Today the Telegraph reported a government claim that 900,000 people had given up disability allowance claims because of the threat of medical examinations. The clear implications was that this was the result of their ATOS medical system and their drive towards a Universal Credit system.
The Tories said all these people claimed benefits because Labour encouraged them to do so.
A thorough left wing researcher called Steve Walker has also shown today that this is a straightforward lie. Not a bit of a lie but a complete and utter total fabrication of a lie. The sort only Gobbels would have thought he could have got away with it is so big.
Steve Walker looked at an MSN version the story and traced the data source. The data relates to be period 2002 to 2009, before the Conservatives came into office. It relates to Labour introducing medicals to reduce claimants for what was then called Emloyment Support Allowance. It has nothing at all to do with Tory policy or action.
So what do we learn?
First the Telgraph lies.
Second the Tories lie, blatantly.
Third, whatever problem there was Labour had solved it. Whatever has happend since is victimisation and bullying.
Last, IDS will do anything to abuse people, ably backed by Cameron, Osborne, Clegg, Alexander and the mass of their MPs.
To describe what is happening now as a propaganda driven programme of victimisation by organised hatred sounds melodramatic, but it's also the truth.
I am ashamed that these people have power in this country.
But at least, so far, I can talk about it.
I wonder when they will get rid of that right, one way or another?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Very, very good detective work by Steve Walker. Apparently the Telegraph believes that “freedom of the press” means the freedom to tell blatant lies about some of the most vulnerable people in our society. What a nice bunch of people they are… NOT.
Sadly it’s entirely typical – both of the right-wing media and Tory politicians.
Indeed
And thanks for highlighting it
Wish there was a ‘like’ function on this blog!
Interesting point
I sort of gauge it from the retweets
So it is New Labour who is to blame for striking these 900,000 souls off benefits!
Labour was tough on benefits – and some of the rhetoric is its fault too
We need to put the blame for this injustice squarely on the head of Labour. Unbelievable!
Hang on
Some, but a very long at from all
As Steve Walker’s piece points out, this benefits cull by Labour took place while they were in office. How are they not absolutely responsible for this social injustice?
Putting in place systems to stop abuse is a government’s job
There always some abuse
About did that
It may have been too tough
But no one can say it was callous
I am sure those being tossed out on their ear would disagree. What will Labour advocate next, a return to the workhouse?
Respectfully – you seem to be very confused or are time wasting
I reserve the right to delete those not posting with real names
Neither.
Candidly, this looks to all be a bit of faffing about in regards to media coverage and a link to a blog post which might contain some shoddy research (2009 v. 2012).
The real issue is who is responsible for these swinging cuts which are effecting those of us at the bottom of the pile. If Steve (2009) is correct, this falls squarely on the shoulders of Labour and their apologists.
What is the policy of Tax Research Uk as regards the cost of the welfare programme,in excess of £ 205 billion,and the continuing PSBR of £120 billion?Welfare costs more than health,education and defence combined.Is it moral or OK to lumber a future generation with the debt cost of borrowings to pay for all these freebies?Answer,please.
I have a paper out for the CLASS think tank very soon
You’ll have to wait until then
It is radical
http://www.jointpublicissues.org.uk/truth-and-lies-about-poverty-infographics/
Check out the ‘Who receives benefits money’ section.50% plus of benefits bill is taken by pensioners, whom this unelected government with no mandate to do as they are doing are too scared of to tackle.Is it moral to allow them to continue to suckle unabated at the financial breast whilst penalising those with nothing?Is it moral to allow the ministers to claim expenses for ridiculous items including unnecessary second homes which until recently the kept upon leaving the job and added them to their port folio’s of rental properties?The bill for these expenses now exceeds that of the bills for expenses prior and upto the scandal surrounding MP’s expenses.Welfare, if you must it that although it is rightly called Social Security, as a percentage of GDP is now lower than it was in the 1980’s?Is it therefore moral that the countries fortunes have been filtered increasingly into the pockets of a few, or that those few are the backers of this pestilence of a government and hold such political, economic and financial sway that representatives of the UK population whore themselves in office for that last drop of cash?
oh and Social Security is not a freebie, we’ve all paid into the pot for its coverage via taxes, whether by our own emplyment, our purchases or the payments made by our families.
We wont talkj of the massive costs to the UK of tax avoidance and HMRC ‘sweetheart deals’ which would soon make your moral argument non existent had they pursued those that owe, in a very real sense, us monies sufficient to counter the costs you refer to.
Ahem, I don’t have a paper but you do know welfare is mostly state pensions, right? Are you saying we should scrap pensions?
William, your apparent concerns would be valid if the economy of a country with a fiat currency and floating exchange rate )e.g. the UK, USA, Japan) was in any way like a household budget or a Euro-using country. It isn’t. I advise you to learn something about Modern Monetary Theory instead of just repeating Coalition propaganda.
Even ignoring the MMT analysis of national ‘debt’, any debt problem with the economy is due to private debt (particularly banks) not the public debt that you appear to fret about. Do you believe that the financial system crashed in 2008 because of public debt? No, it was dodgy banking private debt.
In the period after the second world war our public debt was far greater than today, yet somehow we manged to build thousands of council houses and create the NHS, unemployment was low and industry did pretty well. How did that happen then? Could it be that the state created demand in the economy via productive temporary debt, rather than just be the puppet of the 1% it is today, inflating private debt to line the pockets of the lenders?
This means the Daily Telegraph has promulgated a vicious untruth about the ill and vulnerable which creates a powerful cumulative force on top of the last few years of twisted linguistic smears. People swallow this stuff like hot cakes. profoundly saddening and disturbing – has there been any public challenge to this yet?
Yes – on Sky this afternoon
Not nigh though
Sue Marsh of Spartacus was superb in the interview with Sky:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JMvLDScorg&feature=player_embedded
Indeed – will post it
50% plus of benefits bill is taken by pensioners, whom this unelected government with no mandate to do as they are doing are too scared of to tackle.
Important point. Surely, well off people (we need a clear notion of ‘well-off’) should not receive the pension. I know comfortably off people who receive with alacrity the winter fuel allowance which is then a bit of extra pocket money whilst I have my heating off for as long as possible! M.P.s expenses is another point. My M.P.(a VERY wealthy ex-Eton land owner) claimed £100 a week for food and £87 a month for laundry as well as a second home mortgage. He still claims subsistence and £4-5 here and there for taxis and sandwiches and maybe the odd G&T. He unequivocally supports the welfare reforms, such is his concern for the public purse – yet the phrase ‘culture if entitlement’ is applied to the poorest of our community. WHAT!!
The number of people on out-of-work benefits doubled whilst Labour was in power, despite the economy going through a supposed “boom”. Yes, that is callous.
How can helping disabled people be callous?
“The data relates to be period 2002 to 2009”
That’s what the landing page says, yes. If you actually download the data it goes to Aug 2012.
So Walker’s specific and particular argument, that this is all about before the election, isn’t in fact true. Or perhaps it might be true, who knows, but isn’t for the specific reason that he gives, that the data only goes to 2009.
Yes, I know about the editing policy. But this is a simple factual point.
Odd that the number happens to be that to 2009
And that it has been used before – in 2011
As ever Tim, your claim is dubious
But if you can prove coincidence of 900,000 to 2009 and again 2011 on ( after all nothing changed in 2010) I would accept Steve Walker got it wrong
I haven’t made any claims at all about 900,000 with reference to Steve Walker’s post. Nor to your here.
I am making one simple factual point only. The Nomis numbers go to Aug 2012. Not, as Walker claims, to 2009. I agree that the landing page for the stats says they are to 2009. But when you download the file itself they go to Aug 2012.
This is a simple factual correction. Try it and see, Walker gives the link to the correct page.
The meaning of this is as follows. Walker claims that everything took place before the election *because* the figures only cover the period before the election.
It may well be that it did all take place before the election. I don’t know, I’ve not tried to calculate it. If it did then very well done to Labour. But we cannot conclude this on the basis that the figures only go to 2009. For the figures do not only go to 2009. They go to Aug 2012. And given that the 2009 claim is the one that Walker is making therefore Walker is incorrect in this instance.
It’s a simple enough mistake to make and Lord Knows we all make mistakes. And when mistakes are made it’s usually better to go “Ooops, a mistake!”. And then do the calculation again properly.
Which I hope Walker does do. I for one think it would be very interesting to know which government did get 900,000 off the disability rolls in this manner.
But it is still true that the one crucial fact that he relies upon so far is in error.
He did not, as he has made clear, rely on that one fact. I presume you have not noticed that
You are fighting straw men as usual, in the defence of the abuse of ordinary people, as usual
Freebies? What a tosser! You wait to see if you’re ever in that position. To me it is compensation for loss of employment through no fault of your own. And you do have to do certain things: keep records of all jobs applied for, the replies you receive, attend course and of course, sign on.
What happens if you are ill or someone you love is all and needs care? How can you judge how much someone’s life is worth? What criteria? Yes, I was on benefits on and off for two to three years back in the early to mid-nineties. I also did voluntary work with children for 18 years. How much is that worth?
“He did not, as he has made clear, rely on that one fact. I presume you have not noticed that
You are fighting straw men as usual, in the defence of the abuse of ordinary people, as usual”
Here is his post, stripped of the intercessions of quotes.
“Because I’m always suspicious of how this government used statistics, especially when it’s via the Telegraph, I went looking for these ‘latest government figures’. And I found them.
As you can see here, this is what I found:
….
The government’s ‘latest figures’ currently go up to 2009 — the year before the coalition government took office.”
This is simply incorrect. This is not a matter of neoliberalism or any other political philosophy. He has simply got the numbers wrong. They go to Aug 2012.
And as he has made clear that is not central to his conclusion
But you offered abuse as a result
No wonder decent people treat you with contempt
BREAKING: The Daily Telegraph speaks against’state’ control of the media, colludes with government on large scale.
Nobody does sophistry as well as Tim Worstal. Our Timmy is an eloquent master of that art.