Archduke - As I noted, the thread appears to have been mind-numbing enough for you to have misread my position and that of GA, Tom and Steve (I’ll not speak for ricky, as I’m not totally sure what he is arguing here, but that’s ricky for you!). Steve and I appear to agree that increasing the resources spent on detecting fraud is a good thing.
Where I disagree, or rather offer a note of caution, is on the idea that you can eliminate all of the fraud without considerable investment. If, say, fraud is at 10%, then a modest investment would be likely to root out a good half of that for far less cost than the money saved/recovered. However, if it’s 5% (or we have already got it down from 10% to 5%), the chances are that halving it again will come at a greater cost. At some point, the benefits of each extra amount spent on fraud detection will be outweighed by the extra costs of doing so. Additionally, if checks are too stringent and time-consuming, this could also have the effect of slowing down the process for genuine cases. The more people you find, the more who will appeal (and some may win on appeal), which adds to the costs – and natural justice does entitle people to appeal. Thus, the law of diminishing returns applies.
You can no more completely eliminate all welfare fraud than you can eliminate all thefts, at least not without seriously infringing the privacy of people who are innocent and spending vast amounts of money and time. But I never argued that you could not reduce it if you tried.
Tom – please stop harping on about this silly poll you did. I accept that you can testify about your nephew. However, that doesn’t mean that the other ‘testimony’ you obtained is as clear cut. Your latter example is a salient one – on the face of it, there’s a case. But there are possible explanations that could be tested for that exonerate John, or at the very least cast enough doubt on the case that he would be acquitted. For example, does the other guy have GSR on his hands as well? Was the angle of the wound very steep or nearly straight on? Who owned the weapon? Was there any suggestion that the cuckold or the wife might want John out of the way? Potentially there could be an argument for self-defence. Find a suicide note and it could completely change. The problem is that it’s very easy to see what you want to see, and fill in the gaps to meet your preconceptions. It’s called cognitive dissonance, and is a human trait that serves us well sometimes, but causes us to leap to wrong conclusions at others. Similarly with your study – both questions you asked called for the people you spoke to to not only report observable facts, but to make suppositions about the reasoning of other individuals.
As it happens, I watched
Match Point last night, which has an ending in which the outcome is determined by a very small thing that alters the whole perception of a case of murder. I won't spoil it, but it's a natty twist.
I also note Tom, that in your desperation to maintain that your ‘poll’ is somehow proof of your point, you appear to have completely skipped the part where I agreed that there could be potential for a rule change. Why is that? Because you don’t expect to see it? Cognitive dissonance, Tom, it gets us all. Similarly, you don’t seem to have noted that I agree that what you say
exists, but that what your collection of hearsay-based-anecdotes does not do is to quantify the actual extent of the problem. It would appear that the methodology would tend to overstate the problem, and you have said nothing to suggest to me that you did much to control for the various flaws which would increase the likelihood of false positives.
However, it seems that what you and GA are arguing is not simply a tightening up of some rules, but a wholesale reduction in entitlements, as a means of dealing with the problem that you perceive. My question is really, is that necessary, if a rule change such as I suggested (and resources to enforce those rules) would cut out a lot of what irks you? And furthermore, what would your plans for massive cuts in entitlement do for those who really are in need? Remember, of course, that each case has to be taken on it’s own merits, that someone has to be the arbiter, and that they are only able to see the evidence that is in front of them when claims are being made, and aren’t capable of reading the minds of claimants to derive their true motives.
Steve – When you said
I strongly object to young people, especially young men being given disability payments for “depression.” I think I understand the cause of many such cases: the lack of physical labor
That said to me that you objected to
any young men diagnosed with depression getting disability payments. Perhaps you should have qualified your absolutist position somewhat, if it is the case that your position is more nuanced, and that you do accept that
some cases, even among men in their 20s and 30s, are genuine and are debilitative, even if only temporarily.
23 Feb 2011, 2:50 pm 
