Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Benefit myths and those who fall for them

Just came across this:

BBnj8elCIAADP6K.png:large
 
What does that show then? Is it just that there is a belief that when labour come to power they'll pay out more in benefits, or was there a marked change in the language around benefits at that time? I had the impression blair continued what had been happening before hand, and if it was down to actual changes in the system, you'd think there would be a time gap, started rising around 93/4, perhaps that was just post recession, less people on benefits etc.. perhaps the change to jobseekers allowance.
As you might have noticed I'm completely guessing on things here, it's just such a huge jump at that point, it's a bit odd and therefore interesting.
 
BigTom said:
What does that show then? Is it just that there is a belief that when labour come to power they'll pay out more in benefits, or was there a marked change in the language around benefits at that time? I had the impression blair continued what had been happening before hand, and if it was down to actual changes in the system, you'd think there would be a time gap, started rising around 93/4, perhaps that was just post recession, less people on benefits etc.. perhaps the change to jobseekers allowance.
As you might have noticed I'm completely guessing on things here, it's just such a huge jump at that point, it's a bit odd and therefore interesting.
Click to expand...

Tax Credits.
 
_angel_ said:
Did they really start that early? I thought it was a good while later on.
It's not surprising the attitudes changed because Blair was on a mission to vilify benefits claimants and throw people off sickness etc.
Click to expand...
Hmm Workin Families Tax Credits started in '99, so maybe not.
 
BigTom said:
What does that show then? Is it just that there is a belief that when labour come to power they'll pay out more in benefits, or was there a marked change in the language around benefits at that time? I had the impression blair continued what had been happening before hand, and if it was down to actual changes in the system, you'd think there would be a time gap, started rising around 93/4, perhaps that was just post recession, less people on benefits etc.. perhaps the change to jobseekers allowance.
As you might have noticed I'm completely guessing on things here, it's just such a huge jump at that point, it's a bit odd and therefore interesting.
Click to expand...

There was a marked change in language - It was Lilley who brought in JSA during the dying days of Majors govt, but that was when rumblings about unemployed people no longer merely being "Passive recipients of giros" from the likes of Labours odious Chris Smith also first started to become audible. After the election the volume was turned up with Frank Field "Thinking the unthinkable" on benefits and loads of negative bullshit about claimants in the papers as well - That graph was bang on butchersapron showing, as it does, that current thinking on benefits can be traced back to those days.
 
Frances Lengel said:
There was a marked change in language - It was Lilley who brought in JSA during the dying days of Majors govt, but that was when rumblings about unemployed people no longer merely being "Passive recipients of giros" from the likes of Labours odious Chris Smith also first started to become audible. After the election the volume was turned up with Frank Field "Thinking the unthinkable" on benefits and loads of negative bullshit about claimants in the papers as well - That graph was bang on butchersapron showing, as it does, that current thinking on benefits can be traced back to those days.
Click to expand...

Was also thinking last night that when the tories spout this shit a lot of people think "yeah well it's the tories, they hate the poor, of course they say that" but when Labour are saying it, well then it must be true because labour support the benefits system.
 
BigTom said:
Was also thinking last night that when the tories spout this shit a lot of people think "yeah well it's the tories, they hate the poor, of course they say that" but when Labour are saying it, well then it must be true because labour support the benefits system.
Click to expand...
That's one reason why I find myself tending to stay fairly non-aligned when it comes to party politics. The political establishment seems to have stratified itself away from the day-to-day realities of life, and too often resorts to political dogma instead of staying connected (except when they want us to vote for stuff, when they dress the political dogma up as what they think we want to hear).
 
BigTom said:
Was also thinking last night that when the tories spout this shit a lot of people think "yeah well it's the tories, they hate the poor, of course they say that" but when Labour are saying it, well then it must be true because labour support the benefits system.
Click to expand...

True plus after a couple of years of New Labour, in a lot of places there were more jobs going around which, IMO, did result in less sympathy for those who remained unemployed.
 
Marty Caine UKIP

Marty Caine UKIP ‏@Marty_Caine
@WOWpetition @BernaMeaden @SoniaPoulton I actually met a 19yr old on highest rate of DLA he told me his ambition was to be olympic kickboxer
Click to expand...
Maybe he's an armless kickboxer. Not sure they'd allow people to kick each other with artificial limbs :hmm:

As kickboxing is not yet an Olympic sport, maybe 19-year-old was winding him up? :hmm:

Maybe he should read this to see how it's done

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/carl-hodgetts-wheelchair-user-becomes-1259868

He's apparently disabled himself, so shouldn't he know better? :hmm:
 
Don't you just love the people who write comments?

braindead illiterate moral-free moron said:
I feel as though your deluded it doesn’t matter whether the house cost 1 million pound or £100 the government should not be paying for her irresponsible life style. there is no excuse for this woman to have 11 children and the cancer is a blessing in disguise.
Click to expand...
 
The Mail saying she had her first baby at 14 was pretty low. (The Mail low, never, I know). We don't know the circumstances.
Having 11 kids is a lot by anyone's standards but slagging her off for having cancer and children early isn't needed.
 
Jesus, there's some idiots on there

It's actually now impossible for her to Not to live off the state - who would employ her on a wage that could support such a huge family? Blame the politicians for allowing this to happen. We need a 2 child policy when it comes to benefits - if you cant care for your third child then I'm afraid you will have to put it up for adoption.
- NAOMI, Bloomsbury London, United Kingdom, 19/2/2013 15:16
Click to expand...

:facepalm:

What if you have them before you lose your job or get ill?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

RubyBlue
Who to vote for?
Replies
14
Views
494
dessiato
dessiato
N
Anyone else feel like the NHS almost doesn't exist for them any more?
5 6 7 8 9
Replies
257
Views
9K
Looby
Looby
tim
Candidates who are vile c*nts.
Replies
1
Views
304
moochedit
moochedit
Wookey
Woman falls through a hole in Blackpool Pier
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
Lotte
L
tim
Candidates who are vile c*nts.
Replies
19
Views
871
andysays
andysays
Back
Top Bottom