I understand the need to cut big bills. I understand the government looking at benefits. I understand that I don't need child tax credits and I', earning way less that the magic £50,000.
What I don't understand is some of the spinning used to justify certain cuts. There ought to be some theology in there to help politicians work out what is right to cut and what is right to increase.
For example, limiting benefit rise to 1% is something like a 73p increase on the benefit. It's capped at 1% because benefits should rise more than wages. But 1% of the average ways is rather a lot more than 73p. The spin doctors make up a headline we all agree with but the details are rather different.
Also it is spun to make it look everyone who lives on a benefit as someone who is on the fiddle is rather corrupt. You can do anything with statistics Political Scrapbook offers its own spin:
Perhaps Iain Duncan Smith and his DWP spinners would benefit from some context. The £1.1 billion cost of fraud (a modest 0.7% of the total benefits spend) averages out to £59 across 18.5 million claimants.* In contrast, MPs were ordered to pay back £1.2 million in the wake of Thomas Legg’s inquiry into expenses, an average of £1,858 for the 646 members of the Commons.
According to a TUC poll the proportion of the welfare budget that is claimed fraudulently is 27%. It is actually 0.7%. The same poll tells us that people think that the portion of the welfare budget that goes on benefits to unemployed people is 41%. In truth it is 3%. (Independent Newspaper)
Again you can do anything you like with statistics but it does make us think again about our perception and reality. The bigger question is about what we can afford, and what we need to afford and how as a community (that's everyone) we support each other which more simply put but someone else: love your neighbour.
Recent Comments