ken, come on mate

[MooseBreath]

Even if the fraud methodology is sound and we assume that the fraud assessors are considerably more competent at detecting things like lack of effort in job applications than the job centre staff, then it still doesn't justify the wider problem that benefits are excessive in this country, and serve only as a disincentive to professional growth, holding people down, and trapping them in low incomes.

[Jon the Hat]

You've got to start checking dates on things before you post them ken, come on mate

 

Does Ken just search for specific things to get irate about

 

Could this be another broken promise?

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/iain-duncan-smith-targets-poor-3109721

 

Have they got anyone left to attack?

 

I doubt it Ken, everyone has to contribute a bit more when the country is in debt crisis.  I am paying a lot more tax for example.

[Claridge]

Could this be another broken promise?

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/iain-duncan-smith-targets-poor-3109721

 

Have they got anyone left to attack?

The whining from the left about the 'Murdoch press' and you quote the ultimate pension robbers.

[Claridge]

You're more than welcome to, Claridge.

I don't actually bear you any ill will. There are two types of Tories: those that vote because they are too dumb to see through the lies and propaganda, and those who vote through sociopathic self-interest. You are just one of the former, a turkey voting for Xmas, and I sincerely hope you never find yourself too unwell to support yourself.

The thing is Buce i do believe in the benefits system, but on a daily basis I see people who are abusing the system. Have you actually met any of the people you so eloquently defend?

You do know i'm sure,that Goebbels classed himself a socialist. Not that I'm comparing you to him of course, your more of a Lord Haw Haw.

Can't stand Turkey if i'm round yours for xmas by the way.

[Alf Bentley]

Even if the fraud methodology is sound and we assume that the fraud assessors are considerably more competent at detecting things like lack of effort in job applications than the job centre staff, then it still doesn't justify the wider problem that benefits are excessive in this country, and serve only as a disincentive to professional growth, holding people down, and trapping them in low incomes.

 

 

I think that I've posted these before and they're a couple of years old, but are useful references re. welfare and public spending:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29898083

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/08/uk-benefit-welfare-spending#img-1

 

The welfare bill is indeed an issue, given all the other strains on public finances.

 

But look at which welfare items cost most: (1) state pensions (by far the most costly); (2) tax credits paid to those working on low incomes; and (3) housing benefit, again often going to the low-paid - and then into the pockets of landlords benefiting from high rents caused by the housing shortage.

 

There are limits to how much can be done (at least short-term) about state pensions, with an aging population. But cutting the bill for tax credits and housing benefit is a reasonable priority - preferably by boosting low pay rates and  cutting market rates for rents by providing more affordable housing, not just slashing payments to the low-paid in receipt of such benefits. After 5 years of inaction on housing and of IDS faffing about with his Universal Credit, the government is finally addressing these issues. Let's hope there's some substance in all the promises to boost house-building and increase low pay, and that this isn't outweighed by cuts in support for the low paid. 

 

It's instructive to see that debt interest (75-80% of which was mainly caused by irresponsible/deregulated bankers) costs the nation almost 10 times as much as Jobseeker's Allowance. 

[Buce]

The thing is Buce i do believe in the benefits system, but on a daily basis I see people who are abusing the system. Have you actually met any of the people you so eloquently defend?

You do know i'm sure,that Goebbels classed himself a socialist. Not that I'm comparing you to him of course, your more of a Lord Haw Haw.

Can't stand Turkey if i'm round yours for xmas by the way.

As I said, Claridge, I bear you no ill-will; I think my antipathy towards your posts is born of frustration, rather than any personal animosity. I reserve that for the self-serving sociopaths, not ordinary guys like yourself. You're not a natural Tory, just one of millions of victims of the Tory propaganda machine - just enough education to work and pay your taxes, not enough to see through the bullshit.

Turkey is completely off the menu, but I cook a mean nut roast.

[Buce]

Please enlighten me how it is not

Apologies for missing this.

Among my social circle, there isn't a man or woman who are not better off in terms of personal finances under the Tories. None of us are dependant on benefits, we all have well paid jobs, all own our own homes. Yet all of us would rather eat shit than vote Tory because we care about the kind of society we live in. We don't want to live in a society where people are left destitute because they are inadequate, or sick, or just plain unlucky. We can't accept that in one of the richest nations, we have people dependant on food banks. We absolutely reject austerity, because although we are not affected personally, millions of the most disadvantaged are. And that diminshes us all.

[Strokes]

Apologies for missing this.

Among my social circle, there isn't a man or woman who are not better off in terms of personal finances under the Tories. None of us are dependant on benefits, we all have well paid jobs, all own our own homes. Yet all of us would rather eat shit than vote Tory because we care about the kind of society we live in. We don't want to live in a society where people are left destitute because they are inadequate, or sick, or just plain unlucky. We can't accept that in one of the richest nations, we have people dependant on food banks. We absolutely reject austerity, because although we are not affected personally, millions of the most disadvantaged are. And that diminshes us all.

Nobody is dependant on food banks buce, its all the other shit they wont give up that force them to food banks. If foodbanks didn't exist, not one of these people would starve.

[MooseBreath]

Apologies for missing this.

Among my social circle, there isn't a man or woman who are not better off in terms of personal finances under the Tories. None of us are dependant on benefits, we all have well paid jobs, all own our own homes. Yet all of us would rather eat shit than vote Tory because we care about the kind of society we live in. We don't want to live in a society where people are left destitute because they are inadequate, or sick, or just plain unlucky. We can't accept that in one of the richest nations, we have people dependant on food banks. We absolutely reject austerity, because although we are not affected personally, millions of the most disadvantaged are. And that diminshes us all.

Says a lot really. Champagne socialists are too far removed from the problems to have any idea what the causes are or how to solve them. Their proposed solutions never go further than throwing money at it and in that way they expose their naivety. Really for them it's more about feeling good about themselves and metaphorically patting each other on the back for how compassionate they are while they sip champagne and eat nut roast next to a nice warm fire.

At least money driven tories are honest about their motivations.

[Voll Blau]

Nobody is dependant on food banks buce, its all the other shit they wont give up that force them to food banks. If foodbanks didn't exist, not one of these people would starve.

 

Like paying bills and that?

[Mark_w]

Says a lot really. Champagne socialists are too far removed from the problems to have any idea what the causes are or how to solve them.

 

But David Cameron and George Osborne aren't?

[The Horse's Mouth]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11925338/Queens-advisers-strip-Jeremy-Corbyn-of-Right-Honourable-title-after-Privy-Council-snub.html

hahaha, how bitter is that , I honestly doubt Corbyn cares at all

[Claridge]

As I said, Claridge, I bear you no ill-will; I think my antipathy towards your posts is born of frustration, rather than any personal animosity. I reserve that for the self-serving sociopaths, not ordinary guys like yourself. You're not a natural Tory, just one of millions of victims of the Tory propaganda machine - just enough education to work and pay your taxes, not enough to see through the bullshit.

Turkey is completely off the menu, but I cook a mean nut roast.

We agree on something at last, I am not a natural Tory. Just one of the millions who refuses to believe the bullshit of the left that paying even more  tax will improve society.

[Buce]

Says a lot really. Champagne socialists are too far removed from the problems to have any idea what the causes are or how to solve them. Their proposed solutions never go further than throwing money at it and in that way they expose their naivety. Really for them it's more about feeling good about themselves and metaphorically patting each other on the back for how compassionate they are while they sip champagne and eat nut roast next to a nice warm fire.

At least money driven tories are honest about their motivations.

Yep.

That's the difference between you and the likes of Claridge; he is just misguided, whereas you are a sociopath.