But the food banks are simply a response to government policy but a necessary part of their implementation. Remember that access to the food banks usually requires the person to have their needs assessed and to receive a voucher that is used in the food bank. The assessment and issue of the vouchers is done through various governmental organisations. Food banks that give food only in exchange for these vouchers are an integral part of that government policy.
I still don't get what sort of approach can be taken that preserves the moral purity of having nothing to do with govt policy, and therefore uses the suffering of people as a reproach, without then effectively being part of the cause of that suffering as well.
Are you really taking a position that it would be better for Trussell Trust to stop trying to help people in the short term because in the long term any suffering is offset by the collapse of the govt policy?
I'm with NS on this, Prof. The idea that you should stand by and let people suffer just in order to encourage their tormentors to reflect on their responsibilities is middle class pomposity at its worst.
No you can stand up against government policies. Or at least you can not be a willing part of that policy. For a fund bank to run on the basis of accepting government-derived vouchers means it has signed up, hook, line and sinker to that government policy.
Give that 5 years or so ago food banks didn't really exist had there been a strong kick back by potential provider to say 'nope, we are not going along with this policy' I think government would have had to think again. But as it was it was easy to 'privatise' welfare because there were willing providers ready to set up food banks to cover the gap created by welfare changes. Don't forget that 5 years ago these people weren't starving - they were poor but had sufficient money to buy their own food in real shops.
Yes yes but what do you do about the people who are struggling to feed their kids now? I realise middle class families can afford to wait until the election, or until the tide turns, or until a rousing editorial appears in the Guardian; and I realise many middle class people like their charitable activities to "raise awareness" (rather than actually "do stuff") - but there are people who are hungry today. And I can afford to stick a few extra bags of pasta and tins of soup in my trolley today. And the Trussell Trust are ready to take those tins off me today. What should I do today? "It's alright pet, I'm standing up to Cameron's policies, so Jimmy will stop feeling hungry in a minute". Pathetic.
If a baby was left on a doorstep, would you say "no, don't feed it - that's what they want you to do! You are actively supporting a baby-abandoning policy if you help the baby!"?
And by that attitude you effectively create more and more babies on the doorstep and more and more Jimmys and that is exactly what we are seeing. It is a downward spiral until someone stands up and says to government "enough, we won't do your bidding, we won't take on your responsibility". But sadly the food bank providers haven't done this and really do seem to be willing participants in the government's project.
So just out of interest on the Trussell Trust state the following as reasons for using their banks:
'Redundancy, illness, benefit delay, domestic violence, debt, family breakdown and paying for the additional costs of heating during winter are just some of the reasons why people go hungry.'
So which of these are so much worse now (and why) than they were 5-6 years ago, effectively to explain a rise in use from 41 thousand to over 1 million. And note that only mention benefit delay, not changes to welfare and benefit payments.
Remember the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
