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.

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 governments own estimate as to the level of fraudulent claims and the fact it is the governments 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 "One 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 - 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 "One 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 - 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 "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 "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 a poll, 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.