I believe that its not an opinion shared by "the vast majority" of the population.

There is no valid response to my argument because I have invoked the Ian Duncan Smith standard syntax but please feel free to try and prove your opinion correct.



Of course, to be sensible, if asked the question "Do you want to see fairness in the welfare state?" then almost 100% of the population would tick the "Yes" box, only the lunatic would tick "No, I want it to be unfair".

Its how you arrive at a definition of the word "fair" that is the crux and this current administration by its own admission want to play no part in any sort of debate over what they consider to be "fair", they will simply trot out a string of statistics that even their own departments have to correct and state that they have been mis-quoted or mis-used, culminating in the biggest culprit, IDS, simply stating that he doesn't really care if his department correct him anymore because what he thinks is more important than the actual facts of any matter that he sees fit to pillorize.

Now if you are running your own private business then you can run it in any way you see fit to, truth or no truth, ignore facts, tell lies, its your company you do what the hell you like - but we expect slightly more integrity from our politicians, telling the truth should be top of their agenda, using statistics in the correct context should be part of that and when that politician is a Minister in charge of a department with the biggest expenditure in The House, then not having his own colleagues point out that he is not telling the truth should be of paramount importance to him, but its not, he doesn't actually care.

Caring is another attribute that is good in a politician.

"I believe that this to be right, I believe that we are already seeing people going back to work who were not going to go back to work,"

Brilliant, utterly utterly brilliant.

[urlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/16/george-osborne-benefit-payments_n_3602588.html?utm_hp_ref=uk[/url

More to come later because of course Georges best mate IDS says that everything is working absolutely to plan (inside his head) and that these scroungers who never work and all sit on their backsides all day long earning the equivalent of £35000 of TAXPAYERS money need to be thrashed a bit more, have their children taken off them if they have more than two, have their pregnant teenage daughters sent to live in hostels and anyone under 25 is not an adult anyway so they can go live with their parents.

Its a FACT as well because IDS says its so, he even tells the BBC in that interview (above) that they are spreading lies because some leader of a council in his trial area has given out some true statistics that contradict what IDS thinks, but they won't count anyway because he says that he BELIEVES that "very, very significant" numbers of people in those trial areas have come off benefits and found work.

IDS believes it to be so, therefore it is.

Its the new mantra and its all they'll need on billboard posters at the next election.

I manage a construction agency in Manchester and find the above quote strange to the point of unbelievable. For another side to the debate:

The job would have been advertised at £18 p/h self employed. If he was then to be paid PAYE the agency would have to accrue holiday pay for his wages as this is European legislation and reduces his rate by approximately 10.19%. THis would leave him with a pay of £16.05 per hour and £1.95 per hour in accrued holiday pay, which is paid when he either needs a holiday or as a lump sum at the end of a contract. The agency does not keep this money and it is illegal if they do no t pay it out.

Construction agencies pay PAYE personnel through umbrella companies to avoid paying Employers National Insurance and thus offer cheaper rates to construction companies who are demanding ever more ridiculous rates. The length of a contract is told to us by the end client. We do not advertised jobs for months if they are for a day. If the job is for a day it's a waste of our time as we make no money from it. We give as an accurate length of contract as is given to us by our clients.

"200+ plus deductions they said it was to cover what they had to pay" - who said this the agency or the umbrella company?

The agency should not be making any deduction other than the accrued holiday pay. They send the gross amount to the umbrella company who make the necessary deductions for tax and national insurance. Umbrella companies also allow the provision of expenses to be paid against the tax that the operative pays reducing their tax bill. They charge an admin fee for their services.

The agency makes money from the client NOT the candidate. It does this by charging the client £20 per hour and paying the candidate £18 per hour for example. The umbrella company makes money by charging an admin fee of usually £15-£20 per week.

We payroll hundreds of people through umbrella companies every week and I get no complaints. In fact they pay very little tax and get more back by paying less tax than they do by paying the admin fee.

I fail to believe if the site manager is getting paid £8 per hour net he would still be working there and guess this is a case of Chinese Whispers.

If the site manager who is agrieved wants an explanation of his wages and where it has gone wrong I am more than happy to look at his wage slip and find out if his agency or umbrella company are "ripping him off" - please PM me with details.

Like in all aspects of life their are "Corrupt/Bad" agencies out there who are looking to make a quick buck. If this is the case name and shame them. A bad agency name spread around construction sites will do far more damage than on rugby league forums. We supply across the M62 corridor and have a good reputation I hope!

Bearing in mind that there are 5 applicants for every vacancy, just how does reducing benefits "encourage" people back into work?
It could maybe encourage people to [uwant[/u a job more than they already wanted one ... but a bright spark like you should be able to see that's not the same thing as [ugetting[/u one.

Is it?

I have live jobs and not enough applicants and many of my colleagues are the same. When I offer x amount of weeks work to someone and they say it's not worth signing off for, it DOES state to me that they are paid too much to sit at home.

It sickens me to be honest that it is now a way of life for a lot of people who don't want to work and feel an entitlement to be paid for not working or bringing a family up.

I know the jobs I'm offering are temporary, but my work ethos would be to go and do the best job I can and make the most of the opportunity to try and get a good reputation and further work rather than be paid to sit at home and wait for a job to fall into my lap.

I have live jobs and not enough applicants and many of my colleagues are the same. When I offer x amount of weeks work to someone and they say it's not worth signing off for, it DOES state to me that they are paid too much to sit at home.

It sickens me to be honest that it is now a way of life for a lot of people who don't want to work and feel an entitlement to be paid for not working or bringing a family up.

I know the jobs I'm offering are temporary, but my work ethos would be to go and do the best job I can and make the most of the opportunity to try and get a good reputation and further work rather than be paid to sit at home and wait for a job to fall into my lap.

Ajw71 and his ilk probably actually believe [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/15/iain-duncan-smith-benefit-cap_n_3596984.html?utm_hp_ref=ukIDS on statistics[/url.

That is IDS, the serial liar.

How is being even more unfair to those receiving Social Security seen as "fair"?

Couple of interesting results from a recent MORI poll:

Respondents believed that around 15% of girls under the age of 16 get pregnant, where the true figure is close to 0.6%

The perception was that 24% of the benefit bill is made up of fraudulent claims, whereas the official fraud figure is only 0.7%

The benefit cap is estimated to save £290m, yet 33% of respondents picked this from a list of suggestions to cut public spending where they were only able to choose one option. The list also included raising the pension age to 66 for both genders (estimated to save £5bn) and the new child benefit charge on higher earners (estimated saving of £1.7bn) among others.

It seems the propaganda wagon - fuelled by the BBC's slavish obsession of repeating every piece of government statement as fact - is rolling along nicely. Anyone who caught former Oxford University Conservative Association Nick Robinson's attempts to dismiss the opacity in Tory funding while riding the Falkirk scandal for all he could get out of it really shouldn't be surprised.

Talking of stats and polls The Guardian reports this morning that the Tories and Labour are now both on 37% in opinion polls - Tories having recovered a big chunk of their UKIP protest vote. So, as I said 2 Eds are destroying Labour's chances. We'll see a Tory landslide if there is any semblance of economic recovery.

How many weeks work have you been offering?

How low does x have to be to justify them in their opinion that it's not worth their effort?

I have just offered a 27 year old labourer 2 weeks work operating a cherry picker on a Tesco Superstore in Cardiff at £10.00 per hour. Very easy work and a good fair rate of pay.

2 weeks work @ 40 hours a week - £400 - deductions.

The candidate has refused this work as it's not worth his while as his rent gets paid for him.

It should be easier for him to sign off, work for 2 weeks and not receive benefits and then sign back on without any delay in his benefits as that would be an incentive for him to work. Rather than sign off, work for 2 weeks and then have to wait 6 weeks for his benefits to go back to how they were.

It is the system that needs to change as it penalising people for working on short term contracts, which however way you look at it is the way that this country is heading for employment in the future.

In answer to the question x weeks work I believe I have had various responses,but anything less than 6 weeks work doesn't seem to be of interest. Baring in mind this is construction work and once the site is complete the contractor very often moves on it is by it's very nature a short term industry.

The official fraud figure is unknown as those claiming fraudulently don't declare it! It could be as high as 24%, though I doubt it as we will never know. The official fraud figure should be the amount caught frauding figure.

Your previous post put the blame squarely on him and said that he was paid too much to sit at home.

What are the £400 deductions for? That's half of his pay.

For the Tories to win they have to poll something like 5% more than Labour in a general election.

If they do then the country will get the government it deserves which will be one that sees all bar the very rich worse off as the NHS really will be destroyed and any welfare cut to the bone.

The Tories are certainly winning the propaganda war on the issue of the benefits cap but as El B points out the reality is it saves very little in comparison to other areas of expenditure.

It seems the people of the UK will cut their noses off to spite their own face. Whether they have been hoodwinked into this by propaganda or truly are just plain thick I don't know.

Labour is at fault with allowing this situation to devlop and Liam Byrne should just cross the house and be done with it.

What is sad is the argument against the simplistic cuts philosophy is easy to make.

Is dishing out £26K+ in benefits too much? Yes but why is it so high a figure?

Answer? It is rarely that high as this and is the exception rather than the rule but when it is this high you can guarantee housing benefit (not seen by the claimant) is the root cause so high rents need to be be tackled.

This is a very simple message and it beggars belief it isn't one being made strongly.

As to the propaganda though I heard some idiot from the Sun on the Jeremy Vine show at lunchtime and when this point was put to him his response was such people should simply move elsewhere in the country to where rents are lower.

We all know the obvious flaws with this argument such as who would clean the offices in Canary Wharf if this happened etc but it was yet another example of the simplistic logic peddled by people in a position to peddle it! And what is worse people in the UK believe it!

I think we'd know if it was 24%. The newspapers would be queuing up to expose them as they egg on the cuts agenda.

My understanding was the 0.7% is the [ugovernments[/u own estimate as to the level of fraudulent claims and the fact it is the [ugovernments[/u own estimate is VERY important as you would think it would formulate policy based on its own statistics.

So when the government itself can see how little its own estimates are for fraudulent benefit claims compared to its own estimates for tax evasion you might think the big issue of the day from the governments point of view would be the latter.

Well it clearly isn't and there is only one reason why that is and it clearly isn't economics. It's ideology.

I think you've answered your own question right there, if I was totally honest and in the same situation then I would possibly do the same and I think you possibly would too - it should be possible to "switch" between work and support on as regular a basis as required, as you say temporary employment is the way we are all heading.

Strange thing is, in the days of the old unemployment exchange and "the dole" when it was all done with paper forms and biros you could do just that.

Quite.

There's long been an issue that successive governments have refused to tackle of, say, seasonal workers not being able to easily sign on when that job has finished.

Quote ="JerryChicken"[uOne other point in the comments section of that report is the dodgy claim that 8000 people have moved into jobs rather than face the £500 a week benefit cap [/u- they make a very valid point that to cover that sort of earning in a paid job you'd have to be on a salary of £36k at least, and as we all know those sorts of jobs are two a penny and you can just get up off your sofa having sat there on benefits for the last ten years and simply ask for one of those jobs for it to be so. As pointed out, the number of claimants entitled to £500 a week is miniscule to the point where in the limited trials that IDS is speaking of there will not have been 8000 people claiming that amount. The bloke is an idiot but is convinced that he is the most intelligent man in the country and that we are all the stupid ones, in future editions of the Oxford English Dictionary the word "Arrogant" will simply have "Ian Duncan Smith" as its definition.'" About as much as a lie as this one was, straight from IDS' mouth:- www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... s-grilling Not many people noticed the apology in the DM either. They should be made to print it on their front pages and main webpage at the very least. Not to mention the apology for conning the British Public into believing all benefit claimants are the root of all evil.

Quote ="JerryChicken"[uOne other point in the comments section of that report is the dodgy claim that 8000 people have moved into jobs rather than face the £500 a week benefit cap [/u- they make a very valid point that to cover that sort of earning in a paid job you'd have to be on a salary of £36k at least, and as we all know those sorts of jobs are two a penny and you can just get up off your sofa having sat there on benefits for the last ten years and simply ask for one of those jobs for it to be so. As pointed out, the number of claimants entitled to £500 a week is miniscule to the point where in the limited trials that IDS is speaking of there will not have been 8000 people claiming that amount. The bloke is an idiot but is convinced that he is the most intelligent man in the country and that we are all the stupid ones, in future editions of the Oxford English Dictionary the word "Arrogant" will simply have "Ian Duncan Smith" as its definition.'" About as much as a lie as this one was, straight from IDS' mouth:- www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... s-grilling Not many people noticed the apology in the DM either. They should be made to print it on their front pages and main webpage at the very least. Not to mention the apology for conning the British Public into believing all benefit claimants are the root of all evil.

The official title of that statistic is fraud & ERROR, that means under/over payment by the DWP so by your theory there could also be a lot more people being UNDERPAID and wouldn't even know about it.

Quote ="Andy Gilder"Couple of interesting results from a recent MORI poll: Respondents believed that around 15% of girls under the age of 16 get pregnant, where the true figure is close to 0.6% The perception was that 24% of the benefit bill is made up of fraudulent claims, whereas the official fraud figure is only 0.7% The benefit cap is estimated to save £290m, yet 33% of respondents picked this from a list of suggestions to cut public spending where they were only able to choose one option. The list also included raising the pension age to 66 for both genders (estimated to save £5bn) and the new child benefit charge on higher earners (estimated saving of £1.7bn) among others. It seems the propaganda wagon - fuelled by the BBC's slavish obsession of repeating every piece of government statement as fact - is rolling along nicely. Anyone who caught former Oxford University Conservative Association Nick Robinson's attempts to dismiss the opacity in Tory funding while riding the Falkirk scandal for all he could get out of it really shouldn't be surprised.'" "Survey shows British people are Wrong about nearly everything" www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 97821.html I don't think its entirely the BBC's fault - try the propaganda machines of the Daily Mail, Express, The Sun for fuelling the fire. (and IDS for making up statistics to suit himself)

Quote ="Andy Gilder"Couple of interesting results from a recent MORI poll: Respondents believed that around 15% of girls under the age of 16 get pregnant, where the true figure is close to 0.6% The perception was that 24% of the benefit bill is made up of fraudulent claims, whereas the official fraud figure is only 0.7% The benefit cap is estimated to save £290m, yet 33% of respondents picked this from a list of suggestions to cut public spending where they were only able to choose one option. The list also included raising the pension age to 66 for both genders (estimated to save £5bn) and the new child benefit charge on higher earners (estimated saving of £1.7bn) among others. It seems the propaganda wagon - fuelled by the BBC's slavish obsession of repeating every piece of government statement as fact - is rolling along nicely. Anyone who caught former Oxford University Conservative Association Nick Robinson's attempts to dismiss the opacity in Tory funding while riding the Falkirk scandal for all he could get out of it really shouldn't be surprised.'" "Survey shows British people are Wrong about nearly everything" www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 97821.html I don't think its entirely the BBC's fault - try the propaganda machines of the Daily Mail, Express, The Sun for fuelling the fire. (and IDS for making up statistics to suit himself)

I think there are 40,000+ households over the cap - mainly in London (housing costs). Is the cap for all payments or those to non-working households? If the latter, then the point about cleaning Canary Wharf would not be valid.

The government who wishes to protect "the most vulnerable" tried, via Michael Gove, to cut free transport for disabled children to get to school. That was not publicised! Luckily, a charity sought judicial review (not surprisingly an area of legal redress this corrupt government seeks to deny access to) and his sneaky scheme has been reversed (at least in the short term).

So, if UKIP support holds up, Labour is in big trouble but if the UKIP support subsides, it's a Tory landslide.

Neither is true ... as UKIP support rises, it mainly takes from the Tories and when UKIP support subsides, the Tories get the swivel-eyed back again ... and Labour's %-age support has largely been unaffected by UKIP, ditto for the hapless LibDems.

BTW, if you are going to quote the Guardian around here, be prepared to be rigorous about what you report from it ... in this instance, read the Guardian article again, as it says that Labour and Conservative are equal on 36% in [ua poll[/u, not "polls" ... and the article also mentions that other polls (e.g. YouGov) disagree widely.
It also mentions that senior Tories don't believe they are level.