Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

So when the Government talks about welfare spending...



kevo

Well-known member
Mar 8, 2008
9,085
Last edited:




keaton

Big heart, hot blood and balls. Big balls
Nov 18, 2004
9,630
Very good article.

From working a bit with people on benefits and dealing with the Jobcentre it is an appalling run operation, both in processes and communication.

I can't find a link to at the moment, but i'm sure there was some decent research last year which suggested the people who were most angry about welfare spending and immigration knew the least about it.
 


Machiavelli

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2013
16,560
Fiveways
Very good article.

From working a bit with people on benefits and dealing with the Jobcentre it is an appalling run operation, both in processes and communication.

I can't find a link to at the moment, but i'm sure there was some decent research last year which suggested the people who were most angry about welfare spending and immigration knew the least about it.

I think this is what you were referring to, which deals with the dimness of the demos, or how politicians and an extremely right-wing media manipulates the people:

British public wrong about nearly everything, survey shows

Research shows public opinion often deviates from facts on key social issues including crime, benefit fraud and immigration

From The Independent - dated 9th July 2013

A new survey for the Royal Statistical Society and King's College London shows public opinion is repeatedly off the mark on issues including crime, benefit fraud and immigration.

The research, carried out by Ipsos Mori from a phone survey of 1,015 people aged 16 to 75, lists ten misconceptions held by the British public. Among the biggest misconceptions are:

- Benefit fraud: the public think that £24 of every £100 of benefits is fraudulently claimed. Official estimates are that just 70 pence in every £100 is fraudulent - so the public conception is out by a factor of 34.

- Immigration: some 31 per cent of the population is thought to consist of recent immigrants, when the figure is actually 13 per cent. Even including illegal immigrants, the figure is only about 15 per cent. On the issue of ethnicity, black and Asian people are thought to make up 30 per cent of the population, when the figure is closer to 11 per cent.

- Crime: some 58 per cent of people do not believe crime is falling, when the Crime Survey for England and Wales shows that incidents of crime were 19 per cent lower in 2012 than in 2006/07 and 53 per cent lower than in 1995. Some 51 per cent think violent crime is rising, when it has fallen from almost 2.5 million incidents in 2006/07 to under 2 million in 2012.

- Teen pregnancy is thought to be 25 times higher than the official estimates: 15 per cent of of girls under 16 are thought to become pregnant every year, when official figures say the amount is closer to 0.6 per cent.

Among the other surprising figures are that 26 per cent of people think foreign aid is in the top three items the Government spends money on (it actually makes up just 1.1 per cent of expenditure), and that 29 per cent of people think more is spent on Jobseekers' Allowance than pensions. In fact we spend 15 times more on pensions - £4.9 billion on JSA vs £74.2 billion on pensions.

Hetan Shah, executive director of the Royal Statistical Society, said: "Our data poses real challenges for policymakers. How can you develop good policy when public perceptions can be so out of kilter with the evidence?

"We need to see three things happen. First, politicians need to be better at talking about the real state of affairs of the country, rather than spinning the numbers. Secondly, the media has to try and genuinely illuminate issues, rather than use statistics to sensationalise. And finally we need better teaching of statistical literacy in schools, so that people get more comfortable in understanding evidence."

Bobby Duffy, the managing director of Ipsos Mori Social Research Institute, said: "A lack of trust in government information is also very evident in other questions in the survey - so 'myth-busting' is likely to prove a challenge on many of these issues. But it is still useful to understand where people get their facts most wrong."
 






larus

Well-known member

Before anyone starts the usual 'horrible tories' shite, accept that (nearly) all politicians aren't telling us the truth about the economy, both in terms of debt and liabilities. Brown was very good at spending but hiding this as being an off balance sheet, as it was a commitment to spend but no recognition that it was a debt.

The problem is that the population (as a generalisation) don't want to pay tax, but want high quality services, and to retire early on good pensions, and get rich from houses going up in 'value' more than the rate of inflation, and then hand this wealth to their children, and get the government to pay for their care in old age. Doesn't add up, especially with the changing demographics.

Politicians won't tell the truth, because the truth makes them unelectable in reality, which is why most western countries are screwed, as the social models don't work (especially, as the large corporations are 'allowed' to avoid paying tax by dodging accounting practices).
 


kevo

Well-known member
Mar 8, 2008
9,085
Before anyone starts the usual 'horrible tories' shite, accept that (nearly) all politicians aren't telling us the truth about the economy, both in terms of debt and liabilities. Brown was very good at spending but hiding this as being an off balance sheet, as it was a commitment to spend but no recognition that it was a debt.

The problem is that the population (as a generalisation) don't want to pay tax, but want high quality services, and to retire early on good pensions, and get rich from houses going up in 'value' more than the rate of inflation, and then hand this wealth to their children, and get the government to pay for their care in old age. Doesn't add up, especially with the changing demographics.

Politicians won't tell the truth, because the truth makes them unelectable in reality, which is why most western countries are screwed, as the social models don't work (especially, as the large corporations are 'allowed' to avoid paying tax by dodging accounting practices).

I think it all goes to illustrate how we need more transparency when it comes to data to make sure people are aware of the facts rather than the b*****t which is pedaled by both politicians and the tabloid media. It would be great if everyone was aware exactly what the government is referring to when it says welfare spending is this amount, or has increased by this amount.

There are lies, damn lies and statistics but you could hope one day people might be educated and informed enough to question what the figures included in politicians' soundbites and Daily Mail headlines actually mean - unfortunately most people either take everything at face value or simply believe whatever fits their view of the world.
 


glasfryn

cleaning up cat sick
Nov 29, 2005
20,261
somewhere in Eastbourne
heres that old word....TRUST.... again
just would do we/you TRUST any longer
 




1066familyman

Radio User
Jan 15, 2008
15,185
I've mentioned it on other threads, but it's worth repeating that the huge benefit bill that the right wingers moan about is in all actuality largely being paid to subsidise many big businesses and enrich private landlords/landladies in the shape of working tax credits and housing benefit.

I heard a figure on the radio recently along the lines of over half of those officially defined as 'in poverty' in this country are actually IN WORK! Yes, those 'hard working families' that all politicians like to bang on about, not 'work shy layabouts wallowing in a culture of dependency'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25287068
 


Westdene Seagull

aka Cap'n Carl Firecrotch
NSC Patreon
Oct 27, 2003
20,938
The arse end of Hangleton
I've mentioned it on other threads, but it's worth repeating that the huge benefit bill that the right wingers moan about is in all actuality largely being paid to subsidise many big businesses and enrich private landlords/landladies in the shape of working tax credits and housing benefit.

Actually the largest chunk of the benefits bill is pensions. Also, most private landlords are anything but rich - it's extremely difficult to make a return of more than a few percent on a property once you take into account all the bills.
 


The Large One

Who's Next?
Jul 7, 2003
52,343
97.2FM
Before anyone starts the usual 'horrible tories' shite, accept that (nearly) all politicians aren't telling us the truth about the economy, both in terms of debt and liabilities.

Regarding the report (3rd link above), it states at the beginning that it's not a party political issue.

It is more to do with the way the Atos are carrying out assessments. The DWP and Atos are blaming each other for this state of affairs. Meanwhile, the problems mount up.
 




Machiavelli

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2013
16,560
Fiveways
I think it all goes to illustrate how we need more transparency when it comes to data to make sure people are aware of the facts rather than the b*****t which is pedaled by both politicians and the tabloid media. It would be great if everyone was aware exactly what the government is referring to when it says welfare spending is this amount, or has increased by this amount.

There are lies, damn lies and statistics but you could hope one day people might be educated and informed enough to question what the figures included in politicians' soundbites and Daily Mail headlines actually mean - unfortunately most people either take everything at face value or simply believe whatever fits their view of the world.

I'm not so sure that I agree with you on this. Although correct me if I'm wrong in my assumptions. You seem to think that you're arguing from a position of truth/enlightenment/perfect information, and against a 'view of the world', which I'll take to be a perspective other than truth. My username had as good an understanding of politics of any that I've come across, and he said that there are two dispositions: those that want to dominate and oppress; and those that want to avoid domination and oppression. He, and I, are in the latter group, but not you, if you want to argue from a position of truth. Despite saying that there were these two dispositions, he also identified a third -- those that accept domination and oppression -- who effectively exhibited 'false consciousness' and enabled the dominators and oppressors to exercise their disposition. This group sound a little bit like the Daily Mail readers you're referring to.

On another note, glasfryn is spot on to mention the decline of trust and the corrosive effects that has had over the past few neoliberal decades. I'm currently reading a book that gives as clear and succinct account of what's happened in the world since WW2, especially: Ill Fares the Land, by Tony Judt. It's a rewarding read.
 


1066familyman

Radio User
Jan 15, 2008
15,185
Actually the largest chunk of the benefits bill is pensions. Also, most private landlords are anything but rich - it's extremely difficult to make a return of more than a few percent on a property once you take into account all the bills.

Actually, it's a fair cop - the pensions bill does indeed dwarf the housing benefit bill. However, the housing benefit bill is rising fast and at a higher rate than the pensions bill, which is in itself quite alarming when you consider the ageing demographics we have in this country (of course, there will be some overlap with pensioners receiving housing benefit) To hold my hands up even higher as it were, tax credits come out of the HMRC pot rather than the DWP pot.

I stand by the point I'm trying to make however - that claimants of these two benefits in particular are often in work yet 'in poverty'. Meanwhile, the share holders of the companies paying the low wages and private landlords/landladies are doing very nicely thank you whilst taking no flak for 'claiming' the benefits.

EDit: The point I'm trying to get across is about public perception of benefit claimants. I made no mention of pensions because I don't hear anyone, or see the media, demonising pensioners for claiming the state pension.
 
Last edited:


Machiavelli

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2013
16,560
Fiveways
Actually, it's a fair cop - the pensions bill does indeed dwarf the housing benefit bill. However, the housing benefit bill is rising fast and at a higher rate than the pensions bill, which is in itself quite alarming when you consider the ageing demographics we have in this country (of course, there will be some overlap with pensioners receiving housing benefit) To hold my hands up even higher as it were, tax credits come out of the HMRC pot rather than the DWP pot.

I stand by the point I'm trying to make however - that claimants of these two benefits in particular are often in work yet 'in poverty'. Meanwhile, the share holders of the companies paying the low wages and private landlords/landladies are doing very nicely thank you whilst taking no flak for 'claiming' the benefits.

EDit: The point I'm trying to get across is about public perception of benefit claimants. I made no mention of pensions because I don't hear anyone, or see the media, demonising pensioners for claiming the state pension.

You and Westdene are both right in what you're saying. The reason why the housing benefit bill is going up is because the government policy -- as it has been under the neoliberal era -- is to favour landlords, who are pushing up rent prices, which when coupled with a severe depression substantially increases the housing benefit bill. I think you'll find that pension costs are going up significantly too, simply because this is about the only area of the benefit bill that the government hasn't hacked back and because there are growing numbers of pensioners.
To address the housing benefit bill, alongside other changes such as demographics, we need to build more houses. I've said this on another thread, but one of the most important parts of Ed Miliband's conference speech this year wasn't the energy price freeze that everyone's picking up on, rather, it is his commitment to build 200,000 properties a year by 2020.
 




beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,265
This is the consequence of ring fencing NHS, and not having addressed welfare costs, be they benefits or pensions, for a couple of generations. 15 years ago Frank Fields was ask to think the unthinkable on reforming this lot, he came back with proposals a Labour government wouldnt accept. they are broadly the same as what IDS has concluded needs to be done a decade later. you know what? it not going to get any easier, and those in most *need* are the ones that suffer, not the politicians, the Guardian and their readership, the majority of voters or us lot on an internet forum putting the world to rights.
 


Westdene Seagull

aka Cap'n Carl Firecrotch
NSC Patreon
Oct 27, 2003
20,938
The arse end of Hangleton
I've said this on another thread, but one of the most important parts of Ed Miliband's conference speech this year wasn't the energy price freeze that everyone's picking up on, rather, it is his commitment to build 200,000 properties a year by 2020.

A laudable aim BUT he has a number of hurdles to jump over the achieve this :

1. Lack of land - well at least without building on areas where people will strongly object. Look at Toads Hole Valley - perfect building land, trapped between roads, not Green Belt - yet the locals are dead against the idea.

2. The biggest demand for housing in in the South - where there is the smallest amount of available building land.

3. The more houses you build the less the housing market will rise in value. In itself this isn't a bad thing but people will need to be re-educated to see a house as a home rather than an investment. It is also a fine line between slowing price increases and actually bringing about price decreases ( and the negative equity issue that would bring ).

4. Building firms currently lack the financial backing to build so many houses and the more you build, the less profit there will be for the builders and the less likely they will get the funds from banks or PE firms to allow them to build.

There is no easy answer.
 


cunning fergus

Well-known member
Jan 18, 2009
4,744
Actually, it's a fair cop - the pensions bill does indeed dwarf the housing benefit bill. However, the housing benefit bill is rising fast and at a higher rate than the pensions bill, which is in itself quite alarming when you consider the ageing demographics we have in this country (of course, there will be some overlap with pensioners receiving housing benefit) To hold my hands up even higher as it were, tax credits come out of the HMRC pot rather than the DWP pot.

I stand by the point I'm trying to make however - that claimants of these two benefits in particular are often in work yet 'in poverty'. Meanwhile, the share holders of the companies paying the low wages and private landlords/landladies are doing very nicely thank you whilst taking no flak for 'claiming' the benefits.

EDit: The point I'm trying to get across is about public perception of benefit claimants. I made no mention of pensions because I don't hear anyone, or see the media, demonising pensioners for claiming the state pension.


Just a couple of point to consider:

Shareholders - in the UK "shareholders" are overwhelmingly pension funds and therefore the performance of companies in the stock market, (especially dividends) is crucial to ensuring that future pensioners are not completely reliant on the state. This is not an easy objective for people to achieve, and even less so since 1997 when Gordon Brown introduced legislation to tax company dividends that were being paid into pension funds (whereas previously they were tax free).

Given the importance to the state of sustainable pensions, I dont think the "shareholders" are "doing very nicely thank you" in fact quite the opposite............consider the losses incurred from the collapse of the Banks and BP just for starters.

Property Prices - the increases in house prices in recent years have been driven by a number of factors and it is difficult to pinpoint a single particular "driver" however taxing pensions made alternative investment stragegies, including buying property (to rent out and then sell for a retirement fund), a far more attractive investment option.

Govts reap what they sow.
 


Mellotron

I've asked for soup
Jul 2, 2008
31,730
Brighton
I laughed because I immediately know what Ali G would think a politician meant if they discussed "welfare spending" with him.

Ali G: You iz sayin det dis spendin is well fair, but it dont look like it to me cos me mate dave has to be nickin stuff to pay for his 5 kids off 4 muvvas.
 




Machiavelli

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2013
16,560
Fiveways
A laudable aim BUT he has a number of hurdles to jump over the achieve this :

1. Lack of land - well at least without building on areas where people will strongly object. Look at Toads Hole Valley - perfect building land, trapped between roads, not Green Belt - yet the locals are dead against the idea.

2. The biggest demand for housing in in the South - where there is the smallest amount of available building land.

3. The more houses you build the less the housing market will rise in value. In itself this isn't a bad thing but people will need to be re-educated to see a house as a home rather than an investment. It is also a fine line between slowing price increases and actually bringing about price decreases ( and the negative equity issue that would bring ).

4. Building firms currently lack the financial backing to build so many houses and the more you build, the less profit there will be for the builders and the less likely they will get the funds from banks or PE firms to allow them to build.

There is no easy answer.

RE 1, really there's plenty of land, the NIMBYs that you're referring to will have to go and do one in my book. Many are ultimately motivated by protecting their property prices (see 3). Opposing such developments is against the long-term interests of the majority of the people.
RE 2, you're right, but there's still plenty of land. Obviously some of this needs to be protected and designated as green belt, but this scheme was set up in the aftermath of WW2 and is now dated for the needs. I trust Miliband has got some purportedly 'independent' review going on on this matter.
RE 3, good, bring down the costs of houses, it won't please the NIMBYs and neoliberals, but properties precisely should be homes -- places to live -- rather than investment opportunities. It also means that the young might be able to afford them. The people need a thoroughgoing re-education, because what we're living through is the palest imitation of not only what could be the case, but also what was the case between 1945 and 1979. Only a tiny proportion will be affected by negative equity and, as much as I feel for them, policy has to be based around the common good, as opposed to a tiny minority. It's getting this the wrong way round that has led us into the dire situation we're now in.
RE 4, sounds like a good idea to introduce some construction organised in some way (direction, funding, ownership, etc) by the state which, in turn, points to the need for a state-owned investment bank. Oh, we've got state-owned banks because they -- and their ideologically-driven policy -- screwed up big time. They're still playing to the rules of the old game, even if they are publicly owned, so why not just change the rules?
The answers are actually quite easy. It's persuading people that they're easy that's the more difficult part. Once that's done, things will fall into place.
 


beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,265
Property Prices - the increases in house prices in recent years have been driven by a number of factors and it is difficult to pinpoint a single particular "driver" however taxing pensions made alternative investment stragegies, including buying property (to rent out and then sell for a retirement fund), a far more attractive investment option.

Govts reap what they sow.

yup, after the pillage of the pensions, allowing property investments to be sheltered as pensions (so avoiding taxes) was the one of the poorest policies a certain Scottish chap had. its astonishing that a Labour chancellor would harm the long term future of the wider working population, while proping up those who have large cash reserves, who wouldnt even support him at the ballot box.
 



Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here