Quote:
Originally Posted by wraymond
For some, the commitment to a view is deadly serious while to others the same subject is not only boring but banned (!). In these days of deceit, the wilful refusal to bend and the ever-present sanction of censorship, it’s not surprising that clashes arise. Deservedly, all trust has gone.
At one time, when wider knowledge was limited to the ‘upper’ classes, they got away with it. Then Wat Tyler et al came along and spoiled everything. Oscar Ameringer (Socialist organiser) had it about right when he said the ‘Pol’ word was the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich by promising to protect each from the other. He meant it.
So, hence my preferred route through the maze of respected outlets for balanced views on news that might be disputed. I know I’ve changed my own mind on some things through seeking wider perspectives.
Which is why I wonder why my earlier post (number 7) has received neither criticism nor acceptance in what I thought was a valid reply to the OP. I’m not trying to persuade anybody of anything, just offering evidence - whilst at the same time trying to avert premature closure. If evidence is undisputed what's the point?
|
Your fact checker in black and white is perhaps correct, but, how these figures are gathered and differ between then and now, are not disclosed. Are people who claim whatever the current name for DLA is, counted on these unemployment figures? In the 70's I have been led to believe that to meet the requirements to obtain the 70s equivalent was much more stringent, therefore more unemployed. Nowadays if you stub your toe you can get it (am not complaining about those who deserve/need it by the way). So therefore those people are no longer unemployed ........
In the 70's retirement age was 60 and 65, so those of pension age were not counted, yet now these figures have changed (currently 66 and 66), along with the school leaving age being more common at 15/16 before, whereas now it is 18, yet I dont believe this is actually counted until 19, at which point you have more people I believe in university, so they dont count, even though some of those will work and pay tax (which will skew the figures).
Another potential anomaly (on a much smaller scale) to consider, is in the 80s and 90s, the benefits system was a lot more open for abuse, which would affect the numbers the opposite direction when perhaps those who 'did the double' (claiming and working at the same time). So back then, the unemployment rate may have been lower than it was in the 70s.
I am not saying they are wrong, nor have I got an inclination to find out, but there simply are too many variables in terms of measurements to make it a worthwhile declaration aside for the feel good factor (which there is nothing wrong with either!).