Ipswich Unemployed Action.

Campaigning for Unemployed Rights.

Benefit Fraud, Government Exaggerates Say Churches.

with 30 comments

It’s worth reading this statement in full,  (from Here).

 

Chancellor got his numbers wrong in Spending Review, say Churches

Churches have voiced concern over Chancellor George Osborne’s inaccurate use of welfare fraud statistics in his Spending Review speech.

The Methodist Church, the Baptist Union of Great Britain and the United Reformed Church have criticised the Chancellor for claiming that welfare fraud is responsible for cheating tax payers out of £5 billion a year.

A Department of Work and Pensions report published last week stated that welfare fraud accounts for £1 billion of money lost, with tax credit fraud accounting for an additional £0.6 billion, leading to £1.6 billion lost in total. Church leaders said the exaggerated £5 billion figure depicts the poorest and most vulnerable in society as thieves.

“Exaggerating benefit fraud points the finger of blame at the poor,” said Revd Alison Tomlin, President of the Methodist Conference. “Let us be clear this recession was not caused by the poor, those on benefits, or even benefit cheats. The poorest in society only got poorer during the boom years and it’s simply not fair to make them pay for the bust.

“Questions also need to be asked about the £7 billion of uncollected tax revenues that the Chancellor claims he is targeting. According to the HMRC, there is approximately £42 billion in uncollected revenues; why does Mr Osborne only speak of £7 billion?”

Revd Graham Sparkes, Head of Faith and Unity at the Baptist Union of Great Britain, said: “There is already deep concern that the severe reductions in welfare provision will cause immense hardship to the most vulnerable. This misuse of figures to exaggerate the scale of benefit fraud only adds to the sense of injustice.”

Mr Simon Loveitt, Public Issues Spokesperson for the United Reformed Church, added: “The coalition government is very keen to talk about fairness and the false notion that ‘we are all in this together’, but the Chancellor’s exaggeration of fraud and last week’s Comprehensive Spending Review confirm the grim reality that it is those who are most vulnerable who will pay the price for that which is so clearly not their fault.”

BBC on this Here.

A theory going round is that these stories are deliberately got up to make people hate the out-of-work and the incapacitated.

Mind you the Daily Mail and Express have been doing this for a long time. The former since its days in the 30s, when it admired the Blackshirts.

Daily Mail Publisher Lord Rothmere with friend.

Advertisements

Written by Andrew Coates

October 27, 2010 at 9:31 am

30 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Oh, come of it you bloody Commie! Look at the evidence, you bloody idiot.

    http://www.channel4.com/programmes/shameless

  2. If the avitars were to be checked. we would soon find out who this upper class arse hole reall is. I take it that the avitars are linked to Name and NOT email address. If I am wrong then I appologise

    philip

    October 27, 2010 at 10:10 am

    • it takes all sorts, love 😦

      margaret

      October 27, 2010 at 10:14 am

  3. Like the pic, Andy. Who is the guy on the right with the funny moustache and side-parting? 🙂

    Angie

    October 27, 2010 at 10:38 am

    • Angie, an ace Daily Mail reporter.

      His stories include,

      “Workhouse Gruel Greed: Always Asking More!”!”

      “Jarrow March: Fear of Idle Army.”

      “Welfare State, End of British Freedom.”

      Actually that’s not very satirical, it’s the kind of real stories they publish.

      Plenty believe it.

      For example..

      Some of us from Ipswich were in Cambridge on Saturday for an anti-cuts march.

      Afterwards we got an – unasked for – lecture by a Big Issue seller telling us that public spending should be cut because of …er. something or other.

      Andrew Coates

      October 27, 2010 at 10:53 am

      • … because there in no money left… the country is bankrupt… all the money has been spent… because there in no money left… the country is bankrupt… all the money has been spent…

        Polly the Right Wing Parrot

        October 27, 2010 at 11:30 am

      • You buy a Big Issue, then, Andy? 🙂 Got to help John Bird out, you know 🙂

        Angie

        October 27, 2010 at 11:47 am

  4. Angie, I make a point of walking straight on, eyes fixed on the far-horizon, every time I get accosted by a Big Issue ‘seller’.

    I wonder, while we’re on the subject, if they’ve been publishing articles supporting the cuts.

    But I don’t wonder enough to buy a copy.

    Andrew Coates

    October 27, 2010 at 2:51 pm

  5. Big Issue Sellers; The Romanian Ones. Going Into A Big House On Tuddenham Road/Bolton Road.
    They Are Renting It

    Spotted In Ipswich

    October 28, 2010 at 8:16 am

  6. “A theory going round is that these stories are deliberately got up to make people hate the out-of-work and the incapacitated”.

    It’s fact. Though hopefully hate is not the aim, resentment maybe. Thankfully there are many decent people in the world who are not swayed by such propaganda.

    Just this morning on the news there are the cutaways in some segment to a couple of random people who are saying that “people should get of their backsides”.
    And so on, just to portray the likelihood that most, if not all on benefits are less worthy as humans and are taking money out of the taxpayers pocket.

    They do not state that the employment providers are taking even more money off them to provide, in many cases, a less than effective way of getting us back in work.

    Go back to sleep Joe public, here’s x factor watch that, shut up. Nothing to see here. Just pay those taxes.
    We all pay tax though, even the unemployed. Or may have payed tax in many years of previous employment.

    The less fortunate in society are easy targets though, blame them.

    Of course, many reading here should know this stuff.

    Not everyone on the dole is scum.

    Intelligent people know this.

    Nice site. Cheers for the platform.

    Oh dear

    October 28, 2010 at 8:35 am

  7. some people genuinely believe you’re a lower standard of human if you’re claiming benefits. They’ve consumed so much right wing propaganda they can’t think for themselves

    some of them work in job centre plus

    why are you unemployed? What do you do with yourself all day? , rude questions like that I’ve had in the past at jcp

    Ed Milipede

    October 28, 2010 at 10:46 am

  8. Actually many JCP staff are ok in my experience. You always get a couple of little power crazed bigots though.

    The providers? Can a few lines of type convey how nasty some of those people are? Nasty vindictive narrow minded idiots!

    Mind you, it appears they will only employ people who are capable of intimidating people and have no problem doing so.

    They are private profit making companies after all. They see not a human, just the potential outcome payments.

    And they feel their fake power is somehow amplified because of the new lot. Same raw deal, whoever sits in the big chairs.
    And also because the general view of benefits is now not very favourable they (think) they can do as they please.

    They can think on.
    Can they offer a decent job? Can they answer valid questions? No.

    F**k ’em.

    Oh dear

    October 28, 2010 at 4:38 pm

  9. Ignore leftist hysteria – at last Britain’s woken up to the grotesque irony that so many on welfare are better off than hard working families…

    By Max Hastings

    Boris Johnson wants David Cameron’s job, and there is almost nothing London’s ­Mayor will not say or do to get it. On Thursday, he ­delighted Labour and enraged fellow-­Conservative ministers by declaring on BBC Radio ­London: ‘We will not accept a kind of ­Kosovo-style ­social cleansing of London.

    ‘On my watch, you are not going to see thousands of families evicted from the place where they have put down roots.’

    This was Johnson’s response to the ­Government’s plans to cap housing ­benefit for every family in the land at £21,000 a year (or £400 a week).

    He has since sought to fudge his views, blathering that he ­supports the Government’s benefit reforms. But no one ­seriously doubts that the Mayor has ­chosen to defy Downing Street in order to appease his own constituency.

    Even by understated official statistics, more than a third of today’s Londoners were born in another country, ­so Britain’s ­capital has become an international city or a ­foreign one, according to your point of view.

    Many of its lower-paid residents receive welfare payments including housing ­benefits. If the Government imposes its planned cuts, such people will become implacable foes of the Tories, if they are not already.

    Implausibly, Boris Johnson is making common cause with the Left-wing ­commentariat, who are spitting with rage about housing benefit.

    ‘Do they know what they are doing?’, Polly Toynbee fulminated in the Guardian this week. Under a headline of ­grotesque hyperbole which disgustingly referred to a ‘final solution’, she asked of the Coalition: ‘Are they incompetent bunglers or do they mean to clear low-earners out of the ­country’s prosperous districts?

    ‘This will become a cut that brands this Government… so extreme and random as to who will be evicted that the political noise will rise to ear-splitting decibels.’

    I find Polly Toynbee, along with half-a-dozen other columnists not all on the Left, useful in making up my own mind about issues. They are wonderful ­contras. That is to say, whichever side of a given argument they are on, I feel safe to take the opposite view.

    If by mischance I find myself agreeing with one of them, I hastily re-examine the evidence, because I must have got something wrong.

    In the case of housing benefit, the ­Toynbee-Johnson argument is that ­London is an extraordinarily expensive city, in which the poor must have ­assistance to live, unless we want to expel them.

    This is where the Mayor’s ‘Kosovo’ taunt springs from. Humanitarian ­considerations aside, many relatively humble jobs, from bus-driving to street-cleaning, must be done by somebody. Since their wages will not cover private-sector ­London rents, it is in the public interest for the public purse to help with their housing costs.

    Some of this is true. But the foes of reform ignore a critical truth: like all things, housing benefit must stop somewhere. The numbers have gone crazy. Some families are costing the taxpayer not £20,000 a year, but £30,000, £40,000, even in one supreme case £104,000 a year.

    Any working citizen willing to pay even £20,000 to rent a ­property — which is not a deductible expense — would need to be a higher-rate ­taxpayer and commit almost £40,000 of his income to do so.

    Do Boris Johnson and Polly Toynbee want us to house those who cannot afford their own accommodation at a cost which no middle manager or police superintendent or even junior banker could afford?

    Yes, they do, and their view is — to borrow a favourite Boris word — bonkers.

    The £21 billion national cost of housing benefit for people of working age has risen by ­£5 billion in the past five years. David Cameron says the budget is out of control. Most of ­Britain, the hard-working families whom Gordon Brown so often cited but cynically pillaged, wholeheartedly agrees.

    When the Exchequer pours money into the private market on this scale, it fuels demand, inflating still further the shocking cost of homes in Britain.
    Unless the Chancellor ends the state’s unlimited liability to house people wherever they choose to pitch camp, as part of his crusade to roll back the ­welfare system, there is no ­prospect of reducing our awesome national deficit.

    We know that bankers’ follies triggered the financial crisis, but these merely exposed the scale on which Britain has been living beyond its means.
    The Exchequer has been ­giving sums of money to less well-off people, the underprivileged as they used to be called, that are far greater than the country can afford. Now the compassion racket has hit the buffers.

    Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt received a barrage of abuse from the Left, and was denounced on the airwaves for a supposed ‘gaffe’, for suggesting last month that before ­having large families, people should consider whether they can afford them. Yet to most people not living on benefits, Hunt was stating the obvious.

    Why do most mothers confine themselves to two or three ­children? Because they do not think they can afford decently to rear more. This is honourable as well as sensible.

    Yet the entire welfare system, including housing benefit, is run on the basis that almost unlimited assistance is ­provided in accordance with the size of a recipient’s family.

    If you have four, five or six children, you will be allocated more generous accommodation or larger private rental subsidy than if you have only one or two. This may be humane, but removes the smallest incentive towards responsible family planning.

    In every supermarket we see teenage mothers — many of them single women — with pushchairs, for whose lifestyle choice we pay the bills.

    Most of us warmly applaud a government which, at last, is telling beneficiaries of welfare: your rights are not unlimited. Your actions will have consequences. If you choose to have a large family on a small income, you will pay a price for doing so which may include missing out on a new flat-screen TV.

    Under the terms of the ­Government’s proposed new housing benefit rules, subsidy will be capped at £400 a week for a four-bedroom house; £340 for a three-bedroom one; £290 for a two-bedroom; £250 for a one-bedroom dwelling.

    In the eyes of most of us, these are still very large sums of money. They may not make it possible for people to live in Westminster or Chelsea, but few of us regard it as a civil right to be handy for Harrods.

    Moreover, the cap applies only to accommodation provided in the private rental market, and not to publicly-owned housing — of which there is still a large stock in London.

    Social lobbyists claim that imposing these new limits next April could result in 82,000 evictions from central London, imposing special hardship on children obliged to move school. I shall be astonished if such a large enforced migration proves necessary.

    But in any event, most of us take for granted the necessity to move home if our circumstances change.

    Most of London’s young ­middle classes now live south of the Thames or east of the City, because they ­cannot afford the sort of homes in which their parents lived, closer to the ­centre. Nobody seriously ­suggests this is a social injustice. The new generation is ­simply adjusting to economic realities.
    Leftist hysteria about the Coalition’s spending cuts, which may spill over on to our streets if union leaders and Guardian columnists have their way, is founded upon a demented belief that Britain can continue indefinitely writing open-ended cheques to the less well-off.

    They ignore the fact that, even if George Osborne achieves his full programme of spending reductions, in 2015 Britain’s budget will be ­marginally higher than it is today, albeit without taking account of inflation.

    The proposed half-million shrinkage of the state workforce — which causes relentless hand-wringing on the BBC — will remove only half of the extra million public sector employees recruited by Gordon Brown over the past decade.

    There is no reason to doubt the sincerity of Polly Toynbee and her kind in their concern for Britain’s underclass, though the charge of champagne socialism sticks pretty hard on anyone who, like herself, owns a villa in Tuscany and ­educated her children at private schools.

    But David Cameron’s Government is surely right to fight such people to a finish in the battle to curb the excesses of the Welfare State. We need more competition at every level of society and a stronger link between effort and reward.

    The poor must be protected from the worst consequences of failure, but that does not absolve them from accepting responsibility for their choices, including that of ­having large families.

    The crippling dependency culture will persist and worsen unless limits are set to the rewards for such a lifestyle, including a cap on housing benefit. Labour’s commitments to social engineering, and to the notion that class mobility can be improved by giving the less well-off ever more money, are discredited.

    An excellent recent pamphlet published by the think-tank Civitas shows that Britain is a much more socially mobile society than the Left admits.

    Its author, Professor Peter Saunders — that rare beast, a sensible ­sociologist — makes the point: ‘If ­people born into relatively disadvantaged circumstances are repeatedly told that the competition has been fixed so that they cannot win, then, of course, they will conclude that it makes no sense for them to join the game. State dependency or criminality are then the other games they can join.’

    This is the cycle which, with notable courage, David Cameron and his Government is seeking to break.

    It produces consequences and will generate pain, because some people are to get less for doing nothing than they have received in the past. This is a revolutionary innovation which, I would suggest, most of England applauds.

    There are bound to be cries of anguish from the losers and their Labour Party shop stewards. But it is dismaying to see a prominent Tory such as London’s Mayor ­lending comfort to the other side.

    The wife of one of his old school headmasters said to me some years ago, when first he gained fame: ‘Boris Johnson will never get to the very top, because he is always playing to the gallery.’

    Boris is a ­brilliant ‘turn’, beloved by many people who do not have to live or work with him. But he is not, never has been, and never will be a serious person like David ­Cameron. Johnson’s cleverness is devoted to the single purpose of manic self-promotion.

    He is a chancer, albeit a witty and talented one. That is why he broke ranks with the Prime ­Minister on Thursday’s Radio London ­programme, and why he may well lob more such grenades in the future.

    Cameron is taking a huge political risk in the national interest, while London’s Mayor seeks to advance, or at least protect, his own career.
    I know which of the two I want to run Britain, and it is not Boris.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1325052/MAX-HASTINGS-Ignore-leftist-hysteria–Britains-woken-grotesque-irony-welfare-better-hard-working-families-.html

    Daily Heil

    October 30, 2010 at 2:01 pm

  10. while the benefit fraud what goes around comes around wheel has stopped this time on this subject’ nothing is said about the activities of paying private companies paid large multi million contracts who have defrauded.false accounting to start.

    we live in a country where rampant irresponsible ungoverned anything for a buck culture goes unchallenged,while the benefit claimant is somehow then rounded on and made the further scourge of all societies problems.deal with this and all problems will end and attempt to shift the focus on them.

    duncan smith telling the unemployed to get on the bus where?.

    was it not in 1986 the them margaret thatcher quote as being.

    Any man who rides a bus to work after the age of 30 can count himself a failure in life.
    —attributed to Margaret Thatcher, former British PM.

    also

    My job is to stop Britain going red.

    it went into it instead.

    ken

    October 30, 2010 at 6:08 pm

    • Anyone who uses public transport is a loser.

      Homer Simpson

      Homer Simpson

      October 30, 2010 at 6:23 pm

    • It was 26, ken: “A man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself as a failure.”

      Margaret Hilda Thatcher – 1986

      Lisa Simpson

      October 30, 2010 at 6:26 pm

      • thanks for the correction.i remembered it a long time ago, and had to dig it up.

        ken

        October 30, 2010 at 7:47 pm

      • I wouldn’t worry about it, ken – anything that Thatcher said is not worth worrying about. The old buzzard actually modified what she said after she as challenged. I believe that she then raised the age from 26 to 30, added “to work”, and added in “as a passenger”. All by-the-by, since it’s the sentiment that counts.

        Internet Fact Checker

        October 31, 2010 at 12:26 am

      • Still, once you’ve had a car, riding into work on a cramped, over-priced bus with a load of strangers stopping every hundred metres catching all sorts of infections is not something that you’d want to go back to. So maybe the old buzzard did have a sort of point: Public transport is for people who can’t afford a car (or losers as H Simpson would say)

        Internet Fact Checker

        October 31, 2010 at 12:34 am

      • IFC: I gave up the bus for a mixture of reasons including lack of reliability and frequency – and the ever increasing prices (such as prices increasing “temporarily” to cover higher fuel prices when we had such supply problems (anyone remember it?), however, prices never went back down… same with the rover ticket being scrapped… and brought back at £5 when was £2.80 after a 30p increase from £2.50)

        Although I risk the elements on foot to get places to places, including what I would describe as “long-haul” as far as local walking is concerned, I haven’t had the cold or flu for numerous years now.

        Flexible New Deal

        October 31, 2010 at 2:19 pm

      • where I live love, (Royston Vasey) it is £6.50 for a return trip into the town, and it’s only 2 miles one way lol, I can walk 2 miles in half an hour. Better to get some fresh air in your lungs and some exercise to boot. I haven’t been on a bus in years and haven’t had as mush as a snivel for years, I stopped catches colds and flu when I gave up on buses. What is IBS playing at – telling us all to get us on buses, is he trying to kill us off from Bubonic Plague? Even that half-wit Norman Tebbit’s on your bike was a much better unhealthier option, well as long as it’s not windy or raining.

        Pauline

        October 31, 2010 at 3:15 pm

  11. better healthier option… I meant to type, silly me :-), bloody job club computers

    Pauline

    October 31, 2010 at 3:17 pm

  12. […] Benefit Fraud, Government Exaggerates Say Churches. […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: