General Election 2015

[Special K]

Of course I wouldn't be happy to sell my house under market value. But we're not talking about me, we're talking about the state. And one of the functions of the state is to redistribute wealth from the more fortunate ("the rich") to the less fortunate ("the poor"). Nobody in any party really disagrees with this (no matter what people think about the Tories!) - the only questions that are really up for grabs are "how?", and "how much?".

 

Is it also "stealing" that the government coerces with my employer to forcibly take thousands of pounds of my money from me annually and then just gives it away to other people who I have never even met?!

 

What about the controlled rent on council houses? By your argument, asking for tenants to pay rent below the market rate is also short changing the tax payer.

 

Regardless of the other rights and wrongs of right-to-buy (and there are some quite interesting arguments and points in this thread beneath all the mud slinging) selling state-owned property at a discounted rate to tenants (who are on average going to be some of society's less well-off) is LITERALLY a redistribution of wealth.

 

Housing Association stock is not state owned, it is owned by the HA who are not-for-profit organisations designed to provide the housing needs for those with a need for low cost housing. HA's are private / public enterprises that have to borrow money in order to build dwellings. Some of their finance comes from Central Government, but this has been reduced over the years and their business model shows they borrow an increasing proportion (traditionally from banks) to finance their operation. This debt is long term debt and it is expected that rent paid by tenants, even through benefits, will pay off the borrowing over time. There will also be the capital asset of the property, but if this is being sold off at below market rate, then they will have to seriously reappraise the value of their asset base and this, in turn, will result in a reduced ability for them to operate. Incidentally, the pledge by the Tories to sell "one for one" to part finance this has about as much chance of success as I have of a two's up with Kylie and Danni Minogue.

[Wes Tender]

What did people who couldn't afford to eat do before food banks existed? You're using food banks as a direct measure of food poverty.

 

When Labour was in power, increased poverty levels were all down to the nasty banks and the global recession. Now that the Tories/Lib Dems are in power, everything is their fault. Also, as a ruse to emphasise the problem, Pap shows a map swathed in green to show that most of the country is starving, instead of one that would more reasonably show dots in the places where there are food banks.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

What did people who couldn't afford to eat do before food banks existed?

 

It has gone up in Tory government, that's for sure, but maybe not by as much as advertised. It was rising up until 2011, and I presume you can only really class it from then due to that being when the policies took effect.

[CB Saint]

I have still never seen any evidence that real poverty exists in this country. Go to Kenya and see people actually doing of starvation and then talk about poverty.

 

The definition of poverty is 60% of the median household income or approx £14k pa - so no it is not poverty in the truest sense of the word, ie that that is experienced in the 3rd world - but it is still bloody hard to get by if that is your household income

 

I saw this article when trying to find out what the definition of poverty was - basically says it would be better referred to as inequality not poverty http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/05/poverty-uk-better-calling-it-inequality

[Unbelievable Jeff]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2579715/Unpalatable-truth-food-banks-Left-finds-hard-swallow-Political-football-undeserving-claimants-shame-genuine-need.html

[hypochondriac]

The definition of poverty is 60% of the median household income or approx £14k pa - so no it is not poverty in the truest sense of the word, ie that that is experienced in the 3rd world - but it is still bloody hard to get by if that is your household income

 

I saw this article when trying to find out what the definition of poverty was - basically says it would be better referred to as inequality not poverty http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/05/poverty-uk-better-calling-it-inequality

 

Yeah fair enough. That sounds like a much more accurate description.

[buctootim]

a slum landlord?

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3040796/Labour-s-queen-hypocrisy-MP-sneered-white-van-man-attacks-Tory-right-buy-plan-thought-bought-1million-housing-association-home-rents-out.html

 

Typical Mail article. She wasnt the HA tenant she simply bought at an open auction a house that the HA were disposing of, probably because it was so valuable it was better to sell it and build three others.

[Special K]

It has gone up in Tory government, that's for sure, but maybe not by as much as advertised. It was rising up until 2011, and I presume you can only really class it from then due to that being when the policies took effect.

 

Food banks have also risen in number largely due to the worst economic recession in over 80 years, which, of course, is not the fault of any political party at all, ahem. IMHO, whoever was in power over the last five years would have overseen a rise in the number of food banks.

[pap]

What did people who couldn't afford to eat do before food banks existed? You're using food banks as a direct measure of food poverty. How many people were in 'food poverty' in 1982 compared to today (for example)?

 

You're asking me to relate the collective experience of everyone who has ever run out of cash?

 

Well, I can't do that, but I've often said that when money runs out, those that are already criminally disposed will do more of the same. That's more dealing, more choring, more whoring, more of whatever. And I'm sure that is still happening. What should be of concern here is the huge rise.

 

41 thousand to 1.5 million people, or if you wanna denominate, 1500 thousands. Those are scary numbers, both a damning indictment of the indifference of Tory policy and the self-blinkered citizenry that pretend it's not happening (so they can cheer for their favourite team n May without feeling especially guilty).

[shurlock]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2579715/Unpalatable-truth-food-banks-Left-finds-hard-swallow-Political-football-undeserving-claimants-shame-genuine-need.html

 

How can you quantify how big a problem it is without said figures, and then expect what you have said to be read as gospel when no figures are provided?

 

Sound familiar

[pap]

Food banks have also risen in number largely due to the worst economic recession in over 80 years, which, of course, is not the fault of any political party at all, ahem. IMHO, whoever was in power over the last five years would have overseen a rise in the number of food banks.

 

There are clear policy decisions which have led to this. Benefit sanctions, overall 26K benefit cap, the HB cap, removal of Child Benefit for anyone paying tax at the higher threshold (yeah yeah, I know they shouldn't need food banks, but weigh in the amount of consumer debt we have and we all know it happens).

 

I've agreed with quite a bit of what you've written lately, Special K. We differ on this. There is a clear link between those policies and the unprecedented rise in the use of foodbanks.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

How can you quantify how big a problem it is without said figures, and then expect what you have said to be read as gospel when no figures are provided?

 

Sound familiar

 

Oh I agree completely, hence why the first thing I said was:

I'd be interested to see stats on whether cigarette or alcohol use has gone down for the people who use them - you don't get fag banks, but I'm sure if you did then the use of these would have gone up instead of food banks...

[Whitey Grandad]

I think not. What we've been discussing is the rise of food banks between 2009 and 2013.

 

1.5 million people now rely on them. That's up from 41K in 2009.

 

Look it in the eye, trousers. This is a direct consequence of Conservative Party policy. 36 times more people use foodbanks.

 

Or a direct consequence of opening more food banks? Was the demand created by the supply? There are people in desperate need but this does not apply to everyone who uses a food bank.

[View From The Top]

Pretty sure this has been discussed before. From talking to people involved with foodbanks, my recollection was that for some people it really was their last resort (fair enough) whilst for others it was felt that free food had been publicised and they felt that they could use it without having to spend their own money so why not? I was told that quite a few were moaning about what they received because they wanted something better as well. I'm certain that some people genuinely use them but I'm also sure that numbers have increased because they have received hugely more publicity and not everyone who uses them does so because they have no other choice.

 

I've no doubt the system gets abused, every system does to some degree but I can only comment on what I saw every time I was there. What struck me at the time and has stayed with me, is the lack of hope in the faces. Smethwick has grinding poverty, of course not on 3rd world levels, but on a level that all of us on this thread would struggle to comprehend. These weren't folk looking to save a few quid to buy some baccy (no one smokes "proper" fags when they are poor) this were folk at the very bottom.

 

To me, people spouting off about what these folk may or may not do, may or may not posses illustrates their complete lack of empathy for those worse off than them, and that's a bit sad.

Edited 16 April, 2015 by View From The Top

[View From The Top]

It's the children that suffer a lot of the time due to their parents poor choices that I feel sorry for.

 

Not just parents poor choices. A degree of mental health certainly comes into play.

[buctootim]

I've no doubt the system gets abused, every system does to some degree but I can only comment on what I saw every time I was there. What struck me at the time and has stayed with me, is the lack of hope in the faces. Smethwick has grinding poverty, of course not on 3rd world levels, but on a level that all of us on this thread would struggle to comprehend. These weren't folk looking to save a few quid to buy some baccy (no one smokes "proper" fags when they are poor) this were folk at the very bottom.

 

To me, people spouting off about what these folk may or may not no, may or may not posses illustrates their complete lack of empathy for those worse off than them, and that's a bit sad.

 

This really. Sure people who use these places often have underlying issues - chaotic lifestyles or mental health issues or just unbelievably thick - but that doesn't mean they should starve. Around 600,000 people are not disabled but just have an inability to hold down jobs, budget properly or maintain a tenancy without help. Writing people off as scroungers because they are getting some free canned food most of us wouldnt deign to eat says more about us than them. Put it in perspective, its 1% of the population

[shurlock]

Oh I agree completely, hence why the first thing I said was:

 

So rather than looking for serious data or simply keeping your mouth shut as ignorance would recommend, you post links to opinion pieces and politicised anecdotes to support your original blank assertion. How does that all add up?

[ecuk268]

What did people who couldn't afford to eat do before food banks existed? You're using food banks as a direct measure of food poverty. How many people were in 'food poverty' in 1982 compared to today (for example)?

 

Benefits were more generous in the 80s even under Thatcher.

 

In 1987 I had a brlef period of unemployment after being made redundant. With a wife, a 6-month old son and a mortgage, the amount I could claim meant that we could just about manage.

 

Fortunately I got a new job after a few weeks so I don't know how it would have been over a longer period.

[JackFrost]

I think not. What we've been discussing is the rise of food banks between 2009 and 2013.

 

1.5 million people now rely on them. That's up from 41K in 2009.

 

Look it in the eye, trousers. This is a direct consequence of Conservative Party policy. 36 times more people use foodbanks.

 

I once saw a Labour Party candidate say precisely that to a lady I know who's run a food bank. She tore his ******** off.

 

 

In 2010 the 'nasty Tories'/Iain Duncan Smith lifted the Labour Party's ban on job centres referring unemployed people to food banks. There's one reason why food bank usage is higher than it used to be.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12023054

 

 

Several years ago the aforementioned lady and her colleagues were literally driving around the poorest areas putting leaflets through people's doors, having to advertise the food bank.

 

Then after that ban was lifted it wasn't long until she was driving around the local area putting leaflets trying to recruit extra volunteers because they couldn't cope with the extra numbers.

 

There was also a global financial crisis, that inevitably hit already poor families. Whilst Labour didn't cause this, the Tories didn't either.

 

That 41k figure you mentioned is actually a significant number. That figure wasn't relatively small because the UK was THAT wealthy. Of course usage has gone up since the Coalition's austerity but that figure was at that level largely because people didn't even know they existed.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Not just parents poor choices. A degree of mental health certainly comes into play.

 

True story.

[pap]

I once saw a Labour Party candidate say precisely that to a lady I know who's run a food bank. She tore his ******** off.

 

 

In 2010 the 'nasty Tories'/Iain Duncan Smith lifted the Labour Party's ban on job centres referring unemployed people to food banks. There's one reason why food bank usage is higher than it used to be.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12023054

 

 

Several years ago the aforementioned lady and her colleagues were literally driving around the poorest areas putting leaflets through people's doors, having to advertise the food bank.

 

Then after that ban was lifted it wasn't long until she was driving around the local area putting leaflets trying to recruit extra volunteers because they couldn't cope with the extra numbers.

 

There was also a global financial crisis, that inevitably hit already poor families. Whilst Labour didn't cause this, the Tories didn't either.

 

That 41k figure you mentioned is actually a significant number. That figure wasn't relatively small because the UK was THAT wealthy. Of course usage has gone up since the Coalition's austerity but that figure was at that level largely because people didn't even know they existed.

 

Clear links to Coalition(Tory) policy. See my later post.

[Torres]

It's a disgusting indictment on the failings of our society that so many people use food banks in 2015, either because they need to use or them or (worse) they chose to use them to spend their cash on other things, of that there's no doubt.

 

I do wonder what these people were doing to feed themselves before their local food bank sprung up though.

[Batman]

be interesting to see how it plays out in the south west.

Lowest paid part of the UK in many areas (and all that goes with it) and the polls around here appear to have the Tory's rising quite a bit.

[saintbletch]

The reason for seeking to place the UK situation into some kind of wider context is to ascertain whether or not the Tory bashing that food banks inevitably gives rise to is totally justified, or whether what we're actually witnessing is a wider phenomena that doesn't necessarily have its roots in 'nasty UK Tory party' policy. As a fellow IT man I thought you might approve of such root cause analysis and thinking outside of the box.

 

Going back to your map, are you saying that food banks are an accurate measure of 'food poverty'? If you are, then, by logical extrapolation, you're also saying that there were no people in food poverty in the decades before Labour introduced food banks in the noughties, which of course is nonsense.

 

For as long as 'food poverty' exists, I see two solutions to getting food onto people's plates: give them money to go and buy food or give them food. It could be argued that the latter of those two options is the most efficient, and likely to succeed, of the two.

 

And yes, of course, the ultimate solution is to eradicate food poverty altogether but I don't see mankind sorting that one out any time soon. Successive Labour and Tory governments certainly haven't in living memory (and beyond)

 

Great to see you expand on your views, trousers. I know we don't always have time to do so.

 

And the bold text above is an interesting, if subtle point. Together with the Telegraph article you linked to, it has made me think.

 

One of the positions of the author in the article, who helps run a food bank, was that the demand for food banks is not always represented by the absolute number of food banks.

 

I think an economist would say that in any disruptive or discontinuous 'market', demand always precedes supply. Or, as you say, the demand may well have been there under previous governments. The issue perhaps was that supply (charities like The Trussell Trust) had not as yet seen the need in the market that it could tap into.

 

I reflected upon this, and I've concluded that you are probably correct. It makes sense to me. I suspect the first map that pap showed does not properly convey the latent demand in the market at that time for food banks. It simply shows the spread of those setup and able to meet the demand.

 

Then I reflected a bit further, and I thought "Hold on, Bletch. There's more to this!" (I even punctuate my internal monologue).

 

You see, I realised that as a society, and under various colours of government, we have allowed one part of our society to become reliant on charitable handouts so that they can gain the basic nutrients to continue to meet the job description of being a living human being.

 

Now, you are also correct that this is not unique to our country. There are other countries around the world where this happens. I remember seeing films of black faces looking plaintively up at men throwing sacks of rice from the bodies of low-loader lorries, so I know this to be true.

 

But this also didn't make me feel much better either. I then realised what the problem was. This was happening in the UK in 2015, at the same time that all major parties are promising not to raise taxes and to gouge greater chunks from our welfare state. All of them promising that the most disadvantaged in our society will be protected.

 

I fail to reconcile these two positions.

 

The other point Mr Aitken made in the article is that food banks have become 'politically weaponised' (my term not his). And I agree. So please don't see this as an attack on the Tories from Labour, the Tories from the Lib Dems, or any variation thereof.

 

I just find it amazing that anyone can expend the intellectual energy rationalising the need for food banks, whilst somehow managing to completely distance themselves from the empathy that, to my mind, any human should feel for any other human legitimately forced to reach out their hands and ask others to feed them.

 

I guess we're all hewn from different stone, and I plainly haven't walked a mile in your shoes.

 

We have food banks handing out food to genuinely needy families (some of whom don't even smoke), in the UK, in 2015.

 

*I hope you like the effort I went to to put what I perceive to be a social issue into a market context.

 

x

[Unbelievable Jeff]

So rather than looking for serious data or simply keeping your mouth shut as ignorance would recommend, you post links to opinion pieces and politicised anecdotes to support your original blank assertion. How does that all add up?

 

They were just online articles, that made some links between increased smoking in lower income families (with stats to back it up), and others that I didn't post up that said that apparently 70% of homeless adults smoke. However, I don't know how big a problem it is, as I haven't found any stats on that, but then I certainly haven't said it is one, just that I am interested to know the statistics.

[stug76]

Now, now CB Fry. I'm not sure stupid is the correct pejorative.

 

Given that this post...

 

 

 

...was followed by this post...

 

 

 

...I'd replace stupid with hypocritical, or at a push ironic.

 

The statement in my first post doesn't indicate a preconceived political bias but is a response to the current political situation whereby I believe if we as a nation vote in a Lab/SNP government we may as well turn off the lights now. I think it will be a spectacular balls up.

[Torres]

There are clear policy decisions which have led to this. Benefit sanctions, overall 26K benefit cap, the HB cap, removal of Child Benefit for anyone paying tax at the higher threshold (yeah yeah, I know they shouldn't need food banks, but weigh in the amount of consumer debt we have and we all know it happens).

 

Come off it pap. A family where one or both parents earns over £50,000 would be driven to use a food bank because they've lost their £20/week child benefit? These people should be queueing at the slap in the face for being stupid bank, not a food bank.

[buctootim]

The statement in my first post doesn't indicate a preconceived political bias......I believe if we as a nation vote in a Lab/SNP government we may as well turn off the lights now.

 

[aintforever]

The statement in my first post doesn't indicate a preconceived political bias but is a response to the current political situation whereby I believe if we as a nation vote in a Lab/SNP government we may as well turn off the lights now. I think it will be a spectacular balls up.

 

To be honest I think people over-estimate the amount of power our government actually has to effect anything. Wether the Tories, Labour, Lib Dem, UKIP or whoever get into power it won't stop big business running the show. Any changes either way will be minor.

[Johnny Bognor]

Figures published in 2014 by the OECD, show that the UK total of 8.1 per cent of people saying they can't afford food is far less than the EU average of 11.5 per cent and the OECD average of 13.2 per cent.

 

In fact, the UK came 24th out of 34 – far behind our near neighbour France on 10 per cent. Countries hit by the eurozone crisis fared badly, with Ireland on 9 per cent, Spain on 12 per cent, Italy on 13 per cent and Greece on 17 per cent. The highest need in Europe was in Hungary, where 31 per cent went hungry.

 

With the growth in the use of food banks in germany doubling in the last 10 years (http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2013/07/11/germany-foodbanks/)...

 

... it's no wonder everyone ****ing hates the tories!!!

[pap]

Come off it pap. A family where one or both parents earns over £50,000 would be driven to use a food bank because they've lost their £20/week child benefit? These people should be queueing at the slap in the face for being stupid bank, not a food bank.

 

Come off it, Torres. You've picked on the one point you felt you could tackle, narrowed it to one parent families, and still haven't convinced me.

[pap]

Great to see you expand on your views, trousers. I know we don't always have time to do so.

 

And the bold text above is an interesting, if subtle point. Together with the Telegraph article you linked to, it has made me think.

 

One of the positions of the author in the article, who helps run a food bank, was that the demand for food banks is not always represented by the absolute number of food banks.

 

I think an economist would say that in any disruptive or discontinuous 'market', demand always precedes supply. Or, as you say, the demand may well have been there under previous governments. The issue perhaps was that supply (charities like The Trussell Trust) had not as yet seen the need in the market that it could tap into.

 

I reflected upon this, and I've concluded that you are probably correct. It makes sense to me. I suspect the first map that pap showed does not properly convey the latent demand in the market at that time for food banks. It simply shows the spread of those setup and able to meet the demand.

 

Then I reflected a bit further, and I thought "Hold on, Bletch. There's more to this!" (I even punctuate my internal monologue).

 

You see, I realised that as a society, and under various colours of government, we have allowed one part of our society to become reliant on charitable handouts so that they can gain the basic nutrients to continue to meet the job description of being a living human being.

 

Now, you are also correct that this is not unique to our country. There are other countries around the world where this happens. I remember seeing films of black faces looking plaintively up at men throwing sacks of rice from the bodies of low-loader lorries, so I know this to be true.

 

But this also didn't make me feel much better either. I then realised what the problem was. This was happening in the UK in 2015, at the same time that all major parties are promising not to raise taxes and to gouge greater chunks from our welfare state. All of them promising that the most disadvantaged in our society will be protected.

 

I fail to reconcile these two positions.

 

The other point Mr Aitken made in the article is that food banks have become 'politically weaponised' (my term not his). And I agree. So please don't see this as an attack on the Tories from Labour, the Tories from the Lib Dems, or any variation thereof.

 

I just find it amazing that anyone can expend the intellectual energy rationalising the need for food banks, whilst somehow managing to completely distance themselves from the empathy that, to my mind, any human should feel for any other human legitimately forced to reach out their hands and ask others to feed them.

 

I guess we're all hewn from different stone, and I plainly haven't walked a mile in your shoes.

 

We have food banks handing out food to genuinely needy families (some of whom don't even smoke), in the UK, in 2015.

 

*I hope you like the effort I went to to put what I perceive to be a social issue into a market context.

 

x

 

[shurlock]

They were just online articles, that made some links between increased smoking in lower income families (with stats to back it up), and others that I didn't post up that said that apparently 70% of homeless adults smoke. However, I don't know how big a problem it is, as I haven't found any stats on that, but then I certainly haven't said it is one, just that I am interested to know the statistics.

 

Aside from not being mere articles, not what your fascination with smoking is. Has smoking caused people to go into food poverty in the first place? That its crowding out spending on food? Or is it that they smoke because they are in food poverty? That smoking related to some other unobservable characteristics of these individuals - not the fact that they go to food banks? In which case, smoking may just be bit of a red herring, much like your line of enquiry.

Edited 16 April, 2015 by shurlock

[Torres]

Come off it pap. A family where one or both parents earns over £50,000 would be driven to use a food bank because they've lost their £20/week child benefit? These people should be queueing at the slap in the face for being stupid bank, not a food bank.

 

Come off it, Torres. You've picked on the one point you felt you could tackle, narrowed it to one parent families, and still haven't convinced me.

 

Except that's not what I did. At all. Otherwise, carry on advocating the reinstatement of benefits for people earning £50k+ pa.

[pap]

Except that's not what I did. At all. Otherwise, carry on advocating the reinstatement of benefits for people earning £50k+ pa.

 

Fair dos; I actually meant one child families, which alluded to your £20/week payout.

 

If you've got a large family, and you've made the entirely reasonable decision to have one parent stay at home to look after the kids, then anyone earning the higher rate is going to be hit. Those people should not be queueing for a stupid bank.

 

And my points about cherry-picking still stand.

[Torres]

Fair dos; I actually meant one child families, which alluded to your £20/week payout.

 

If you've got a large family, and you've made the entirely reasonable decision to have one parent stay at home to look after the kids, then anyone earning the higher rate is going to be hit. Those people should not be queueing for a stupid bank.

 

These people would, assuming they have normal tax code, have a monthly net wage of at least £3011. If they can't afford to provide food for themselves and their kids out of that £3011, then they've made some very, very stupid choices.

[View From The Top]

Figures published in 2014 by the OECD, show that the UK total of 8.1 per cent of people saying they can't afford food is far less than the EU average of 11.5 per cent and the OECD average of 13.2 per cent.

 

In fact, the UK came 24th out of 34 – far behind our near neighbour France on 10 per cent. Countries hit by the eurozone crisis fared badly, with Ireland on 9 per cent, Spain on 12 per cent, Italy on 13 per cent and Greece on 17 per cent. The highest need in Europe was in Hungary, where 31 per cent went hungry.

 

With the growth in the use of food banks in germany doubling in the last 10 years (http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2013/07/11/germany-foodbanks/)...

 

... it's no wonder everyone ****ing hates the tories!!!

 

The economic collapse caused by the banks is to blame not any political party. However, the current government policies regarding JCP sanctions etc has made a dire situation worse for a large section of our poorest and most vulnerable. I saw the evidence of it in the years I was working in The Black Country.

 

Those at the very bottom have been hit far more than the likes of us middle classes but we, through ignorance or malice, appear unable to recognize, empathize or even care about it. It seems to be the case that we'd rather condemn them for being lazy & workshy. Some would have us believe that everyone can make it if they really want to.

 

Perhaps people need to stop thinking that everyone is like the scroungers on Benefits Street, they drive us all mad, but focus on the very poorest and those in the direst need.

 

If I hadn't seen it with my own eyes, and worked in that environment, I wouldn't have believed it could happen in a Western Democracy in the 21st century.

[JackFrost]

Clear links to Coalition(Tory) policy. See my later post.

 

**** me, I've been recommending people to food banks (or other similar projects) since the 1990s. The problem has always been there.

 

There are clear policy decisions which have led to this. Benefit sanctions, overall 26K benefit cap, the HB cap, removal of Child Benefit for anyone paying tax at the higher threshold (yeah yeah, I know they shouldn't need food banks, but weigh in the amount of consumer debt we have and we all know it happens).

 

Benefit sanctions I'll give you.

 

As for the others (and by the way I've come across countless families that manage on a lot less than 26k) they haven't helped but there's a reason why those measures have been introduced. Just before the coalition came to power there was a massive financial crisis that hit already poor families hard. A crisis which no political party here caused. The welfare bill was unsustainable.

 

 

There is a clear link between those policies and the unprecedented rise in the use of foodbanks.

 

As someone who spent 30 years regularly encountering the poorest in our society you are utterly wrong.

 

The unprecedented rise in the use of foodbanks is because people now know about them. That massive increase is not because 1.5 million minus 41k people have suddenly become poor due to Tory or Coalition policy. It's because that amount of people have always been poor and until food banks became a political football, people simply haven't been aware of them.

 

The Labour Party banning job centres referring unemployed people to food banks and Tories' removal of this policy has caused a bigger spike than any other policy. Life for poor people wasn't better under Labour just because they swept the problem under the carpet.

 

Like I've said, the problem has always been there.

[Wes Tender]

To be honest I think people over-estimate the amount of power our government actually has to effect anything. Wether the Tories, Labour, Lib Dem, UKIP or whoever get into power it won't stop big business running the show. Any changes either way will be minor.

 

The power that our governments have to affect anything is over-estimated? By you, maybe. By increasing taxation to a level where it is deemed to be excessive for businesses or individuals so that they either find it attractive to try and avoid paying it, or relocate elsewhere in the World doesn't seem a minor result of government policies to me.

[Wes Tender]

**** me, I've been recommending people to food banks (or other similar projects) since the 1990s. The problem has always been there.

 

 

People seem to have forgotten that before food banks, there were soup kitchens.

[Batman]

People seem to have forgotten that before food banks, there were soup kitchens.

 

there used to be a soup kitchen around the corner where I live. I had to be shut down around 2008 so i am told. god knows what happened to it

It was run by the Salvation Army (I think)

[View From The Top]

People seem to have forgotten that before food banks, there were soup kitchens.

 

There still are. Friends of mine volunteer at the one in Hanley on Thursday nights. She's a CEO and he's a copper.

[pap]

These people would, assuming they have normal tax code, have a monthly net wage of at least £3011. If they can't afford to provide food for themselves and their kids out of that £3011, then they've made some very, very stupid choices.

 

Like having loads of kids? I'm not sure you realise how much they cost, and take it from me, it doesn't get any cheaper when they bugger off to Uni.

[pap]

People seem to have forgotten that before food banks, there were soup kitchens.

 

Yeah, they'd be for the people that lack cooking facilities and crockery, etc.

[Johnny Bognor]

The economic collapse caused by the banks is to blame not any political party. However, the current government policies regarding JCP sanctions etc has made a dire situation worse for a large section of our poorest and most vulnerable. I saw the evidence of it in the years I was working in The Black Country.

 

Those at the very bottom have been hit far more than the likes of us middle classes but we, through ignorance or malice, appear unable to recognize, empathize or even care about it. It seems to be the case that we'd rather condemn them for being lazy & workshy. Some would have us believe that everyone can make it if they really want to.

 

Perhaps people need to stop thinking that everyone is like the scroungers on Benefits Street, they drive us all mad, but focus on the very poorest and those in the direst need.

 

If I hadn't seen it with my own eyes, and worked in that environment, I wouldn't have believed it could happen in a Western Democracy in the 21st century.

 

To be fair, I do recognise the problem and in a modern developed country, it shouldn't happen. However, despite the nasty wasty tories, the situation in the rest of Europe, including in countries being run by left wing parties, is far worse. So the nasty wasty tories don't seem as nasty wasty as it first appears.

 

Rather than using the use of food banks as a political weapon, I would like to see a cross-party consencus on dealing with the problem, because it is a problem and it needs to be tackled. Simply throwing more money at people also may not be the answer.

 

People have touted the idea of food vouchers in the past. This scheme in Canada, where there has also been a massive rise in the use of foodbanks, shows there are innovative ways to tackle the problem:

http://rabble.ca/news/2013/08/hungry-hearts-grassroots-alternative-to-food-banks-small-town-ontario

 

I like the idea of a food debit card, where the most needy are guaranteed that they will have enough food, because that is a basic right. They are given money which can only be spent only on food. This system could solve the problem and minimise abuse of the system.

[saintbletch]

The statement in my first post doesn't indicate a preconceived political bias but is a response to the current political situation whereby I believe if we as a nation vote in a Lab/SNP government we may as well turn off the lights now. I think it will be a spectacular balls up.

 

Oh, I see. I must have seen political bias where there was none, stug76.

 

Anyway, unlike me, it's a good job you're open-minded, because I think I might be able to save you some sleepless nights.

 

There was a recent referendum in Scotland that centred around whether Scotland should leave the UK. The vote was No and most commentators (that I've read) believe that the SNP has little option, but to accept that result for at least the next decade.

 

Other commentators have said that the best result for the SNP would be to oppose a Tory minority government with a strong majority over Labour in Scotland. This, they believe would give the SNP the best chance in the next election (after this one). After all, if the devil no longer existed, even God would find herself queuing for unemployment benefit.

 

The SNP has ruled out a formal coalition with Labour, and Labour has ruled out a formal coalition with the SNP. I recognise that a political institution ruling something out doesn't carry the same currency that it once did. So there is a little risk here for you.

 

So, this leaves one major potential scenario whereby, through some form of negotiated confidence and supply structure, the SNP agrees to protect a Labour minority against things like having budgets voted down, or perhaps votes of no confidence, but in every other issue they reserve the right to vote against the minority Labour government.

 

So, the question is what would Labour be willing to give away for such limited confidence and supply support?

 

Scottish independence? No, I can't see that.

 

Removal of the nuclear 'deterrent'? No, I can't see that either. Perhaps a significant reduction? Yes, maybe.

 

The ability to control tax affairs in Scotland? Yes, I could see that as the most likely scenario - together with some form of moratorium on the regnegotionation of the Barnett formula.

 

I can't see the SNP holding much greater sway than that over a minority Labour government.

 

I could of course be wrong, and we could be in for 5 years of a lefter-than-left coalition of bastard children of Robin Hood.

 

Personally, the idea of an SNP confidence and supply mechanism dragging Labour to the Left seems like a pretty good solution. But I'd concede that I'm not longer as committed to the concept of the UK as I perhaps once was. I'd also acknowledge that I can't see such a relationship lasting the length of a parliament, but then I thought the same of this current coalition.

 

Sleep easy, stug76.

 

Well, easier.

[Torres]

Like having loads of kids? I'm not sure you realise how much they cost, and take it from me, it doesn't get any cheaper when they bugger off to Uni.

 

Who do you think pays for mine?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Aside from not being mere articles, not what your fascination with smoking is. Has smoking caused people to go into food poverty in the first place? That its crowding out spending on food? Or is it that they smoke because they are in food poverty? That smoking related to some other unobservable characteristics of these individuals - not the fact that they go to food banks? In which case, smoking may just be bit of a red herring, much like your line of enquiry.

 

I'm not sure it is a red herring. Someone who smokes 10 a day (moderate smoker) will end up spending around £1800 a year on cigarette, which is £150 a month.

 

So I would say anyone that is smoking 10 a day or more and using food banks shouldn't be using them. It's 'back of a fag packet' maths, but seems pretty accurate to me. I am sure others smoke more as well.

 

Essentially, if they pay for cigarettes it is directing money away from food, surely you can't deny that?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Like having loads of kids? I'm not sure you realise how much they cost, and take it from me, it doesn't get any cheaper when they bugger off to Uni.

 

Why should they rely on government handouts because they have decided to have a lot of kids?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

To be fair, I do recognise the problem and in a modern developed country, it shouldn't happen. However, despite the nasty wasty tories, the situation in the rest of Europe, including in countries being run by left wing parties, is far worse. So the nasty wasty tories don't seem as nasty wasty as it first appears.

 

Rather than using the use of food banks as a political weapon, I would like to see a cross-party consencus on dealing with the problem, because it is a problem and it needs to be tackled. Simply throwing more money at people also may not be the answer.

 

People have touted the idea of food vouchers in the past. This scheme in Canada, where there has also been a massive rise in the use of foodbanks, shows there are innovative ways to tackle the problem:

http://rabble.ca/news/2013/08/hungry-hearts-grassroots-alternative-to-food-banks-small-town-ontario

 

I like the idea of a food debit card, where the most needy are guaranteed that they will have enough food, because that is a basic right. They are given money which can only be spent only on food. This system could solve the problem and minimise abuse of the system.

 

I like that idea.