Tory leadership hopeful attacks 'reckless rhetoric' of Farage over riots

[Borg Refinery]

The reckless rhetoric of the Tories over many, many years is equally to blame, but they have 0 self-awareness

[papasmurf]

Ah, a useful link which provides some info about people in work. Pity it's so badly presented in a thread about Farage and riots.
Off topic baloney.

ADMIN

Deleted due to continued off topic posting. 

[Nick]

Ah, a useful link which provides some info about people in work. Pity it's so badly presented in a thread about Farage and riots.
Off topic baloney.

Good point. 

[papasmurf]

Data analysis, If it posts:-

Your Data - Nomis - Official Census and Labour Market Statistics (nomisweb.co.uk)

[papasmurf]

It's in Smurfs first link, there are 9 million left after all the reasons have been taken away.

No there are not Nick, there are 3.6 million left.

[papasmurf]

Precisely nothing, see my other posts above.
Why post a graph that you don't understand?

I do understand it Nick. However you seem to be having problems.

[papasmurf]

No, the 30% is after all the reasons have been taken away.

But it is not the 100% that is being implied. It is 3600000. (Who are not all available for work either.)

[Nick]

Precisely. Which frankly the media/press/gobby pundits, and Labour are NOT pointing out. They ALL imply there are 9 or 10 million "scroungers," available for work. Such lies and propaganda are NOT being challenged.

Precisely nothing, see my other posts above. 
Why post a graph that you don't understand?

[Nick]

It would be helpful if there was some indication of any of these (or all of them) groups claiming benefits . Because if they are not its nobody's business but theirs . Or are these the numbers that are claiming ?

It's in Smurfs first link, there are 9 million left after all the reasons have been taken away. 

[Nick]

They are economically inactive for varying reasons:

https://articles.obr.uk/trends-in-labour-market-inactivity-for-caring-purposes/index.html

No, the 30% is after all the reasons have been taken away. 

[Barry]

Ah, a useful link which provides some info about people in work. Pity it's so badly presented in a thread about Farage and riots.
Off topic baloney.

[papasmurf]

It would be helpful if there was some indication of any of these (or all of them) groups claiming benefits . Because if they are not its nobody's business but theirs . Or are these the numbers that are claiming ?

Information here, more at link:-


Understanding_benefits_report_2023-1.pdf (learningandwork.org.uk)


Almost 5.5 million people receive out-of-work benefits, 13% of the working-age population and back to rates seen in the early 2000s. Almost half is due to long-term sickness and disability, which rose through the pandemic after falling in previous decades. Rates of benefit receipt are driven by a combination of benefit rules, economic conditions, employer attitudes and public services like health, skills etc. Assessing the number of people receiving out-of-work benefits is more challenging than might be expected. There are still a range of out-of-work benefits, although Universal Credit will consolidate some of these over time. In addition, benefit rules, levels and eligibility vary over time, meaning we are not always comparing like with like. Nonetheless, it is possible to get a picture of who was eligible for and claiming different benefits over time using DWP's benefit combinations dataset. We look at the number of people in receipt of at least one out-of-work benefit. But these numbers only tell part of the story. We also need to look at the reasons people are receiving out-of-work benefits. Generally these are grouped into three categories: • Unemployment-related. People who are required to search for and accept available work. This group has widened as Universal Credit has encompassed more benefits that didn't have these requirements, and as the age of youngest child at which lead carers are required to search for work (see below) has fallen. • Caring responsibilities. People who are not required to search for work (but may be required to plan or prepare for work) due to caring for young children or others. This has narrowed over time as, for example, lone parents with progressively younger children were required to search for work (dropping from 16 to 2). But it has widened with the rollout of Universal Credit which requires couple households to designate a lead carer (where previously the focus would mostly have been on the main claimant) building on the previous introduction of joint claims for two adult households in some benefits. • Health and disability. People who are not required to search for work (but may be required to plan or prepare for work) due to sickness or disability. This is currently assessed by a Work Capability Assessment which looks at whether people could actively seek work now, could do some preparation for work, or should not be required to do anything. It also identifies when this should be reassessed. Prior to the introduction of Universal Credit, there were (broadly speaking) separate benefits for each category (though, of course, with some overlap): Jobseeker's Allowance for unemployed people; Income Support primarily for lone parents (though with others eligible too and a disability premium available); and Employment Support Allowance and its predecessors for people with health problems and disabilities

[Streetwalker]

They are economically inactive for varying reasons:

https://articles.obr.uk/trends-in-labour-market-inactivity-for-caring-purposes/index.html

It would be helpful if there was some indication of any of these (or all of them) groups claiming benefits . Because if they are not its nobody's business but theirs . Or are these the numbers that are claiming ?

[papasmurf]

They are economically inactive for varying reasons:

Precisely. Which frankly the media/press/gobby pundits, and Labour are NOT pointing out. They ALL imply there are 9 or 10 million "scroungers," available for work. Such lies and propaganda are NOT being challenged.

[Borg Refinery]

That shows 30% of non-employed people are economically inactive. Unless you provide the figures from GBNews I can't comment on whether it's untrue.

EDIT

Just done a quick calc using the graph and I get about 8.4 million people economically inactive, so I'm guessing actually using the data could be 9 million. What's your point?

They are economically inactive for varying reasons:

https://articles.obr.uk/trends-in-labour-market-inactivity-for-caring-purposes/index.html