Sometimes an idea gets purchase and is very hard to shift. For example, under Labour, during the economic boom, the numbers of people on welfare plummeted.
That is only true for those on the unemployment benefit.
But here are two examples of recent statements supporting this erroneous idea. Remember too that the reforms in the spotlight this week relate primarily to the DPB, so the reader assumes that when commentators refer to beneficiaries they mean those under discussion.
Duncan Garner:
Labour reduced the numbers of people on benefits drastically in 2004/05 when the economy was going gangbusters.
Gordon Campbell:
Less than ten years ago, a booming economy had reduced beneficiary numbers to historical lows.
Are either of these statements supported by the following graph?
(Click on the graph because it is difficult to see the grey shaded area that represents the unemployment benefit).
4 comments:
It just goes to show that there's only one way to end unemployment and bludging
stop paying the money
Of course this graph misses the biggest bludger-populations of all --- kids at school, and codger-bludgers on super --- both of whom also use up vast amounts of health dollars.
Where are they on your graph, Lindsay?
And them in an it's clear: Ruth greatly reduced the benefit spend, and Hellen massively increased it.
Thanks for pointing to that, Lindsay. When I saw the Gordon Campbell column, I was near-certain I'd seen before that Labour had just bumped people from unemployment to disability to juke the stats, but I couldn't find it quickly. Now I can point to it. Thanks!
Is grey the unemployment benefit or the widows' benefit?
Unemployment. I put the reference for the graph at Campbell's blog in the comments section.
Post a Comment