Post by nickd on Oct 5, 2011 20:49:37 GMT 1
Today, our Prime Minister delivered his closing speech to the Conservative party conference; - today, he got it all wrong on welfare yet again!
Here's what the PM said in what is yet another gaffe in his war on those on welfare...
"We’ve got to get some sense back into our labour market and get British people back into work. For years you’ve been conned by governments. To keep the unemployment figures down, they’ve parked as many people as possible on the sick. Two and a half million, to be exact. Not officially unemployed, but claiming welfare, no questions asked. Now we’re asking those questions. It turns out that of the 1.3 million people who have put in a claim for the new sickness benefit in recent years. One million are either able to work, or stopped their claim before their medical assessment had been completed."
Read more: mylegal.org.uk/index.cgi?board=frontline&action=display&thread=482#ixzz1ZwGhrDjt
The real facts
The actual statistics for people claiming Incapacity Benefit since 1999 have remained more of less the same; here's the claimant count since then for both Incapacity Benefit & Jobseeker's Allowance...
JSA(Left column) IB/ESA(Right column)
Aug-99 1,181.86 - 2,655.38
Aug-00 1,015.83 - 2,714.85
Aug-01 907.68 - 2,763.62
Aug-02 890.54 - 2,769.36
Aug-03 851.37 - 2,777.06
Aug-04 769.25 - 2,774.93
Aug-05 825.11 - 2,725.47
Aug-06 900.92 - 2,683.00
Aug-07 788.45 - 2,641.11
Aug-08 868.73 - 2,590.61
Aug-09 1,485.32 - 2,632.74
They are from sets of statistics released on the 17th February 2010 by the National Audit Office under data set ID170210SSFEB10
No data is held for DLA claims in this set.
From this you will see there is a sharp rise in the unemployment stats from 868.73 in 2008 to 1,485.32 in 2009.
The IB/ESA stats include all new claims for ESA which was introduced in October/November 2008, from then on you could not claim IB and would need to make an ESA claim.
The JSA stats also include unemployment benefit which was paid up until 1995.
Although the DLA stats are not in this report, they are stated to be 3.10 million as of August 2009. (but see below)
Read more: mylegal.org.uk/index.cgi?board=frontline&action=display&thread=405#ixzz1ZwFpl6TO
Key facts
(1) It was the Conservatives who introduced Incapacity Benefit in 1995 and introduced the 'all work test' which they now criticize as being too easy when it came to determining whether claimants were incapable of work or not.
There is a wide held contention that it was the Conservatives who parked people on Incapacity Benefit as a way of concealing the high number of unemployed people in the run up to the general election in 1997. There was no rapid increase in the claimant count from 1997 to when the above data starts; - indicating it was Labour who inherited the Incapacity benefit car park.
(2) It was the Conservatives who introduced Disability Living Allowance in 1992. It is a benefit paid to people regardless of whether they work or not, the Conservatives sang its praises when they introduced it.
The headline statistics
The figures show that in 1999 there were 2,042.3 DLA claimants,
By the same quarterly (February) figures in 2004, the claimant count had risen to 2,559.2
By 2010 the total claimant count had risen to 3,182.0.
You can just hear the tabloids, can't you? - all those work shy fakers and scroungers?
Well no, it's not really like that at all.
Let's look at the evidence
Actually, the largest 'growth' in DLA figures are reflected in the following figures.
Claimants aged 80+ growth = 285%
Aged 75 - 79 = 146%
70 - 74 = 79%
There's a high total growth figure for young claimants too
For those aged 10 - 15 = 47%
Aged 16 to 19 = 92%
Now, it may come as a surprise to some of you that the lowest growth figure was for those aged 30 - 34 at - 1% (yes that's minus 1%)
Read more on post 39 on the welfare reform car crash article.
Read more: mylegal.org.uk/index.cgi?board=frontline&action=display&thread=405&page=2#ixzz1ZwWdMGsG
(3) It was Labour who introduced the much tougher and controversial Employment & Support Allowance in 2008. It is a completely different benefit aimed at working out which claimants have a limitation and need support to help them get back into work.
The Prime Minister refers to sets of figures which have repeatedly been shown to be inaccurate because they relate to assessments prior to appeals being made. The success rate at appeal is 39% and up to 70% with representation. Data sets are often mixed up between claimants transferred from Incapacity Benefit to Employment & Support Allowance - it's not a like for like comparison at all. There's plenty more on the welfare reform car crash and unlike our PM's speech - it's based on fact rather than fiction.
(4) In representing the out of work figures, the PM is using different cohorts of 'economically inactive' individuals than previously; - he's including people never included before.
(5) When the PM talks of paying £14,000 person to get them back to work, he's not telling us how it's being paid to private - but publicly funded - welfare to work providers (with previously very poor records on performance) on a buy now pay later basis. He says no more borrowing and yet this will cost billions at some stage in the future; - it's no different to using a credit card.
It's no good our Prime Minister repeatedly using the wrong information; - if he's doing it with these statistics, what does it say over how he's representing us on statistics over economic growth?
Here's what the PM said in what is yet another gaffe in his war on those on welfare...
"We’ve got to get some sense back into our labour market and get British people back into work. For years you’ve been conned by governments. To keep the unemployment figures down, they’ve parked as many people as possible on the sick. Two and a half million, to be exact. Not officially unemployed, but claiming welfare, no questions asked. Now we’re asking those questions. It turns out that of the 1.3 million people who have put in a claim for the new sickness benefit in recent years. One million are either able to work, or stopped their claim before their medical assessment had been completed."
Read more: mylegal.org.uk/index.cgi?board=frontline&action=display&thread=482#ixzz1ZwGhrDjt
The real facts
The actual statistics for people claiming Incapacity Benefit since 1999 have remained more of less the same; here's the claimant count since then for both Incapacity Benefit & Jobseeker's Allowance...
JSA(Left column) IB/ESA(Right column)
Aug-99 1,181.86 - 2,655.38
Aug-00 1,015.83 - 2,714.85
Aug-01 907.68 - 2,763.62
Aug-02 890.54 - 2,769.36
Aug-03 851.37 - 2,777.06
Aug-04 769.25 - 2,774.93
Aug-05 825.11 - 2,725.47
Aug-06 900.92 - 2,683.00
Aug-07 788.45 - 2,641.11
Aug-08 868.73 - 2,590.61
Aug-09 1,485.32 - 2,632.74
They are from sets of statistics released on the 17th February 2010 by the National Audit Office under data set ID170210SSFEB10
No data is held for DLA claims in this set.
From this you will see there is a sharp rise in the unemployment stats from 868.73 in 2008 to 1,485.32 in 2009.
The IB/ESA stats include all new claims for ESA which was introduced in October/November 2008, from then on you could not claim IB and would need to make an ESA claim.
The JSA stats also include unemployment benefit which was paid up until 1995.
Although the DLA stats are not in this report, they are stated to be 3.10 million as of August 2009. (but see below)
Read more: mylegal.org.uk/index.cgi?board=frontline&action=display&thread=405#ixzz1ZwFpl6TO
Key facts
(1) It was the Conservatives who introduced Incapacity Benefit in 1995 and introduced the 'all work test' which they now criticize as being too easy when it came to determining whether claimants were incapable of work or not.
There is a wide held contention that it was the Conservatives who parked people on Incapacity Benefit as a way of concealing the high number of unemployed people in the run up to the general election in 1997. There was no rapid increase in the claimant count from 1997 to when the above data starts; - indicating it was Labour who inherited the Incapacity benefit car park.
(2) It was the Conservatives who introduced Disability Living Allowance in 1992. It is a benefit paid to people regardless of whether they work or not, the Conservatives sang its praises when they introduced it.
The headline statistics
The figures show that in 1999 there were 2,042.3 DLA claimants,
By the same quarterly (February) figures in 2004, the claimant count had risen to 2,559.2
By 2010 the total claimant count had risen to 3,182.0.
You can just hear the tabloids, can't you? - all those work shy fakers and scroungers?
Well no, it's not really like that at all.
Let's look at the evidence
Actually, the largest 'growth' in DLA figures are reflected in the following figures.
Claimants aged 80+ growth = 285%
Aged 75 - 79 = 146%
70 - 74 = 79%
There's a high total growth figure for young claimants too
For those aged 10 - 15 = 47%
Aged 16 to 19 = 92%
Now, it may come as a surprise to some of you that the lowest growth figure was for those aged 30 - 34 at - 1% (yes that's minus 1%)
Read more on post 39 on the welfare reform car crash article.
Read more: mylegal.org.uk/index.cgi?board=frontline&action=display&thread=405&page=2#ixzz1ZwWdMGsG
(3) It was Labour who introduced the much tougher and controversial Employment & Support Allowance in 2008. It is a completely different benefit aimed at working out which claimants have a limitation and need support to help them get back into work.
The Prime Minister refers to sets of figures which have repeatedly been shown to be inaccurate because they relate to assessments prior to appeals being made. The success rate at appeal is 39% and up to 70% with representation. Data sets are often mixed up between claimants transferred from Incapacity Benefit to Employment & Support Allowance - it's not a like for like comparison at all. There's plenty more on the welfare reform car crash and unlike our PM's speech - it's based on fact rather than fiction.
(4) In representing the out of work figures, the PM is using different cohorts of 'economically inactive' individuals than previously; - he's including people never included before.
(5) When the PM talks of paying £14,000 person to get them back to work, he's not telling us how it's being paid to private - but publicly funded - welfare to work providers (with previously very poor records on performance) on a buy now pay later basis. He says no more borrowing and yet this will cost billions at some stage in the future; - it's no different to using a credit card.
It's no good our Prime Minister repeatedly using the wrong information; - if he's doing it with these statistics, what does it say over how he's representing us on statistics over economic growth?