To think Toby Young deserves scorn for this article?

[BowieFan]

Apologies for linking to the Daily Mail, but I've used a service that denies them advertising revenue: <a class="break-all" href="https://anonym.to/?www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3869182/Why-Lefties-misty-eyed-movie-romanticises-Benefits-Britain-says-TOBY-YOUNG.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">anonym.to/?www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3869182/Why-Lefties-misty-eyed-movie-romanticises-Benefits-Britain-says-TOBY-YOUNG.html

Aside from the basic errors (it's 100minutes long, not nearly 3 hours), it's just an awful article. The fact that Toby Young thinks everyone claiming benefits is a smoking/gambling/drinking loudmouth is just offensive. I'm shocked - not that it was published - but that he thinks his opinion is the opinion of everyone.

I'd love to see him survive on benefits. I wonder if he'd be saying the same things then?

The THEORY of universal credit is good (one monthly payment instead of the current debacle of - based on my own circumstances

Child benefit and tax credits weekly
Housing benefit 4 weekly - nuts as rent is pcm for most
DLA 4 weekly but a different week to housing benefit
Esa fortnightly different weeks to DLA

All of this messed up if there's a bank holiday, or an x in the month or whatever! At which point SOME claimants MAY receive payments early - there's no rhyme or reason to who or when)

Graduated loss of benefits as you increase the hours you work - those I know already on it have said this element is not working quelle surprise!

If you and partner claim you receive one payment - might work for some while claiming but doesn't take into account domestic abuse nor when one returns to work and the other doesn't and guess what? It all gets messed up!

Having been a claimant for 7 years, I KNEW it'd get ballsed up! Because EVERY time there's a change it is - and NEVER in favour of claimants. Whenever there's any query over a claim it just gets stopped, what are people supposed to live on until it's sorted? - oh and that's more money wasted in sorting out a system that doesn't work.

the over spending left wing reminds me of the 'there's no money left' letter by the outgoing Labour Govmt.

I like [http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/toby-young-ken-loach-smear-busted.html this article] in response to Young's pile of lazy bigotry.

Oops, link didn't work. Trying again

Well gosh Comfort I'm sure it's all a lot better since then...Oh wait. It's much, much worse.

The 'theres no money left ' note was a long standing in joke that several. outgoing Chancellors had done before that! Plus yes - things are MUCH worse!

Wasn't it reggae maudlin told the in coming chamcelor: "sorry about the mess old cock"

www.independent.co.uk/voices/ken-loach-i-daniel-blake-toby-young-life-on-benefits-rings-true-mark-steel-a7383461.html

And another on the 'expertise' of Toby young on benefits realities

Smallfox yep "When Callaghan arrived he found a note from Reggie Maudling, his Tory predecessor. It read: "Good luck old cock. Sorry to leave it in such a mess."

Coroner refuses to hold inquest into:

"McArdle was with a carer, who read the letter to him. It is believed the letter stated that he needed to provide evidence to DWP to prevent his benefits being sanctioned.

When it was read to him, he apparently went “a deathly grey colour”, complained about pains, and collapsed. Within an hour, he was dead."

Yep, it's irritating how Tories have made such a big thing of that jokey note left behind for them. It's been going on for years! Gordon Brown got left one saying "Good luck - things can only get better, eh?" in reference to their campaign song.

It's irritating that the Tories are acting like Labour were admitting to something that they weren't.

Anyway, that lesson has just proven that we're right not to trust the Tories - they'll use anything they can against you. Call Me Dave knew it was a longstanding tradition and that it was a joke, but he stood there brandishing it at every campaign stop and every TV appearance, like it was the Gospel. What a twunt.

linkis.com/wordpress.com/oze22

Toby young - truly vile!

Me I'm really sorry old bean, but what do they care about? Corporation tax? Lining their nests? Me having no heating (sorry to rattle on but you won't answer the damned question), me being so ill I can't work?

He's treating a drama like a documentary, whilst simultaneously wroting amd article that acts like fact, but is fiction. You couldn't er make it up!

He wouldn't get his pay unless he 'dismissed' the 'facts' in the film, but the favts in the film are facts, which is one place he makes an error.

Claimants ARE different frombemefits street, but he talks about BS as if it were science.

Actually though he has slipped through a lot of yruths that the film reveals and put them in the table with only weak bats away so there is dual tone to the article. this might be confusion or clrverness.

what is true is that fit to work isnt am effective test, the employmemt sercoce tgenselves have an 'agitation' policy to deny claimamts verbally and if they get aggressive sanction them for aggression, and i know that out of 500 claimants locally at least 120 long term claimamts are highly qualified professionals who can work but cant get work.i know because i was on courses with them.

linkis.com/wordpress.com/oze22 Toby young - truly vile!

by Labour lover Tom Pride

But if you read the linked article by Toby Young, it really doesn't improve matters.
I do wonder how failing a CSE in Drama is equivalent to an A* 'in today's money'.

'News flash: we can spend as much money as we want. You can't really bankrupt a country, you just default on debts. Frankly, if every country just refused to pay their debts, what exactly could the creditors do? Spoiler alert: nothing. If every country in the world said "Nah, we're not paying you back and whilst we're at it, your 'money' which only exists in 1s and 0s is now ours." there is not a single thing they could do about it.'

Smallfox2002 you have a good grasp on economics, what do you think of BowieFan's comments above?

I think if people are asked to accept that the Daniel Blake is 'true' then they also need to accept that Benefits St is 'true'. Clearly neither of them are objective factual pieces of work, they are both pushing a certain agenda and use some facts and some hyperbole to make their point.

Why? The only common theme is that they are media pieces on the same general area I.E. benefits.
The Bible and Darwin both 'explain' how people came to be. Neither is necessarily correct but we are not behoven to believe both simultaneously.

In theory she's right, however most defaults end in debt negotiation, the Argentinian one ended with 75% "haircut" for creditors.

The national debt is at a lower % of GDP than it has been for most of the last 250 years so the narrative that we can't afford public spending because of the debt is false.

As is the household finances are the same as state finances is false too.

user1471446905

What I said is ultimately true. Money is, for the most part, not physical but only exists as 1s and 0s in a computer. Like I said, it's never going to end up like that but that is what it all boils down to.

As for the accepting Benefits Street thing being true. Do we have to? Benefits Street has more fiction in it than I, Daniel Blake does. I don't deny that there are a tiny proportion of fraudulent claims, but nobody on Benefits Street is actually fraudulently claiming are they? And plenty of people on that street were wanting to find work. There are far more people being denied benefits who genuinely need them than there are people fiddling the system. Of course, that doesn't fit into the media narrative, so the right wing press doesn't report on them.

Well yes obviously that is the common theme! You as an individual can choose to believe what you wish, but if you start presenting films as 'true' then don't be surprised if other people bring us their own 'true' films as well.

Exactly, my point was an extreme one but if every country did refuse to pay, there's simply nothing the creditors could do.

Even if we defaulted they couldn't exactly force us into paying. We would pay, but I guarantee you that the creditors would settle for less - they always do, even in consumer credit.

Yes, but the difference is Benefits Street was created to get Little Englanders who read the Daily Mail wound up. They set out to create a narrative. I, Daniel Blake has more facts in it. I, Daniel Blake exists because the media has painted everyone on benefits in a certain way, and it's showing that the majority are nothing like what the press shows you. You can accept whatever you want as fact, but you can't use Benefits Street to make sweeping generalisations when all the evidence doesn't support it.