Preparedness for when

[Deleted User]

But, are the survey's really randomised?

armyknife

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

But, are the survey's really randomised?

No because people like you, CG and other preppers et al don't take part, so information about services that people on perhaps modest incomes needs doesn't get back to government, say like continued need for bus services etc.

[Deleted User]

You didn't answer my question.

GreyQueen

There is also a critical weakness to gathering data straight from the horse's mouth; people lie.

Seriously. I'm not actually a Jedi and I'm not even particularly into the SW franchise.

A chance conversation overheard among acquaintaces at the time of the 1991 Census revealed how three single males were among the million or so of their age cohort 'missing' from the official records. One of the fellers slung his census form into the bin on grounds that it was none of their bliddy business and two others, housemates, didn't complete the form in case it was cross-referenced with council tax records and showed up that they were fraudulently claiming the single occupancy discount.

Someone else I know, as disabled person, had a first degree relative tell ONS that they provided 40 hours' a week care for them. Which was pure BS - they did their ironing for them and that was it (30 miins a week).

Why do ONS need to know your earnings? Can't they just ask HMRC? And if you have income 'on the black', would you tell ONS? Would you fess up to the stash of used twenties under your mattress?

Plenty of people live alone but are in long-term relationships. Sometimes with people who aren't declared to the State because it would impact welfare benefits, sometimes because the other party is officially attached to another spouse or acknowledged partner. A single person might be nothing of the sort.

I seriously question the validity of data gathered by interview and questionnaire. People lie for various reasons, including mischief, malice, misunderstanding of the question, shame at their reality, aspirations to big themselves up, you name it, it can be a reason for lying.

GreyQueen

armyknife wrote: »

All well and good GeQu, but it's a different kettle of fish, these are randomised sample surveys used for various purposes, often finding out quite 'soft' data. The data you've described isn't in one single database, but spread across hundreds if not thousands of systems of varying age and often mutually intelligible to each other.
It has cost absolute fortunes to not get very far in combining some of these datasets, which is why government departments and the ONS resort to the much cheaper randomised surveys you've encountered.

Do we get the governments we deserve??

Actually some parts of national and local government are very good at combining databases and throwing out apparent discrepancies for further investigation.

HMRC tax credits and DWP are in constant computer contact with LA databases of HB/CTB claimants and have been so for years. Agree to have someone use your address as a care-of whilst in receipt of any benefit and expect a suspension letter very rapidly as the computers chatter to each other.

Once a year, my LA employer automatically runs employee data against government databases like HMRCs. They're looking for discrepancies. I'd be very surprised if the NHS doesn't do likewise for its millions of staff.

GP practices claim money from NHS according to the numbers of patients they have registered. And they damn well know my gender and age cohort, bearing in mind the kinds of screening they've inviting me to. They also know I'm in the menopausal years and not going to be needing midwifery services, something they could not say for certain of a woman half my age. As a lifelong non-smoker and virtual teetotaler, they can also make reasonable predictions of the kinds of medical services I would require.

The government knows, to the day, when they expect to start paying my state pension. They even have a pretty good idea how long I will live, as a white working-class woman.

Me sitting down with an ONS surveyor and telling them what I think about various things isn't going to change what they do or change my reality one iota.

Frugalsod

MrsLurcherwalker wrote: »

Is anyone else beginning to feel an internal drive to up the preps? I don't know where mine is coming from but I'm listening to it and will do a review of what we have and fill in any gaps in stores that I find. Nothing I can pinpoint is making me feel like this, nothing on the news or in the papers to precipitate uneasiness but I surely do feel unsettled, not at all like me!!!

I have the same feeling but I do know where it is coming from. I read a lot of diverse economic blogs and youtube channels and many are concerned about the big credit bubbles that are being inflated but are unsustainable.

Today a commentator on a Canadian economics youtube channel made an interesting comment about how silver bugs had so much invested in their supply and demand models that if there are any mistakes it must be down to government manipulation, rather than a flaw in their model. This would also apply to a lesser extent to the gold bugs. This would partially explain why they have been so wrong on the price of precious metals.

Since 2008 when governments decided to reflate the bubble economy people have been looking for the next black swan. When in reality the cause of the next big crisis will be something that we know about but have just ignored. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZO1zeYEEBc It still all points back to excess credit, and the ultimate inability to repay it all back without a crisis. We should have been deleveraging. It all points back to losing faith in TPTB to manage this crisis.

I have been thinning out food preps as I still have to move but I am also using this as an excuse to change things as well. So as I finish off the old stocks of food I will be changing the foods I buy and prepare. The money saved while not shopping is helping me boost my bank and cash balances.

I also think that as this is the beginning of the year the whole new year personal upgrade via resolutions is prevalent, which might be a big factor as well.

Frugalsod

GreyQueen wrote: »

Which is why I spread misinformation whenever I can get away with it (such as being a Jedi on several censuses) and, preferably, give no information at all.

I am also a Jedi but that was because I really could not decide whether I was really atheist or agnostic or not really fussed either way. Though I do love Star Wars (even the prequels).

I do completely understand why people will say different things on censuses and surveys for all the reasons you stated. Plus if people are living together but claiming to be apart there is a whole bunch of agency staff who keep an eye on such claimants. The fact that the benefit system penalises couples only makes sense for people who are on benefits to find workarounds. It used to be if you were a couple on benefits that you got less than two single people so people split up and claimed extra housing benefits all because they had less cash as a couple. In the end such it would cost more in benefits but the cash element was higher. If they scraped couples benefits it might actually save more money as people could live together.

daz278

wonder if its standard practice for various government depts especially benefit depts to check facebook for discrepancies

moneyistooshorttomention

daz278 wrote: »

wonder if its standard practice for various government depts especially benefit depts to check facebook for discrepancies

Wouldn't surprise me....

Government departments "go fishing" in quite a few "pools" for information - so Facebook is bound to be one of them. When you consider that we all know some employers spy on the Facebook accounts of their staff...then I cant see the Government resisting that temptation.

Hence the confusion from friends/acquaintances when they see a strange name coming up commenting occasionally on their Facebook pages and wonder who the heck that is. It's the name I gave myself to open a Facebook account with whilst I was still working for the Government (ie so they couldn't check up on me). Putting my real name into Facebook = it would look like I don't have an "account" with them.

Re Frugalsod's point on penalising people for openly living with partners - I've long disagreed with that. I do tend to think its probably counterproductive too - and might well be costing the Government more in paying out housing benefit for 2 lots of rent than they are trying to save by penalising people for being "half of a couple". Might as well let people admit the truth and live together quite openly - and save on all that extra rent money and not have quite so many kids apparently not having a Daddy living with them. Not to mention - it would free up the housing stock apparently being "lived in" by the other half of the couple (ie because they need to keep it to "prove" they are "single" for benefit purposes).

GreyQueen

daz278 wrote: »

wonder if its standard practice for various government depts especially benefit depts to check facebook for discrepancies

Fraud investigators use FB and similar very often. They don't have enough resources to trawl randomly, they tell me. About a third of fraud investigations are instigated as a result of discrepancies thrown up by data-matching exercises, about a third are flagged-up by suspicious employees in DWP/ HMRC/ local govt and about a third are allegations by the general public. Which may or may not be groundless malice, of course. If there are allegations, there will be investigations, and they may be very, very brief - the alleged-against might be in receipt of zero benefits of any kind, despite what outsiders might think of them.