Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Rachel Reeves-Today Guardian

articul8 said:
There's no chance of persuading the Purnell/Mandelson's. If they come back, it's over - I'm out of here. But there's still a window for persuading this lot how stupid this shit is
Click to expand...
you're one of those people who'd have been in the cpsu long after the secret speech or hungary '56 or czechoslovakia '68 or afghanistan '80, wittering away about changing the party from within.

don't you get it? you're wasting your life and your hack-journalism defending a bunch of wankers. when you die and go to heaven you'll find yourself kneeling for all eternity as a footrest for dead labour bigwigs.
 
articul8 said:
This is the root of it - absolutely petrified of being painted as the party of "benefits as a lifestyle choice". They don't push back and contest that stereotype as a right wing tabloid creation
Click to expand...
The sad eyed murderer, blood dripping from his hands, looked upon on the bodies of the people he'd been forced to murder, and replaced the knife in its scabbard.

"If only I could tell them I didn't want this", he thought to himself, and wiped the tear from his eye. "it's so unfair! So unfair!"

Kneeling by the pile of dead, his kind hands beat the lifeless carcasses in his grief.

"So unfair."
 
I just read the article that quote is taken from. Seriously, articul8 in what fucking universe do you think pressure can be put on labour to actually defend the victims of neo liberalism? Labour's packed to the rafters with neo liberals. Reading that article just gave me the sense they're going to be exactly the same as the current shower, forget the slightly nicer bit.
 
Doctor Carrot said:
I just read the article that quote is taken from. Seriously, articul8 in what fucking universe do you think pressure can be put on labour to actually defend the victims of neo liberalism? Labour's packed to the rafters with neo liberals. Reading that article just gave me the sense they're going to be exactly the same as the current shower, forget the slightly nicer bit.
Click to expand...
yeh but doctor carrot you have to realise that only by his remaining in the labour party and working on a labour propaganda magazine can articul8 protect us from the worst of their policies
 
Pickman's model said:
yeh but doctor carrot you have to realise that only by his remaining in the labour party and working on a labour propaganda magazine can articul8 protect us from the worst of their policies
Click to expand...

Which Labour propaganda magazine? Labour Briefing (that bit's true!), not Red Pepper - which is far from it.
 
Doctor Carrot said:
I just read the article that quote is taken from. Seriously, articul8 in what fucking universe do you think pressure can be put on labour to actually defend the victims of neo liberalism? Labour's packed to the rafters with neo liberals. Reading that article just gave me the sense they're going to be exactly the same as the current shower, forget the slightly nicer bit.
Click to expand...
Yeah but a) not really b) the rhetorical skills of articul8 will pull them back from doing what they're committed to doing and have done.
 
SpackleFrog said:
Thing is, at election time they just shut the fuck up don't they?

I really respect John and Dennis, and Jeremy Corbyn and a few others at well. But at what point is silence complicity?
Click to expand...
It is possible to suggest they're suffering from Stockholm Syndrome... or they're so inured that they can't envisage a life outside the party. Whatever the case, while they're inside the Labour Party, they're outnumbered by Blairite filth and can do very little. We need PR.
 
nino_savatte said:
It is possible to suggest they're suffering from Stockholm Syndrome... or they're so inured that they can't envisage a life outside the party. Whatever the case, while they're inside the Labour Party, they're outnumbered by Blairite filth and can do very little. We need PR.
Click to expand...

Too much fucking PR by half, the whole labour party seems to be run by PR drones.

Although you probably meant proportional representation. Hopefully whatever cobbled-together excuse for a coalition we get after this election will be final proof that the voting system is fucked and needs to be rebuilt from scratch. You could have the Greens on 10% of the national vote without them getting a single MP for example, or Cameron might get more seats even though Miliband got more votes, or vice versa. The only thing that seems certain is that we will end up with a government that absolutely nobody voted for.
 
Rachel Reeves was right – Labour must reduce people’s reliance on benefits Emma Burnell
The shadow work and pensions secretary shouldn’t say Labour is ‘not the party’ for welfare recipients, but fewer people on benefits must be the aim in a fairer society

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/18/rachel-reeves-right-labour-reduce-benefits

Emma Burnell is a campaigns and public policy professional. Emma represents Labour's Socialist Societies on Labour's National Policy forum and blogs at scarletstandard.co.uk
Click to expand...


yet another one, and she calls herself a socialist.
 
A few weeks ago, while canvassing in a marginal constituency, I knocked on the door of a man who had previously voted Labour but was now leaning towards Ukip. His opening salvo to me was: “What about homeless shelters?” Great, I thought, this is something I understand and really care about. Before I was able to respond he continued: “Put people who can’t afford their rent in shelters. Stop them scrounging housing benefit off the rest of us.”

If you want to know why Labour’s rhetoric on welfare seems confused, this anecdote tells you all you need to know. The voters that politicians meet on the doorsteps are angry, and while we may believe their anger is aimed at the wrong targets, to deny its existence would be foolish.
Click to expand...

No sense of awareness it was NL who have created the climate for such attitudes, 'benefit scroungers' weren't hardly on the radar in the early 90's.
 
treelover said:
No sense of awareness it was NL who have created the climate for such attitudes, 'benefit scroungers' weren't hardly on the radar in the early 90's.
Click to expand...
please don't talk shit
The Guardian (London)
May 29, 1991
Soundbites

LENGTH: 136 words

- IF YOU stood in elections in this country you would win them 10 times in a row.

Moscow student to Margaret Thatcher



- HI! I'm an M-15 and I'm going down Second Avenue to City Hall.



New York Transit Authority's first talking bus
- THOSE who are loud in their condemnation of benefit 'scroungers' do not regard tax evasion on a massive scale by the more affluent classes in the same light.

Bishop of Manchester

- MR JOHN BIFFEN is clearly in the wrong party. Has he thought of joining the socialists? He could always carry Neil Kinnock's briefcase.

The Sun

- THEY should give Ethiopians the chance to have back the new Lion of Judah, Emperor Amha Selassie. He is waiting to take up his rightful position as Ethiopia's constitutional monarch.

Letter to the Daily Telegraph
 
Last edited:
treelover
The Guardian (London)
August 11, 1992
LETTER: BAD SPORT

BYLINE: SARA PARKIN

SECTION: THE GUARDIAN FEATURES PAGE; Pg. 16

LENGTH: 184 words

I SEE the season in which junior ministers are allowed to practice their art by taking pot shots at cheap and easy targets is upon us once more. But for Nicholas Scott to cite "so called new age" travellers as an example of benefit scroungers is like tethering grouse before shooting at them.

Putting aside the point that actively seeking work at a time of high and rising unemployment can be soul-destroying, it is unlikely that a higher percentage of "travellers" are seeking to defraud the social security system than any other group of unemployed people.

If Mr Scott wants to train to be a grown-up Secretary of State perhaps he would be better occupied working out how to get benefit to the many people who need it, but for one reason or another don't claim it. He should also prepare to explain to the next generation of pensioners why, because of the declining economy of Britain and elsewhere, they are unlikely to get more than the tiniest percentage of what they believe their pension is worth.

Sara Parkin.

Green Party Executive,

Balham High Road,

London SW12.
 
Last edited:
treelover
Daily Mail (London)
March 5, 1993, Friday
WELFARE BUDGET CUTS MAY TARGET SICK AND ELDERLY;
CRACKDOWN ON BENEFIT SCROUNGERS

BYLINE: Gordon Greig

SECTION: Pg. 2

LENGTH: 1120 words

A BLITZ on welfare spending will see a clamp on rising bills for sick benefits and the cost of caring for the elderly.

Ministers are also considering charging patients for hospital care.

They could be means-tested after treatment to see if they are able to help towards the cost of beds, food and drugs.

The aim of the planned austerity package - expected to take shape in this year's second Budget in December - is to save £2billion on next year's £34billion health spending and at least £4billion on the £70billion social security programme.



Tight controls will be put on invalidity benefits and private care homes for the elderly, both big drains on state funds. Sickness benefit claimants could face a second opinion on their health and availability for work before qualifying for hand-outs.
The vetting process may be taken out of the hands of GPs with the creation of assessment panels to sort the scroungers from those who are genuinely ill. Taxing the benefit is also under consideration.

Ministers are concerned that some family doctors are 'signing on' unemployed workers to give them more money. It can make a difference of up to £100 a week if someone out of work receives a sickness certificate. With 1.5million people claiming £6.5billion a year, the benefit is the fastest growing item in welfare spending.

Cost-cutting could also involve 'ring fencing' subsidies now being poured into the mushrooming private care industry for the elderly.

Ministers believe the system has turned into a big rip-off of benefit cash. In 14 years, the bill has rocketed from £10million to £2.5billion as old people have moved into private residential care at up to £300 a week.

Health authorities and local councils would receive money for care direct from central Government with the message that they could cut bills by two-thirds by providing services to the sick or elderly in their own homes and so shifting responsibility to families.

The most radical scheme being discussed, however, is that which involves charging some hospital patients. While medical services will remain free, Ministers claim there is a case for means-testing to assess who can afford to contribute to the cost of their care.

Patients might be asked to pay the equivalent of what they would spend at home.

The first step will be to show individuals how much their treatment has cost to underline huge amounts being sunk into the NHS.

But ultimately, it might lead to a call for payment by the better off. A basic £30 a week for occupying a hospital bed is being mentioned in Whitehall.

One Whitehall source said: 'The health service is awash with money but we don't seem to have any political control of where it is going.'

The crackdown will provoke another political storm about the Government's motives in the light of this week's announcement of a 50p rise in prescription charges, up to £4.25 an item from April 1.

Health Secretary Virginia Bottomley denies the health and social security services are under attack more than ever. She points out that one-third of the £245billion Whitehall budget now goes on welfare.

But there are going to be savings, and she has ordered a review of every item on the Health Department bill.

Ministers are looking at privatisation of meals on wheels and other community care services now costing £1.2billion a year. They are also considering curbing the £15-£20million spent on the AIDS industry, where it is claimed there are more workers than sufferers.

They have been alarmed to discover that the last Labour Government did a better job on squeezing welfare services, although the Tories have been left with all the blame. Under Labour, for instance, two in five people had to pay for prescriptions. Now it is down to one in five.

A review is going on into the categories of people who receive free health treatment as a right.
 
Last edited:
and finally treelover
Daily Mail (London)
August 16, 1993, Monday
Lilley declares war on £1billion cheats

BYLINE: John Deans

SECTION: Pg. 11

LENGTH: 587 words

A BLITZ on benefit scroungers has been ordered by the Government.

It comes after investigators uncovered more than £500million worth of social security fraud nationwide.



Social Services Secretary Peter Lilley has asked agents to redouble their efforts and prevent £1billion being lost in the year ahead.
He declared: 'We owe it to those in real need, and the taxpayer, to crack down on this selfish form of crime.'

The offensive was announced after Mr Lilley released figures showing that anti-fraud agents saved the state £558million in the year ending March.

Most of this involved 270,000 people who were trying to cheat the system by claiming income support, child and housing benefits to which they were not entitled.

Mr Lilley also plans to launch a publicity campaign urging the public to report anyone suspected of making false claims. And the DSS is introducing more sophisticated computer systems to try to stamp out fraud.

In the longer term, officials are studying plans for special cards to be issued with National Insurance numbers to prevent false identities being used to obtain state aid.

Most fraud involves those with cash-in-hand jobs claiming benefits such as dole money.

Employment Secretary David Hunt revealed last week that 780 agents had exposed 60,000 dole cheats, saving the taxpayer £45million.

The main areas of fraud involve income support, invalidity benefit, child benefit and housing benefit.

Examples of cheats include a group of mini-cab drivers from Gravesend, Kent, who were discovered making false claims for income support. Investigators ended the activities of 59 fraudsters, saving £215,000.

Investigators also swooped on a ten-man gang in South-East London which used 17 different identities to claim £750,000 in benefits.
 
Last edited:
and lest we forget the 1980s
The Times (London)
July 21 1987, Tuesday
Unemployment benefit fraud: Pantomime scenes on the waterfront

BYLINE: RONALD FAUX

SECTION: Issue 62826.

LENGTH: 596 words

Mr Nigel Lawson, Chancellor of the Exchequer, has said that more than a million people registered as unemployed are not looking for work and that a number are doing casual work in the black economy. Ronald Faux, Employment Affairs Correspondent, joined a Department of Employment fraud team investigating seasonal workers in the North Yorkshire holiday resort of Scarborough.

The lads from the pancrack were sending shockwaves along thefish quay. 'We've been spotted', Paul said, 'the word's gone down that quay like greased lightening'.





The four members of the regional fraud squad from the Department of Employment, or pancrack (north country colloquial for unemployment benefit), pulled out their notebooks and started to jot down names.
Not that the fish filleters were necessarily doing anything wrong. The names would be checked against local benefit office lists and others stored in computers, and woe betide anyone found to be filleting fish while drawing benefit.

The same applied to workers in the amusement archades along Scarborough seafront: a surreptitious head count, a list of names and further investigations if warranted.

The problem of seaside benefit scroungers is common to all large resorts that take on temporary staff for the busy period. The manager of one arcade told me: 'It's fair enough they should check, I suppose, and it certainly puts the fear of God up some folk. I've known them vanish in a flash, like demons in a pantomime'.

Mr John Holt, manager of the regional fraud team, said it received a lot of information about people who were cheating the system. It came mainly from people who resented paying taxes while others they knew were escaping the Inland Revenue and also drawing benefit.

Those running legitimate businesses who had to compete with firms employing people 'on the side' were especially resentful and likely to point the finger.

'The problem often seems to go in groups. One person will start to cheat and the thing spreads until it becomes a kind of legitimate sin, with so many people on the fiddle that it no longer feels to be like breaking the law. On the other hand, I've known people get so uptight as they get deeper and deeper into fraud that they actually thank me when they are caught', Mr Holt said.

The team, generally known in the area as the lads from the pancrack, has met resentment, although rarely violence, during its purges. It pursues a deliberate policy of polite non-confrontation, although its members share an interest in body building.

Paul was the keenest, and the biggest. If a difficult interview seemed likely he generally went in first. But the team's greatest strength is its deterrent effect. During a purge the word gets around and people who should not be signing on rapidly sign off.

A national total of 329,493 investigations last year yielded only 2,496 prosecutions, but the saving in social security payments has been calculated at Pounds 40.13 million. The maximum penalty for falsely claiming benefit is a Pounds 2,000 fine and/or three months in prison on each charge.

All members of the fraud team are volunteers from the Department of Employment. The main qualifications are a good background knowledge of how the social security system works and no reluctance to confront people.

'We have had some funny cases. The last time we were in Scarborough, the whole team were out in a group in a hotel and a commercial photographer took our picture. The same man turned up next day to draw his dole. He picked the wrong group.'
 
Last edited:
The Guardian (London)
June 6, 1989
Changes in 'war' against social security fraud

BYLINE: By DAVID BRINDLE, Social Services Correspondent

LENGTH: 669 words

Key changes have been made in what is counted as social security fraud in a move which is expected to enable ministers to claim a big increase in the money recouped from so-called benefit scroungers.

The changes allow the 3,900 Department of Social Security fraud investigators to claim extra savings towards the cash targets they are set as a measure of cost effectiveness.

The department said yesterday that the changes were minimal and unlikely to have any significant impact on fraud totals. Some fraud officers, however, are reporting sudden increases in their performance.



Mr Bob Bruce, a fraud officer at the Redcar benefit office in Cleveland, told the recent annual conference of the National Union of Civil and Public Servants that the average 'weekly benefit savings' for each officer in his region in March had been Pounds 168.86.
In April, after the fraud guidelines were changed, his own figure had been Pounds 4,344.19.

Mr Bruce told the conference: 'I doubt if my performance improved that much over a four-week period.

'It is easy in these circumstances to thinks that fraud is everywhere, when in fact the vast majority of claimants are honest.'

Revision of the fraud guidelines is part of a bid drive by the DSS to give a higher profile to its fraud detection work. In past years, its achievements have been outshone by those of the Department of Employment, even though the latter recoups only a quarter as much money.

Ministers are expected to announce shortly that in 1988-89 the DSS comfortably beat its savings target of Pounds 240 million, set after savings of Pounds 196 million in 1987-88.

These totals are arrived at by multiplying recorded fraudulent claim savings by 32 to represent the average time the claim would have continued if undetected. This multiplier system is unchanged.

However, the revised guidelines loosen considerably the former restrictions on what a fraud officer should count as a saving.

They state: 'A benefit saving can be justified if there is sufficient doubt about the genuineness of a claim to lead to the conclusion that continuation of that claim would have resulted in a loss to public funds.'

This can pertain if an 'irregularity' - not necessarily proven fraud - has occurred.

Under the old guidelines, a saving could be counted only if it resulted 'directly from the efforts of fraud specialists'.

The new guidelines say that a saving should not be discounted merely because specialised fraud techniques were not required to achieve it. 'What matters is that action in some form must be taken by fraud staff, amounting to an intervention, eg., by telephone call, visit, interview or other inquiry, to terminate or prevent an irregularity.'

Similarly, while it was clear in the old guidelines that payment of benefit had to be stopped or reduced to trigger a saving, the new version allows officers to claim notional savings.

For example, an investigation may discover that the wife of a claimant is working part-time without him declaring her earnings.

If she then stops working, but the husband continues to claim full benefit, the officer can claim a saving equivalent to a notional overpayment.

In addition, changes have been made in the calculation of savings when fraudulent encashment of a Girocheque or order book is prevented.

Previously, Girocheques were not counted at all; now, the guidelines state that the face value is to be added in. Before, the value of only one weekly order was counted when a stolen book was retrieved; now, the entire book is taken into account.

The DSS said the only change of principle involved in the new guidelines was that relating to notional savings: other changes were at the margin or were clarifications of existing principles.

Ms Tess Gill, senior NUCPS officer for social security, said: 'This is deceit on the part of the department, trying to make the taxpayers think that they are saving more money than they in fact are.'
 
Last edited:
treelover said:
yet another one, and she calls herself a socialist.
Click to expand...
It's quite astounding how clueless these people are. Consider this quote:

' An economy that has too many people needing support from the state is an economy that is failing. '

The whole damn economy depends on support from the state! To not see that glaringly obvious fact is pretty astounding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Larry O'Hara
Chancellor Rachel Reeves: Her Time Is Up!
8 9 10 11 12
Replies
342
Views
14K
rasputin
R
Sasaferrato
Can anyone shed any light on this? Rachel Reeve's lies.
2 3
Replies
74
Views
4K
keybored
keybored
Pickman's model
rachel reeves: plagiarist
2 3 4
Replies
119
Views
5K
brogdale
brogdale
hash tag
Blind Date in the Guardian
2
Replies
48
Views
3K
MickiQ
MickiQ
V
Hooray,hooray,hooray; we're Tory free today
Replies
0
Views
256
vanya
V
Back
Top Bottom