What no jeremy cobyn thread?

Maggie52 said:
I for one am fed up to the back teeth of seeing these programmes made as a form of "entertainment" How many more "benefit scroungers" can they find to demonise? I find it so very sad that so many people can be used in this way and a huge audience view it as entertainment. Sadly the people being exploited in this way can't see it. I suppose the desired response is being achieved, the wider population viewing anyone with suspicion and contempt if they happen to be in receipt of any type of benefits.

I have no problem with actual benefit cheats losing entitlement and facing prosecution, but I do have a problem seeing sick, disabled, vulnerable people being hounded and living in fear. I personally don't know anyone claiming benefits who shouldn't be but I do know many who are continually assessed and reassessed to prove they are ill and being terrified by the tactics used to facilitate this.

There for the grace of God.
Click to expand...

I would agree that these programmes shouldn't be seen as entertainment as in most cases they do nothing but raise your blood pressure. Most sensible people have no issue with those claiming benefits who need them. However when you see people perfectly able to work and keep themselves fecklessly living on the tax payer or expanding an ever increasing brood at our expense then yes people need to be reminded that there is now an element of society who see it as their right to be kept by the state. Benefits are supposed to be for those who can't support themselves through no fault of their own or those who have fallen on hard times and need the help of the welfare state. Those who are in receipt of this aid should have no fear of any audit the government wish to carry out provided that bthey have a genuine claim. The big problem is persuading the work-shy back to work and ensuring that you are better off working than claiming benefits for spurious reasons, maybe the Victorians had it right with the Workhouse!
 
cambsno said:
So Corbyn wants to have women only carraiges on trains???? Back in time we go!
Click to expand...
But you could also argue, Women's rights and all that, to have a female only environment ;)

But if he starts campaigning to give them the vote ................
;)
 
Overexposed said:
I would agree that these programmes shouldn't be seen as entertainment as in most cases they do nothing but raise your blood pressure. Most sensible people have no issue with those claiming benefits who need them. However when you see people perfectly able to work and keep themselves fecklessly living on the tax payer or expanding an ever increasing brood at our expense then yes people need to be reminded that there is now an element of society who see it as their right to be kept by the state. Benefits are supposed to be for those who can't support themselves through no fault of their own or those who have fallen on hard times and need the help of the welfare state. Those who are in receipt of this aid should have no fear of any audit the government wish to carry out provided that bthey have a genuine claim. The big problem is persuading the work-shy back to work and ensuring that you are better off working than claiming benefits for spurious reasons, maybe the Victorians had it right with the Workhouse!
Click to expand...
These people bother everyone. However the problem is the TV shows you mention and the media wildly exaggerate the problem. Unemployment benefits are only a small percentage of total benefit spend, around £2bn. Even if every one of them were job shy scroungers and lot looking for work, it would still only account for around 1% of our benefit bill.
 
Last edited:
Overexposed said:
I would agree that these programmes shouldn't be seen as entertainment as in most cases they do nothing but raise your blood pressure. Most sensible people have no issue with those claiming benefits who need them. However when you see people perfectly able to work and keep themselves fecklessly living on the tax payer or expanding an ever increasing brood at our expense then yes people need to be reminded that there is now an element of society who see it as their right to be kept by the state. Benefits are supposed to be for those who can't support themselves through no fault of their own or those who have fallen on hard times and need the help of the welfare state. Those who are in receipt of this aid should have no fear of any audit the government wish to carry out provided that bthey have a genuine claim. The big problem is persuading the work-shy back to work and ensuring that you are better off working than claiming benefits for spurious reasons, maybe the Victorians had it right with the Workhouse!
Click to expand...

You are right, of course people should be expected to work when they are capable of doing so, I have no problem with this at all. Again you are correct that most "sensible" people have no issue with the genuine benefit claimants. What bothers me is the not so sensible people who watch these endless programmes regarding benefit cheats etc and believe that this is the majority and it clearly is not. DWP own figures put the number at 0.7% of fraudulent claims, whether this is accurate who knows?

"Genuine claimants should have no fear of any audit the government wish to carry out provided they have a genuine claim" I so wish this was the case. Sadly this is not the case for thousands of genuine sick and disabled people. I have been witness to the enormous stress and panic these people have been put through in the process of claiming ESA (employment and support allowance) I'm not sure how many people realise just what is expected of these often desperate people. Not only suffering the illness/disability, pain etc etc, having completed a booklet on how the illness effects one, having to be put through often degrading assessments by assessors who are not necessarily doctors, then have the DWP decision maker who is not medically qualified to decide. No not sick enough benefit denied. People with serious mental health issues fair extremely badly. Often the patients own GP or hospital consultant are not even approached regarding their patients condition. Thousands of these refusals are going to the appeal tribunal costing the country millions, a huge number of decisions are being overturned and when the claimant is eventually given the benefit to which they are entitled, DWP begin the process all over again...at what cost to the country or the claimant?

ESA is not the only benefit being denied to genuine claimants, PIP (personal independent payment) was Disablity Living Allowance. Another ridiculous procedure of assessment with onerous outcomes. The list goes on.

I don't believe a civilised society should be inflicting this continuous harassment on vulnerable people, all to weed out the fraudsters.

I really don't believe the majority of the population realise just what is happening to these people, not until you suddenly find yourself too ill to work will you become aware of the process involved, and as I think I said previously, There for the grace of God.

I am fortunate that this does not affect me personally thank goodness but I have real fear for those it does.

Sorry for the rant
 
Maggie52 said:
I don't believe a civilised society should be inflicting this continuous harassment on vulnerable people, all to weed out the fraudsters.
Click to expand...


I couldn't agree more strongly. especially if genuine fraud is as low as (<1%) is often reported as. Thats a tiny amount of fraud in any system and a level most would be justifiably proud of
 
Maggie52 said:
You are right, of course people should be expected to work when they are capable of doing so, I have no problem with this at all. Again you are correct that most "sensible" people have no issue with the genuine benefit claimants. What bothers me is the not so sensible people who watch these endless programmes regarding benefit cheats etc and believe that this is the majority and it clearly is not. DWP own figures put the number at 0.7% of fraudulent claims, whether this is accurate who knows?

"Genuine claimants should have no fear of any audit the government wish to carry out provided they have a genuine claim" I so wish this was the case. Sadly this is not the case for thousands of genuine sick and disabled people. I have been witness to the enormous stress and panic these people have been put through in the process of claiming ESA (employment and support allowance) I'm not sure how many people realise just what is expected of these often desperate people. Not only suffering the illness/disability, pain etc etc, having completed a booklet on how the illness effects one, having to be put through often degrading assessments by assessors who are not necessarily doctors, then have the DWP decision maker who is not medically qualified to decide. No not sick enough benefit denied. People with serious mental health issues fair extremely badly. Often the patients own GP or hospital consultant are not even approached regarding their patients condition. Thousands of these refusals are going to the appeal tribunal costing the country millions, a huge number of decisions are being overturned and when the claimant is eventually given the benefit to which they are entitled, DWP begin the process all over again...at what cost to the country or the claimant?

ESA is not the only benefit being denied to genuine claimants, PIP (personal independent payment) was Disablity Living Allowance. Another ridiculous procedure of assessment with onerous outcomes. The list goes on.

I don't believe a civilised society should be inflicting this continuous harassment on vulnerable people, all to weed out the fraudsters.

I really don't believe the majority of the population realise just what is happening to these people, not until you suddenly find yourself too ill to work will you become aware of the process involved, and as I think I said previously, There for the grace of God.

I am fortunate that this does not affect me personally thank goodness but I have real fear for those it does.

Sorry for the rant
Click to expand...

Theres nothing you've said I can disagree with - though how DWP can estimate a fraud rate is very questionable. The unfortunate thing is that we've created a situation whereby by many would prefer to claim benefits than work and there is a slowly declining work ethic with people relying on the welfare state instead of taking matters into their own hand. The fall out from this feeds through to the very people who need our support - again assessments needs to be done properly not subcontracted out to people who have no real interest in what they are doing.
I've never had a thing from the state but don't begrudge helping those who need our support. I do begrudge funding spongers and cheats
Like you said be thankfully it doesn't effect you personally.
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
I couldn't agree more strongly. especially if genuine fraud is as low as (<1%) is often reported as. Thats a tiny amount of fraud in any system and a level most would be justifiably proud of
Click to expand...
I had a quick google after you posted and it seems that if you take the > 1% figure,

So just under £1.6 billion in total; less than 1% of the overall benefits and tax
Source

Other sources suggest that its more like 5 Billion
But at the >1% figure thats bloody astounding!
I had no idea the benefits bill was so high!

edit
benefits overpaid due to fraud is £1.2 billion and tax credit fraud is £380 million.
 
Last edited:
Cobra said:
I had a quick google after you posted and it seems that if you take the > 1% figure,

So just under £1.6 billion in total; less than 1% of the overall benefits and tax
Source

Other sources suggest that its more like 5 Billion
But at the >1% figure thats bloody astounding!
I had no idea the benefits bill was so high!

edit
benefits overpaid due to fraud is £1.2 billion and tax credit fraud is £380 million.
Click to expand...


Scary isn't it. But to put it into context HMRC estimate the tax gap (whats owed vs whats collected) as £34 bn. Thats just from sources there can be no real argument about (uncollected VAT, stamp duty etc)and about 7%. Add in juicy avoidance schemes and it rises to £100 bn according to some people. I have to admit I'd rather they bothered collecting all the tax
 
boyfalldown said:
Scary isn't it. But to put it into context HMRC estimate the tax gap (whats owed vs whats collected) as £34 bn. Thats just from sources there can be no real argument about (uncollected VAT, stamp duty etc)and about 7%. Add in juicy avoidance schemes and it rises to £100 bn according to some people. I have to admit I'd rather they bothered collecting all the tax
Click to expand...
Exactly and the £30bn on working tax credits. I wonder how many are working for huge companies making record profits with state subsidising their workforce.
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
I have to admit I'd rather they bothered collecting all the tax
Click to expand...
True enough ;)
My Mum is registered disabled, and you ought to see the amount of forms she is expected to fill out,
I have trouble understanding them, someone of her age has no chance :(
 
Cobra said:
My Mum is registered disabled, and you ought to see the amount of forms she is expected to fill out,
I have trouble understanding them, someone of her age has no chance :(
Click to expand...

Some of them are horrible.....my Dad was 'assessed' by some little t*** lately who never even bothered with his GP, never heard of his condition either but was somehow qualified to make assessments
 
boyfalldown said:
Some of them are horrible.....my Dad was 'assessed' by some little t*** lately who never even bothered with his GP, never heard of his condition either but was somehow qualified to make assessments
Click to expand...
Grass root's problems :(
And yes I agree some are right twatts
 
Overexposed said:
... Those who are in receipt of this aid should have no fear of any audit the government wish to carry out provided that bthey have a genuine claim.
Click to expand...

I'm confused as to why you believe the government should 'audit' benefit claimants.
How do you think a claim is made, what sort of checks do you believe go on through the life of a claim?

And how would you set up an 'audit' beyond those controls?
And how much would that cost?
What you would you expect the savings to be?
Do you think that'd be worthwhile?

Or is that just the type of thoughtless kneejerk reaction that I'd expect to be driven by the kind of 'entertainment' that was being discussed.

Overexposed said:
... The big problem is persuading the work-shy back to work and ensuring that you are better off working than claiming benefits for spurious reasons, maybe the Victorians had it right with the Workhouse!
Click to expand...

Of course the thousands of claimants who are currently sanctioned (have their benefit removed) often resulting in starvation and suicide is already pandering to that desire from the uncaring in our society - how much further should they go? Public beatings?
 
Overexposed said:
Theres nothing you've said I can disagree with - though how DWP can estimate a fraud rate is very questionable. ..
Click to expand...
50 years of running a benefit system.
Close liaison with other similar anti fraud organisations.
Thousands of cases of fraud from which they can extrapolate data.

How does any company know how they are performing? They measure, and hone their measurement techniques and measure, and hone and re measure.

It's not rocket science, it's how all businesses manage performance and measure customer behaviour.
 
Last edited:
Slightly different but i was surprised what is available and how people struggle. My nan died last year but for her final two years I was her only relative in the UK and moved her from London to sheltered bungalow in the next village to me. She received a small pension (around 90 a month) plus state pension. She also had her council tax and rent paid for by the council. She also received (from memory), around £300 a month from the council to help pay for things like a cleaner, can't remember what that benefit was called. In all honesty she was receiving more money than she needed as she was always trying to give me extra and buying stuff for her great grandkids. Ok, that is just one example and am sure there are not so generous examples but it did surprise me what was out there.
 
Cobra said:
But you could also argue, Women's rights and all that, to have a female only environment ;)

But if he starts campaigning to give them the vote ................
;)
Click to expand...

When women didnt have the vote we ran a fifth of the country, had a massive empire and really were a superpower... gave women the vote and now look...:exit:
 
cambsno said:
Slightly different but i was surprised what is available and how people struggle. My nan died last year but for her final two years I was her only relative in the UK and moved her from London to sheltered bungalow in the next village to me. She received a small pension (around 90 a month) plus state pension. She also had her council tax and rent paid for by the council. She also received (from memory), around £300 a month from the council to help pay for things like a cleaner, can't remember what that benefit was called. In all honesty she was receiving more money than she needed as she was always trying to give me extra and buying stuff for her great grandkids. Ok, that is just one example and am sure there are not so generous examples but it did surprise me what was out there.
Click to expand...

That can't be true, Britain First keep telling me that illegal immigrants get more than British Pensioners.

In all seriousness, how many times have the soft lefties round here tried to tell everyone that Pensioners are responsible for over 50% of the benefit budget.

Unfortunately for those under pension age, you have to remember that old people vote. And no one is prepared to upset them.

Of all the things Gordon Brown did (right or wrong) his over riding legacy will be the fact that he was responsible for devaluing some rich people's pension.
 
cambsno said:
Slightly different but i was surprised what is available and how people struggle. My nan died last year but for her final two years I was her only relative in the UK and moved her from London to sheltered bungalow in the next village to me. She received a small pension (around 90 a month) plus state pension. She also had her council tax and rent paid for by the council. She also received (from memory), around £300 a month from the council to help pay for things like a cleaner, can't remember what that benefit was called. In all honesty she was receiving more money than she needed as she was always trying to give me extra and buying stuff for her great grandkids. Ok, that is just one example and am sure there are not so generous examples but it did surprise me what was out there.
Click to expand...

Your Nan was extremely lucky.

You were fortunate to be able to move her from London to sheltered accommodation near you 1 bedroom properties, especially for social tenants, are not easily come by. This has been made worse since the introduction of the bedroom tax. I can't say what benefits she was entitled to as everyone's circumstances are different. I will say though that pensioners have been protected and have escaped many of the cuts imposed on the working age claimant. As Phil says, don't upset the pensioners as they are the most likely to vote.

Iain Duncan Smith hasn't finished yet, £12 billion more cuts to come from the welfare budget! Just hope and pray that you never find yourself in circumstances where you are unable to work and provide for your family. Whether it be through illness Disablity or unemployment, the so called "safety net" is full of holes.
 
Just removed a couple of posts and edited another. C'mon folks, let's cut out the sarcastic crap please. :)
 
Phil V said:
50 years of running a benefit system.
Close liaison with other similar anti fraud organisations.
Thousands of cases of fraud from which they can extrapolate data.

How does any company know how they are performing? They measure, and hone their measurement techniques and measure, and hone and re measure.

It's not rocket science, it's how all businesses manage performance and measure customer behaviour.
Click to expand...

Not when the information is used for Political leverage - and there is a saying you may be familiar with - there's lies, damn lies and statistics. Statistics can say whatever you want them to say.
 
Phil V said:
Of all the things Gordon Brown did (right or wrong) his over riding legacy will be the fact that he was responsible for devaluing some rich people's pension.
Click to expand...

I dont understand what you are trying to say Phil. are you saying that Gordon Brown only affected rich peoples pensions.
I am neither rich or of pensionable age "yet" but I pay into two pensions and both of them have been seriously devalued by Gordon Browns actions!
 
Phil V said:
Of all the things Gordon Brown did (right or wrong) his over riding legacy will be the fact that he was responsible for devaluing some rich people's pension.
Click to expand...
I suspect many people would consider the fact that he kept us out of the Euro to be a more significant legacy.
 
AHILL said:
I dont understand what you are trying to say Phil. are you saying that Gordon Brown only affected rich peoples pensions.
I am neither rich or of pensionable age "yet" but I pay into two pensions and both of them have been seriously devalued by Gordon Browns actions!
Click to expand...
No.
But that's what the media considered important at the time, see above for a far larger issue that's not discussed.
 
Overexposed said:
Not when the information is used for Political leverage - and there is a saying you may be familiar with - there's lies, damn lies and statistics. Statistics can say whatever you want them to say.
Click to expand...
So a government that is hell bent on demonising benefit claimants, and making savage cuts is likely to be under reporting the amount of abuse in the system?

That makes perfect sense :thinking:

It'd be great if people thought through a response instead of just using knee jerk off the cuff statements.
 
Where did I say that? Once more you just want to spin your own agenda on things don't you?
 
StewartR said:
I suspect many people would consider the fact that he kept us out of the Euro to be a more significant legacy.
Click to expand...
Phil V said:
And we'll never know if it's a good or bad thing...
Click to expand...
You're just being argumentative for the sake of it now, Phil. Try slowing down a bit and thinking about what you've written, and pay particular attention to:
  1. As with most or all political and economic situations, there is no consensus definition as to what would constitute a "good" thing or a "bad" thing.
  2. As with all political and economic decisions, there is no control case to which we can refer for the counterfactual outcome.
We can never know whether any political decision is a good or bad thing, and even if we could know we wouldn't necessarily agree. So why single out this one?
 
Maggie52 said:
Your Nan was extremely lucky.

You were fortunate to be able to move her from London to sheltered accommodation near you 1 bedroom properties, especially for social tenants, are not easily come by. This has been made worse since the introduction of the bedroom tax. I can't say what benefits she was entitled to as everyone's circumstances are different. I will say though that pensioners have been protected and have escaped many of the cuts imposed on the working age claimant. As Phil says, don't upset the pensioners as they are the most likely to vote.

Iain Duncan Smith hasn't finished yet, £12 billion more cuts to come from the welfare budget! Just hope and pray that you never find yourself in circumstances where you are unable to work and provide for your family. Whether it be through illness Disablity or unemployment, the so called "safety net" is full of holes.
Click to expand...

She was living in a 3 bed council house in london, had she stayed I would have been an hour and a half away and she had no-one close to support. We actually used the bedroom tax as part of the rationale to convince her to move, as why should she stay in a 3 bed house when there are probably families waiting. She was a relatively high priority as needed to be close to me, plus she could not walk far (registered disabled). Like I said, we could have been lucky but the support system was very good, and if anything over generous.

I totally agree there should be a safety net, and those that can't work should be supported. But i see nothing wrong with the bedroom tax. There needs to be allowances (i.e. if the authority can only move you to a 2 bed, or you need carers etc... then you don't get taxed) but one person, should have a 1 bed!
 
Problem is the 1 bed properties are not available. There isnt enough to house everyone. Unless the council can rehouse them to a smaller property they should not be penalised.
 
StewartR said:
You're just being argumentative for the sake of it now, Phil. Try slowing down a bit and thinking about what you've written, and pay particular attention to:
  1. As with most or all political and economic situations, there is no consensus definition as to what would constitute a "good" thing or a "bad" thing.
  2. As with all political and economic decisions, there is no control case to which we can refer for the counterfactual outcome.
We can never know whether any political decision is a good or bad thing, and even if we could know we wouldn't necessarily agree. So why single out this one?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I was arguing with anyone at all Stewart, I find that remark really odd.
 
Last edited:
rjbell said:
Problem is the 1 bed properties are not available. There isnt enough to house everyone. Unless the council can rehouse them to a smaller property they should not be penalised.
Click to expand...
If there are non available then I agree people shouldn't be penalised. Maybe it should be reassessed whether those still living in a one bed would still be valid tennants or move to the private sector. Shake up the system a bit more.
 
Overexposed said:
Where did I say that? Once more you just want to spin your own agenda on things don't you?
Click to expand...
I do apologise, I've misinterpreted your meanderings.

So to be straight, when you said...
Overexposed said:
... The big problem is persuading the work-shy back to work and ensuring that you are better off working than claiming benefits for spurious reasons, maybe the Victorians had it right with the Workhouse!
Click to expand...

And I got the impression you weren't really in favour of DWP and somehow didn't really like the benefit system (too liberal? )

So when you followed that with..
Overexposed said:
... though how DWP can estimate a fraud rate is very questionable...
Click to expand...
And then...
Overexposed said:
Not when the information is used for Political leverage - and there is a saying you may be familiar with - there's lies, damn lies and statistics. Statistics can say whatever you want them to say.
Click to expand...
I really can't see your point?

Are you saying that Fraud costs us more than they'll admit to? Or that there's not as much as they're making out?
 
Phil V said:
I do apologise, I've misinterpreted your meanderings.

So to be straight, when you said...


And I got the impression you weren't really in favour of DWP and somehow didn't really like the benefit system (too liberal? )

So when you followed that with..

And then...

I really can't see your point?

Are you saying that Fraud costs us more than they'll admit to? Or that there's not as much as they're making out?
Click to expand...


Phil as per normal you are surmising and you'll put your spin on what you like as you usually do. I haven't got the inclination to debate anything with you anymore because every thread you get involved with denegrates into an argument whether people want your opinion or not. Frankly I don't
 
Overexposed said:
Phil as per normal you are surmising and you'll put your spin on what you like as you usually do. I haven't got the inclination to debate anything with you anymore because every thread you get involved with denegrates into an argument whether people want your opinion or not. Frankly I don't
Click to expand...
Seriously?
I apologised for surmising and offered you an opportunity to tell me why I was wrong, but you're choosing not to.

So we'll draw our own conclusions.
 
Overexposed said:
... who are in receipt of this aid should have no fear of any audit the government wish to carry out provided that bthey have a genuine claim. The big problem is persuading the work-shy back to work and ensuring that you are better off working than claiming benefits for spurious reasons, maybe the Victorians had it right with the Workhouse!
Click to expand...
Nearly 90 of those spongers a month are dying shortly after being found 'fit for work', maybe the workhouse could have been safer for them.

How much more severe do you suggest the regime should be? How many deaths would it take to make you feel better?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top