Lying Liars? | Vital Football

Lying Liars?

Innispurs

Vital 1st Team Regular
An excellent piece from the Independent, arguing a point I have made myself very often on this site, showing the danger of believing politician 'spin' or Daily Mail scare stories.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/immigration-crime-benefits-everything-you-know-about-the-state-of-the-nation-is-wrong-8697574.html



The Independent




Ally Fogg

Tuesday 9 July 2013
Immigration, crime, benefits: Everything you know about the state of the nation is wrong

The world we think we live in simply does not exist, and the media and politicians share the blame


A survey by the Royal Statistical Society has today revealed the vast disparity between what the British public believes to be the state of the nation, and the actual reality reflected by sober official statistics.

It may not be surprising that people are sometimes rather skewiff in their assessments of some issues, but the gulf between perceptions and reality are quite staggeringly wide. The implications for politics and governance are profound.

To pick out just some of the survey findings, on average we think teenage pregnancy rates are 25 times higher than they are. A large majority of the public believe crime is constant or rising, when official surveys show there were 53 per cent fewer incidents in 2012 than in 1995. People overestimate the amount of benefit fraud 34 times over, believing the rate to be 24 per cent of the total benefits bill. The true figure is 0.7 per cent. When people were asked to select from a list which government policy would save most money, a third selected capping benefits at £26k, more than twice as many as selected raising the pension age to 66 for both men and women. The actual savings from a benefit cap would be £290m. Savings from raising the pension age would be £5bn, or about 20 times greater.

More than a quarter of people believe foreign aid is one of the top two or three items of government spending - indeed more people pick this as the top item of government expenditure than pick pensions or education, despite those being 74 times and 51 times larger respectively. The average member of the public believes 24 per cent of the British population is Muslim. It is actually five per cent. Average estimates of the total immigrant population are two to three times higher than reality.

It is tempting to attribute this to the straightforward mendacity of politicians and the media, in the memorable phrase of US writer-turned-Senator Al Franken, lies and the lying liars who tell them. There is certainly no shortage of examples. Ministers like Iain Duncan Smith and Jeremy Hunt – not to mention Harriet Harman before them – have been repeatedly rebuked by their own statistics watchdog for issuing false or misleading statistical claims. Meanwhile the manifold failings of print and broadcast journalists keep fact-checking sites like the essential Full Fact busy on a daily basis.

This, however, is only a small part of the problem. Apart from anything else, the public have long since given up on believing a single word spilling from the lips of a politician. Indeed, this may be one important root of the problem. Cynicism over economic figures or crime statistics is endemic, and for good reason. However the poison has spread so far that even dependable, meaningful research findings are assumed to come straight from the office of Walter Mitty.

The real issue is not the sin of dishonesty but the sin of omission. News reporters will relay incidents of violent crime or benefit fraud without any attempt at providing context or evaluation of scale, and it is not just the right wing tabloids that are responsible. The liberal and centre-left media will, for example, report frighteningly high numbers of domestic violence incidents without ever mentioning that, horrific though they remain, the numbers fallen by 69 per cent over the past two decades.

Being statisticians, the RSS have inevitably called for better public education on statistics, particularly in schools. Though this would certainly be welcome on its own terms, I’m not sure it gets to the heart of the problem. It is not that the public do not understand the difference between a median and a mean or think that a confidence interval is something Andy Murray takes between games. It is not that the public doesn’t understand the statistics, it is that they are virtually never told the statistics in the first place. Consequently, our impressions of society are formed by looking at individual factoids and scare stories as if through a long thin tube, only ever seeing a snapshot rather than the full panorama. We then depend upon cognitive biases and heuristics to fill in the gaping blank spaces.

What is lacking here is not education in statistics, but an education in media studies and political science. Politicians and media figures regularly bemoan the cynicism of the public, and widespread disengagement from the issues. Today’s research is a reminder that the public, in truth, are nowhere near cynical enough. It is public credulity that is the problem, not scepticism. If the political classes truly wish the British public to re-engage with democracy, their first step is obvious. Start telling us the truth, and the whole truth.

© independent.co.uk
 
Interesting read but not surprising. Politicians and the media only tell you what they want you to hear to support their current agenda.

How can you tell when a politician is lying?....his lips move.
 
5 % is 3 million, that's more Muslims than I thought. I wonder what percentage of the 3 million are or are potential radicals. ?
 
Apply rigour in your assessemnt and use your own commonsense, and where you can rely upon on info from established and independent bodies - do that and you won't go far wrong..

As for the rest, it never surprises me how politicians manipulate information or statistics (which are always open to interpretation)..

What never surprises me, is how little the general public retain or how few questions they ask.

For example, I've been saying since 2008 that the people need to be told the truth about this financial crisis, it's real roots and the EU's role in it all and also that it would last decades...which of course has now been finally admitted..yet, still people just shrug their shoulders and refuse to understand the implications for their own futures or their childrens..
 
This from Richard Murphy at Tax Research UK. I can't post the table that he reproduces so if you are interested in his argument, go to the link below. The figures he uses are from the government's own Office for National Statistics (ONS) which we can usually rely on not to be 'lying liars'. The interpretation is Murphy's, of course.


http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2013/07/11/the-inequality-of-the-uk-tax-system/

The inequality of the UK tax system
Posted on July 11 2013

The ONS report on ‘The Effects of Taxes and Benefits on Household Income, 2011/12‘ shows just how unfair UK tax is, in one table:

Screen shot 2013-07-11 at 15.40.56

As is obvious from the first line of this table, the income tax system in the UK is progressive. The amount of income tax and national insurance paid increases as income rises, but do note for this purpose that people are split into just five bands – and that means that the top band covers all higher rate tax payers and quite a lot of other people too – and the true tax paid by the really wealthy is not reflected in this survey.

More telling is the next line. Indirect taxes – so much loved by the current government and many tax theorists at UK universities - like VAT, alcohol duty and so on impact most on the poorest. That is something I have long argued.

Put these together and you see that the group with the highest tax rates in the UK are the poorest – paying more of their income overall than the most well off, quite astonishingly.

The reason is clear as the last two lines show – and that is that as a part of their spending indirect taxes have a much higher impact on this group and their capacity to spend – despite the zero-rating and exemption fo so called essential items.

The result is a very clear social injustice being perpetuated by the UK’s tax system that the attack on social security benefits only exacerbates.



- See more at: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2013/07/11/the-inequality-of-the-uk-tax-system/#sthash.Di337AbC.DSCXj7H0.dpuf
 
Yet research today shows that the 'gap' between the have's and the have not's has never been smaller..

Afraid his conclusions are arbitary and selective, and to that extent it's inexcusable to slew conclusions the way he has, it's quite easy to be objective about the true state of taxation in this country; a better and more objective read is this:

http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn09.pdf

It's worth noting:

"Of a UK adult population of around 51.4 million, it is estimated that therewill be 29.7 million taxpayers in 2012–13. Around 3.8 million of these willpay tax at the higher rate, providing 36.5% of total income tax revenue...."


" and 307,000 taxpayers will pay tax at the additional rate, providing 24.6% of total income tax revenue."


But, after all that you either understand that penalising our brightest and most productive is counter-productive (which the facts support) or you dont....the higher you tax bright people and businesses who can be easily mobile, the less you collect.

That said, our tax system is now ridiculously complex and could be greatly simplified.
 
That is why the original article is such a good piece of information. It applies to all journalism. Shape the story to your own ends.....or the entity that is supplying you with the fodder. So Innis, your info is as suspect as anything else.
 
That gap. The decrease was down to the impact of Labour's tax credits among other things and when this appalling government's wholesale attack on the poor works it way through the system, watch that gap widen again!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/thats-a-surprise-gap-between-britains-richest-and-poorest-now-smallest-for-a-generation-8701049.html

80, the article on tax is by Richard Murphy, I acknowledge that. He runs the Tax Research UK website and is a strong supporter of country by country reporting to ensure transnational corporations pay the tax they should. He is an opponent of austerity and this is well known. He merely points out that the government's own statistics show that the least well off in the UK pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. The statistics show that, you draw the conclusions you want about it. The info is only suspect if you suspect the ONS. It's their info, not mine!
 
Innispurs - 11/7/2013 19:19

That gap. The decrease was down to the impact of Labour's tax credits among other things and when this appalling government's wholesale attack on the poor works it way through the system, watch that gap widen again!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/thats-a-surprise-gap-between-britains-richest-and-poorest-now-smallest-for-a-generation-8701049.html


80, the article on tax is by Richard Murphy, I acknowledge that. He runs the Tax Research UK website and is a strong supporter of country by country reporting to ensure transnational corporations pay the tax they should. He is an opponent of austerity and this is well known. He merely points out that the government's own statistics show that the least well off in the UK pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. The statistics show that, you draw the conclusions you want about it. The info is only suspect if you suspect the ONS. It's their info, not mine!



Actually, if you want to apportion 'credit', then a simple analysis of the ONS statsitics makes it clear the single biggest factor by both monetary value and by percentage was the Libs policy on income tax - the tax credit for child support only made a small impact on a proportion of benefit claimaints...

In any event, Richard Murphy really should have known better, it doesn't behove him to draw such shabby conclusions.
 
Spursex - 11/7/2013 20:20

Innispurs - 11/7/2013 19:19

That gap. The decrease was down to the impact of Labour's tax credits among other things and when this appalling government's wholesale attack on the poor works it way through the system, watch that gap widen again!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/thats-a-surprise-gap-between-britains-richest-and-poorest-now-smallest-for-a-generation-8701049.html


80, the article on tax is by Richard Murphy, I acknowledge that. He runs the Tax Research UK website and is a strong supporter of country by country reporting to ensure transnational corporations pay the tax they should. He is an opponent of austerity and this is well known. He merely points out that the government's own statistics show that the least well off in the UK pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. The statistics show that, you draw the conclusions you want about it. The info is only suspect if you suspect the ONS. It's their info, not mine!



Actually, if you want to apportion 'credit', then a simple analysis of the ONS statsitics makes it clear the single biggest factor by both monetary value and by percentage was the Libs policy on income tax - the tax credit for child support only made a small impact on a proportion of benefit claimaints...

In any event, Richard Murphy really should have known better, it doesn't behove him to draw such shabby conclusions.

Yes, Ex let's give the Lib Dems some credit - boy do they need it. As the article says:

"The statistics authority partly attributed the change to the steady increase at the rate at which workers are liable for income tax, which has been a key Liberal Democrat policy.

It also pointed to increases under the last Labour Government to National Insurance rates, by which higher-paid employees were more affected, and to child tax credits, which boosted the incomes of the worst-off."

In the interests of balance ...
 
Innispurs - 11/7/2013 20:40

Spursex - 11/7/2013 20:20

Innispurs - 11/7/2013 19:19

That gap. The decrease was down to the impact of Labour's tax credits among other things and when this appalling government's wholesale attack on the poor works it way through the system, watch that gap widen again!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/thats-a-surprise-gap-between-britains-richest-and-poorest-now-smallest-for-a-generation-8701049.html


80, the article on tax is by Richard Murphy, I acknowledge that. He runs the Tax Research UK website and is a strong supporter of country by country reporting to ensure transnational corporations pay the tax they should. He is an opponent of austerity and this is well known. He merely points out that the government's own statistics show that the least well off in the UK pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. The statistics show that, you draw the conclusions you want about it. The info is only suspect if you suspect the ONS. It's their info, not mine!



Actually, if you want to apportion 'credit', then a simple analysis of the ONS statsitics makes it clear the single biggest factor by both monetary value and by percentage was the Libs policy on income tax - the tax credit for child support only made a small impact on a proportion of benefit claimaints...

In any event, Richard Murphy really should have known better, it doesn't behove him to draw such shabby conclusions.

Yes, Ex let's give the Lib Dems some credit - boy do they need it. As the article says:

"The statistics authority partly attributed the change to the steady increase at the rate at which workers are liable for income tax, which has been a key Liberal Democrat policy.

It also pointed to increases under the last Labour Government to National Insurance rates, by which higher-paid employees were more affected, and to child tax credits, which boosted the incomes of the worst-off."

In the interests of balance ...

At the risk of repeating myself, I did conceed and give the small 'credit' that they were due - but they blew all our 'credit' in the process, so that trumps Brown's plus points by an avalanche.
 
' ... but they blew all our 'credit' in the process, so that trumps Brown's plus points by an avalanche'.

Even that old chestnut, Ex, is no longer tenable. This from a Tory with a conscience:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ramesh-patel/growth-cameron-austerity_b_2007552.html



Finally! Exposed! The Deficit Myth! So, David Cameron When Are You Going to Apologise?
Posted: 24/10/2012 07:33
Ramesh Patel

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on"
- Winston Churchill

As a Conservative I have no pleasure in exposing David Cameron's deficit claims. However, as long as the party continues to talk down the economy via the blame game, confidence will not be given an opportunity to return. For it is an undeniable and inescapable economic fact: without confidence and certainty there can be no real growth.

Below are the three deficit claims - the mess. The evidence comes from the IMF, OECD, OBR, HM Treasury, ONS and even George Osborne. The claims put into context are:

CLAIM 1
The last government left the biggest debt in the developed world.

After continuously stating the UK had the biggest debt in the world George Osborne admits to the Treasury Select Committee that he did not know the UK had the lowest debt in the G7? Watch: Also, confirmed by the OECD Those who use cash terms (instead of percentages) do so to scare, mislead and give half the story.

Its common sense, in cash terms a millionaire's debt would be greater than most people. Therefore, the UK would have a higher debt and deficit than most countries because, we are the sixth largest economy. Hence, its laughable to compare UK's debt and deficit with Tuvalu's who only have a GDP/Income of £24 million whilst, the UK's income is £1.7 Trillion.

Finally, Labour in 1997 inherited a debt of 42% of GDP. By the start of the global banking crises 2008 the debt had fallen to 35% - a near 22% reduction page 6 ONS Surprisingly, a debt of 42% was not seen as a major problem and yet at 35% the sky was falling down?

CLAIM 2
Labour created the biggest deficit in the developed world by overspending.

Firstly, the much banded about 2010 deficit of over 11% is false. This is the PSNB (total borrowings) and not the actual budget deficit which was -7.7% - OBR Economic and Fiscal Outlook March 2012 page 19 table 1.2

Secondly, in 1997 Labour inherited a deficit of 3.9% of GDP (not a balanced budget ) and by 2008 it had fallen to 2.1% - a reduction of a near 50% - Impressive! Hence, it's implausible and ludicrous to claim there was overspending. The deficit was then exacerbated by the global banking crises after 2008. See HM Treasury. Note, the 1994 deficit of near 8% haaaaaah!

Thirdly, the IMF have also concluded the same. They reveal the UK experienced an increase in the deficit as result of a large loss in output/GDP caused by the global banking crisis and not even as result of the bank bailouts, fiscal stimulus and bringing forward of capital spending. It's basic economics: when output falls the deficit increases.

Finally, the large loss in output occurred because the UK like the US have the biggest financial centres and as this was a global banking crises we suffered the most. Hence, the UK had the 2nd highest deficit in the G7 (Not The World) after the US and not as a result of overspending prior to and after 2008- as the IMF concur.

CLAIM 3
Our borrowing costs are low because the markets have confidence in George Osborne's austerity plan and without it the UK will end up like Greece.

Yes, the markets have confidence in our austerity plan and that's why PIMCO the worlds largest bond holder have been warning against buying UK debt.

The real reason why our borrowing costs have fallen and remained low since 2008 is because, savings have increased. As a result, the demand and price for bonds have increased and as there is inverse relationship between the price of bonds and its yield (interest rate) the rates have fallen. Also, the markets expect the economy to remain stagnate. Which means the price for bonds will remain high and hence, our borrowing costs will also remain low.

Secondly, the UK is considered a safe heaven because, investors are reassured the Bank of England will buy up bonds in an event of any sell off - which increases the price of bonds and reduces the effective rate. Note, how rates fell across the EU recently when the ECB announced its bond buying program. Thirdly, because, we are not in the Euro we can devalue our currency to increase exports. Moreover, UK bonds are attractive because, we haven't defaulted on its debt for over 300 years.

David Cameron would like people to believe the markets lend in the same way as retail banks lend to you and I.

Overall, when the facts and figures are put into context these juvenile deficit narratives and sound bites ("mere words and no evidence") simply fail to stand up to the actual facts. The deficit myth is the grosses lie ever enforced upon the people and it has been sold by exploiting people's economic illiteracy.

So, David Cameron when are you going to apologise?

Cameron is playing the blame game to depress confidence and growth to justify austerity. Secondly, to use austerity as justification for a smaller state to gain lower taxes. Thirdly, to paint Labour as a party that can not be trusted with the country's finances again. Therefore, we Conservatives will win a second term because, people vote out of fear. The latter strategy worked the last time in office (18 years) and will work again because, in the end, elections are won and lost on economic credibility. Hence, as people believe Labour created the mess they won't be trusted again.

Finally, as the truth is the greatest enemy of the a lie I urge you to share this on Facebook, Twitter, blogs, text and email etc etc. So the truth can be discovered by all. Finally, have no doubt, people have been mislead by the use of the following strategy:

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it" Joseph Goebbels



 
We could argue this all day Innis, your argument is a nonsense and the whole of labour knew it then and know it now..labour committments to PFI and future spending alone nearly bankrupt us, but as they were all 'off-balancesheet'...the uniformed always ignore them..

The claims above are a nonsense and have to be looked at in context of exactly what labour handed over and last but not least Brown for deregulating the city at the rate he did and worst still cutting our the BoE from overseeing banks...
 
And why do the Tories have 'donors' and Labour has 'paymasters'? The language of politics tells us much!
 
Innispurs - 11/7/2013 21:28

I posted a Tory argument, Ex. Deal with that in a sensible manner.

I did. It doesn't matter where it comes from, it's based on a false set of premises and lack of context and understanding.

I've shown again and again here why this type of defence is a nonsense, it's pointless endlessly going over it again and again - I could just as easily show that Labours PFI commitments make even those more ludricous defence of labour's policies an utter nonsense, something which you yourself have previously conceeded.
 
Innispurs - 11/7/2013 21:35

And why do the Tories have 'donors' and Labour has 'paymasters'? The language of politics tells us much!

because rich people and rich companies 'donate' generally in an adhoc manner, Unions coerce (such as unite do) members to cough up whether they like it or not, or even if they vote labour or not (and it's been shown that around one third to half of unites members didn't vote for labour at the last election).

It's also because unions (as unite have just been caught doing) jerrymander to get 'their' candidates picked first and foremost..and bugger what the local members actually want..
 
Spursex - 11/7/2013 22:17

Innispurs - 11/7/2013 21:28

I posted a Tory argument, Ex. Deal with that in a sensible manner.

I did. It doesn't matter where it comes from, it's based on a false set of premises and lack of context and understanding.

I've shown again and again here why this type of defence is a nonsense, it's pointless endlessly going over it again and again - I could just as easily show that Labours PFI commitments make even those more ludricous defence of labour's policies an utter nonsense, something which you yourself have previously conceeded.

The only nonsense being spouted here is your sad old refrain about public spending when, as Ramesh Patel acknowledges, this no longer tenable and is a complete red herring. 'The evidence comes from the IMF, OECD, OBR, HM Treasury, ONS and even George Osborne'. That's a lot of organisations, people and authority that are 'pointless

Out on a limb with the Ukip loonies, eh, Ex?