Posts
John Leech MP: Lib Dems Lie About Child Poverty
The disappointing disaster that is John Leech MP has put a pack of porkies up on his "carbon neutral" website (click to enlarge) - particularly in the headline:
Labour's Legacy:
50% Child Poverty in Withington Constituency.
Of course the relatively low incomes of some households in the constituency are of great concern even though those incomes have increased very considerably and joblessness decreased very considerably compared to the equivalent from 1997 under the Tories. But the BBC report referred to in Leech's nonsensical exaggeration and his deft pissing on Withington's chips clearly states:Low income means where no-one is working more than 16 hours a week or the family is receiving the full amount of Working Tax Credit.
The campaigners say this is not a direct measure of exactly how many children are in poverty, but is a good indicator of which areas have the highest child poverty levels.
Even that "indicator" word is pushing it actually. But ne'ermind. When Leech fibs and claims 50% child poverty in Withington Constituency he is simply reinforcing his reputation as someone who cares not one little jot for honesty, care or integrity. Why on earth does he not acknowledge progress? Why does he not explain what he is doing about this, apart from fibbing? Why does he not outline costed Lib Dem proposals?
This is in effect John Leech again joining the Tories in their Quixotic, fact-free attacks on Labour. Whoever would believe that the Lib Dems are supposed to be part of the progressive alliance with the people's party?
Next thing he'll be suggesting Manchester follow disastrous Lib Dem Rochdale's lead on something or other.
22 comments:
Alas, you cut the quotation off just a sentence too early.
The full paragraph is:
This is not a direct measure of exactly how many children are in poverty, but is a good indicator of which areas have the highest child poverty levels. It is the closest measure we have at the moment of local levels of child poverty.
I think the last sentence is partiularly relevant.
I'm afraid Everybody Hates Chris that is the sort of shit Piss Crawl pulls all the time.
I think it's because he lies to us but then forgets that what he told us was an initial lie and actually starts to believe what he has written. Complete fantasist.
I like this though:
...joblessness decreased very considerably compared to the equivalent from 1997 under the Tories."
Written on a day that these figures were released:
"The number of people out of work in the UK soared in the three months to August by 164,000 compared to the previous quarter, the biggest rise for 17 years."
What a nob!
Where is Lucy Beresford when yon need her?
Anon 23.30 uses the phrases "Piss Crawl" and "fantasist".
and there is a cheeky repressed exclaimation mark.
A missing "K" makes his Knob shorter than other posters.
Who could this be?
Dave, its half eleven at night. The pubs don't shut early in Heywood do they or are you hard at it on the floor at Drake Street tonight?
Paul will be upset with you. He told you to keep off the naughty internet sites and tipsy blogging.
You naughty Bombay bad boy. Rock and Roll lifestyle. You will burn out before too long.
And anon 00:00, our venerated webmaster will also be upset with you as he has also warned against straying off topic. I'm sure he means everybody when he says that and not just those who disagree with him, 'cos that would be hypocritical.
This thread is about Labour's record on child poverty.
But now I think about it, it's remarkable how many threads can take a dog-leg onto discussing general day-to-day life in Rochdale without any admonishments being handed out.
'Nob' without a k is a reference to nobility, and was probably a reference to Chris' schooldays. But I totally unserstand why you'd be thinking of knobs with a K.
I wouldn't want to make a habit of speaking on his behalf, but I'm sure that gratuitous comments such as the one you have posted do not do his case any good. He's just too polite to say so.
First of all:
EHC my quote is from the BBC report as clearly referenced. This does not continue as you suggest. You are a complete and utter Tory-Lib cowardly, hubristical, lying scumbag.
Second of all:
Anon 23:30 aka Hennigan or crew
There are changes and rate of changes and then there are absolutes. The joblessness and the poverty and the near poverty and anything you care to mention in Manchester and in Man Wit are WAY LOWER now than in 1997. Which is the line I was taking.
Why cannot Leech have any balance or fairness? Because he prefers fibbing. He is a fibbing bastard and you'd never know he was brought up by a Minister of the Method.
In fact you'd think he was brought up by snakes and weasels not vicars.
The "biggest rise" line is a rise and pretty unhelpful in comparing anything with anything.
EHC 00:29:
You are a berk. Start with a complete and unequivocal apology for accusing me of truncating a quote. Then go and commune with Brer Hennigan, Brer Smith and Brer Rowen. They are liars and idiots too.
Ouch. But well said. EHC is a twat. Delete on sight.
There's me thinking I'm the only one working at this hour. Thanks anon. EHC is close to delete on sight status. Anonymous, ugly in thought word and deed, unapologetic for many and various errors, and sticks up for Cyril Smith to boot ...
Alas, my full quotation is from the report authors themselves. I just thought that it would highlight the true situation in all its 'glory'. If you can't be bothered to do your own research it hardly makes me a 'twat' or a 'c**t'.
You say that "Even that 'indicator' word is pushing it actually", as though what they are claiming as indicators of child poverty in an area are totally misleading.
They say "It is the closest measure we have at the moment of local levels of child poverty."
So who should we believe?
We may disagree on the validity of the figures but I really can't see why you fly off the wall at me quoting the analysis in rather fuller terms than you have seen fit to do yourself.
And what the hell has Cyril Smith got to do with this? No doubt one of the trogs will find a highly convoluted and innuendo-laden link.
Back to the point, the child poverty figures come from a highly reputable source. You want me to apologise for pointing out a quoation that you (and the BBC) truncated in mid-paragraph.
If the Beeb had done that to a remark that had been pro-Labour, you'd have been the first to jump all over their bones.
EHC: I quoted the BBC verbatim. You accused me of misquoting them. I had no idea whatsoever that they had shortened anything or indeed that they were themselves quoting.
You are an unreasonable lying scumbag EHC. No-one AFAIK has used the C word against you. Lying again. You complete and utter Clot.
You said that I was a berk. Do you know the derivation of that word or am I having to fill in gaps in your knowledge yet again.
I did not say that you misquoted the BBC, I said "you cut the quotation off just a sentence too early." So did thr BBC.
However, all this nonsense allows you to avoid talking about the real issue.
You say that these figures are not a real indicator of the concentration of child poverty.
The authors of the report who, no disrespect to you or anyone else, are far more expert on these matters, say that it is the best indicator there is.
You can't both be right.
So did the BBC
Again EHC:
The full quotation you cite can be tracked down to :
End Child Poverty - Poverty in Your Area.
This site also lists child poverty in Man Wit at 26%. Around half of the figure Leech is using.
Stop this quibbling. get with the programme.
If I say that you have got that figure wrong deliberately I will be accused of calling you a liar. If I say it was not deliberate, you will think I am calling you an idiot. I promise you that I am doing either.
But you have got it wrong, Chris. At the very least you have got it only half right.
The figure you quoted of 26% is for families receiving out of work benefits. That only tells part of the story. As the Campaign to End Child Poverty say, “Low income means where no-one is working more than 16 hours a week or the family is receiving the full amount of Working Tax Credit.“
This brings the percentage for Manchester Withington to 50%, which I notice is the exact figure that is quoted by John Leech and that you accuse him of lying.
Hardly a quibble.
Sorry Chris. I edited the above message and got completely muddled. I got my negatives mixed up. In the first paragraph 'either' should read 'neither'.
It wasn't meant as a sly dig and has taught me that I need to proof read more diligently. I apologise unequivocally and am not being facetious. I just didn't want that 26% figure to go past uncommented on. Sorry.
Yes, Chris, reporting the details of something that has been widely reported across the media and is based on the best indicators people have come up with - let's attack people for reporting this.
Let's attack those shameful people who dare to use reports put out by independent organisations with such horrible and despicable aims as ending child poverty.
Let's not attack Labour, despite their favourite paper admitting that inequality has risen under this Labour government: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jun/11/socialexclusion.children
A quote for you from Lucy Powell's favourite rag:
"strong economic growth early in Labour's third term failed to help the least well-off."
Let's wander around blindfolded and with our fingers in our ears shouting LA LA LA LA LA every time someone like John Leech MP publishes something based on evidence, and lets continue to run a blog full of unsubstantiated rumour, probably-libellous slurs and shite so bad that you've been admonished by your own party as an embarrassment in its place.
No wait, you already does that pretty well yourself, don't you Chris?
Oh, and the figure Leech uses seems to be based on the media reports used by such partisan Conservative bastions as the BBC. It appears to be a fugre the campaign is happy to promote as a good indicator.
But frankly, quibbling over whther half or a quarter of kids in withington live in poverty after 11 years of supposedly socialist rule is gobsmacking.
Either figure would be a huge fucking blight on our city. Both figures shame our government, and shame us, for not having got rid of this useless government earlier.
Leech has gone way OTT in his reporting. His headline is a damned lie. His inferences are damned lies and/or distortions also. This is fair comment.
Later I'll lay all this out in a full post. When I have enough time to do justice to this deliberate anti-progressive propaganda.
Meanwhile, from the report cited by the BBC:
Of children living in lone parent households, 56% are poor where the parent does not work; 17% where the parent is in part time work; and 7% when in full time work.[5]
Again, the statistically aware will know this is not a complete statement. But if Leech and others are simply adding up things that don't add up and ignoring the likes of the above then that's bad. Innit?
But if we apply 17% to the households with lone parent household and a p/t worker this does knock an 83% whole in that part of the arithmetic does it not?
And 83% inaccuracy on this slice of the population is pretty inaccurate is it not?
What Leech has done here and regularly does in his propaganda is indefensible in my view. He deserves to be outed for this.
The authors of the report were clearly wrong to say it was the closest indicator ... when they have this detailed work showing 87% of households with lone parent in prw NOT in poverty. It's too glib. Let's not reward glibness.
It is not Leech's arithmetic. He didn't add these two factors together. The Campaign to End Child Poverty did!
If you want to slag somebody off, then at least have the balls to pick the right target.
I wonder how Barnardo’s, Child Poverty Action Group, The Children’s Society, NCH, NSPCC, the TUC and Save the Children would feel about their extensive and exhaustive research being called "deliberate anti-progressive propaganda"? I know you haven't said that explicitly, Chris, before you kick off, but it does follow from what you argue.
If they haven't picked the best indicator (which you earlier said was no indicator at all) then, pray tell, what is?
It is Leech's arithmetic. Despite warnings from CECP Leech wrongly (and ludicrously as it goes) claimed that 50% of the children in his constituency are living in poverty.
CECP's gloss is vague and inaccurate. But their report - for all its false precision - does have the required information for responsible MPs and others to provide more accurate statements and not baloney.
Sadly Leech is not a responsible MP. A sadly EHC, whoever and whatever else you are, you are no statistician and no logician.
Just a hateful dissembling little twerp. And yes yes yes "twerp" like many words in our living language has come a ways since the grunt age.
Now I get it.
Unicef, Barnados, the Adoption Agency, National Children's Homes and others have got it all wrong and yet one heroic blogger in Manchester has been able to hack away all the dross and see the truth.
The social inclusion unit that carried out the research don't know what they are talking about. And yet one heroic blogger etc etc.
The many Labour MPs and councillors throughout the country that have commented on these figures and taken them at face value should instead have mewled and puked and found the nearest Lib Dem MP to throw false accusations at.
The figure for children living in low income families in Manchester Withington is 50% (not 26%, as you claim) - there is no getting away from that. In Manchester Central it is something like three in four. This is the closest measure we have at the moment of local levels of child poverty. You have come up with no better indicator.
You have then used national trends to extrapolate local figures. Spare me the lectures on the misuse of statistics and logic.
They are not Leech's figures nor his arithmetic in adding them up. They come from the Campaign to End Child Poverty.
So you can also spare me the strictures om dissemblage, you nincompoop.
Now look what you've made me say!
John Leech MP claims:
50% of Man Wit kids are living in Poverty
True or false EHC?
I say False. Deliberately false. Anti-progressive. But too thick to realise that. Just thinks it's cool to be anti- stuff the apolitical stop-at-nothing thicket that he is.
What do you say EHC? om om om True or false?
Are 50% of kids in Man Wit living in absolute poverty?
yes or no
Are 50% of kids in Man Wit living in relative poverty?
yes or no
Still waiting for your photoshop demo mate ...
The research shows that 50% of children in Manchester Withington are living in low-income households.
Everybody but you agrees that this is the best indicator of the numbers that are in child poverty.
What part of that do you not understand?
You say, "This site (the Campaign to End Child Poverty) also lists child poverty in Man Wit at 26%"
That's not true. The site may be wrong but your statement about their figures is not true.
Please tell us lesser mortals which indicator should be used if this one is not accurate.
And don't call me mate.
Post a Comment