Govt minister celebrates opening foodbank

[cyberman]

Dear Me,

Just a quick note, if you do know of anyone who has been sanctioned, tell them that their first port of call should be Citizens Advice, they will get the ball rolling much faster than you going it alone, the department who deals with sanctions will drag their feet unless you make a fuss, Citizens Advice know exactly how the system works and how to speed up your appeal, also if the job centre has not advised you on emergency payments make sure to tell Citizens Advice.

Gonnagle.

They're  just pawns of the evil Tories, supporting the system and pandering to the man. If they stopped doing this, more people could starve so that we bring about the downfall of the capitalist hierarchy and welcome the vanguard of the proletariat sweeping the bourgeoisie to annihilation

Similarly, if nurses keep attending to people to have had the crap beaten out of them, this will just encourage the people who are beating them up. As Prof D has explained to us all, what nurses should be doing is taking a stand against the policy of getting pissed and beating people up. You know, raising awareness, opposing, that kind of thing. So much better than actually helping people. If only us proles had realised sooner that feeding people and helping them is a Bad Thing! Glad the Prof was here to explain it all to us. Seems he's gone quiet now, since asked a couple of direct questions.

[Udayana]

This is all very well, but even if there was a party with an economic plan that would solve the welfare/benefits/poverty problems we have without wrecking another part of the economy or environment,  it is most unlikely they would get elected in to government.

[ProfessorDavey]

Dear Me,

Just a quick note, if you do know of anyone who has been sanctioned, tell them that their first port of call should be Citizens Advice, they will get the ball rolling much faster than you going it alone, the department who deals with sanctions will drag their feet unless you make a fuss, Citizens Advice know exactly how the system works and how to speed up your appeal, also if the job centre has not advised you on emergency payments make sure to tell Citizens Advice.

Gonnagle.

They're  just pawns of the evil Tories, supporting the system and pandering to the man. If they stopped doing this, more people could starve so that we bring about the downfall of the capitalist hierarchy and welcome the vanguard of the proletariat sweeping the bourgeoisie to annihilation

Similarly, if nurses keep attending to people to have had the crap beaten out of them, this will just encourage the people who are beating them up. As Prof D has explained to us all, what nurses should be doing is taking a stand against the policy of getting pissed and beating people up. You know, raising awareness, opposing, that kind of thing. So much better than actually helping people. If only us proles had realised sooner that feeding people and helping them is a Bad Thing! Glad the Prof was here to explain it all to us. Seems he's gone quiet now, since asked a couple of direct questions.

Sorry your nurses and people being beaten up analogy is really poor, specifically because it is not government policy to beat people up. By contrast it is government policy to retract welfare and to pass the burden of dealing with the consequences to the third sector. The equivalent would be if government never used to beat people up, but then enacted a policy of beating them up and abrogated responsibility for the consequences, which wouldn't be passed on to nurses (who lets face it work within the public sector) but to third party providers to deal with. And then used the appearance of charity run refuges to treat those beaten up as justification for beating more and more people up.

And of course the tragedy is that this massive shifting of burden of food poverty hasn't actually reduced welfare spending which has continued to rise throughout the years of supposed recovery. And one of the main culprits being spending on housing benefit, which is effectively a government subsidy to landlords. Government could have taken an alternative route and (I believe) could have been forced into taking an alternative route by being made to accept its responsibilities. But the third sector food bank provider have made it really easy for the government to privatise its welfare responsibilities, and no doubt in due course accountability. Indeed they seem to have been rather willing partners in the approach.

How long before the third sector is blamed for not being able to cope with the burden of food poverty.

We shouldn't be applauding the fact that 1 million people in the UK (one of the richest countries in the world) now rely on charity food banks, twenty five times more people than at the height of the recession in 2009. No we should be ashamed by it.

[cyberman]

Sorry your nurses and people being beaten up analogy is really poor, specifically because it is not government policy to beat people up.

But it is someone's policy. Also, it isn't government policy to abandon babies on doorsteps. If someone (government, pissheads, people with unwanted babies) has a policy which causes suffering, opposing their policy is a pathetic excuse for not helping those who are suffering.

Your plan to let people starve until the government realise that they need to do something about it is monstrous and inhuman. It is ivory-tower smugness at it's worst.  I believe in helping people who need help. I also am politically active, a member of the Labour Party, and have been opposing Tory policies since before Thatcher (>spit<). Being able to walk and chew gum at the same time, I also manage to oppose policies and give someone a tin of beans and a toothbrush at the same time.

[Nearly Sane]

Agree with cyberman, but just to add no one on here is applauding food banks. Good to know that Prof D' s arse has room for that much straw.

[Anchorman]

Dear Sane,

Calm down old friend

Dear Rhiannon and Jim,

Haud the bus!! Do you or any other poster know if CAB attend at food banks, just a idea, if you can't attend a CAB office they could attend where they might be needed.

Gonnagle.

-
Dunno if they attend on an official capacity, Gonners - but I know a couple of CAB workers who do double up as volunteers at a local food bank - and do dole out advice on request.

[floo]

With personal debt at the level it is - £1 trillion - are the government, banks and big business the only ones responsible for the situation we find ourselves in?

Nothing to do with those individuals who chose to take on all this record debt?

A friend of my daughter did some volunteering at a local food bank and couldn't help but notice that none of the clients seemed to be lacking expensive smartphones.

That annoys me, if they can afford such luxuries then they should be able to afford food. 

This has already been discussed at length above floo.

I assume by "luxury" you mean "anything other than a crust of bread and a shirt on their back"

The basics should certainly be provided before any thought of luxuries. When we were first married in 1969, I had to manage on £4 per week housekeeping money, which wasn't much even then. We had to do without luxuries, but coped. It stood us in good stead, and even though we don't have to count the pennies nowadays, we never go totally overboard in the luxury stakes, just in case times change. 

[Gonnagle]

Dear Floo,

The basics should certainly be provided before any thought of luxuries. When we were first married in 1969, I had to manage on £4 per week housekeeping money, which wasn't much even then. We had to do without luxuries, but coped. It stood us in good stead, and even though we don't have to count the pennies nowadays, we never go totally overboard in the luxury stakes, just in case times change. 

And that is a very good strategy to take, but times have changed, everybody wants stuff now and going into debt is one way of achieving this.

Governments and banks have encouraged this, it is only now that banks are being encouraged to think carefully about who they lend money too, why, because somewhere down the line they may be questioned as to why they gave money to someone who might struggle to repay.

Gone are the days if someone wanted something they waited until they had saved for it.

As I keep saying, people are stupid, some do need rules to protect them from the greedy.


Gonnagle.

[Outrider]

And that is a very good strategy to take, but times have changed, everybody wants stuff now and going into debt is one way of achieving this.

It's beyond that - the expectation is that debt is the norm, the entire economic workings of the world is predicated on it. The 'richest nations', typically, are also those that owe the most money.

Not only that, but things that some consider luxuries are actually necessities - internet access is not a 'nice to have', it's fundamental to life these days. The cheapest ways to bank, to pay household bills, to search for employment and the like are on-line - having internet access is not a 'luxury', yet many people still think of it that way.

A television, by contrast, is very much a luxury, but it's treated as somewhere between a necessity and a right.

O.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Outrider,

Good post old chap

Gonnagle.

[wigginhall]

To say that people should live without a phone seems quite cruel to me.  For example, take somebody unemployed, how do they contact employers without a phone?   Or a family on the breadline - how do they make appointments for a doctor, if one of the kids is ill?   (I live 3 miles from a surgery, which is a two hour walk there and back).   

[floo]

To say that people should live without a phone seems quite cruel to me.  For example, take somebody unemployed, how do they contact employers without a phone?   Or a family on the breadline - how do they make appointments for a doctor, if one of the kids is ill?   (I live 3 miles from a surgery, which is a two hour walk there and back).

You can have a basic mobile phone as I do, iphones certainly aren't a necessity!

[wigginhall]

Well, as I said, I pay £10  a month for a smartphone, with free internet.   Is that really a luxury?  As others have said, the internet enables access to tons of information, emails, and so on.   I don't think that poor families need that less, in fact, they might need it more, e.g. to look for work, ask for advice, and so on. 

[Nearly Sane]

To say that people should live without a phone seems quite cruel to me.  For example, take somebody unemployed, how do they contact employers without a phone?   Or a family on the breadline - how do they make appointments for a doctor, if one of the kids is ill?   (I live 3 miles from a surgery, which is a two hour walk there and back).

You can have a basic mobile phone as I do, iphones certainly aren't a necessity!

Doesn't get email which would be useful

[floo]

Well, as I said, I pay £10  a month for a smartphone, with free internet.   Is that really a luxury?  As others have said, the internet enables access to tons of information, emails, and so on.   I don't think that poor families need that less, in fact, they might need it more, e.g. to look for work, ask for advice, and so on.

Less time on the Internet playing mindless games and more time looking for gainful employment might be a good idea where some are concerned!

[cyberman]

Well, as I said, I pay £10  a month for a smartphone, with free internet.   Is that really a luxury?  As others have said, the internet enables access to tons of information, emails, and so on.   I don't think that poor families need that less, in fact, they might need it more, e.g. to look for work, ask for advice, and so on.

Less time on the Internet playing mindless games and more time looking for gainful employment might be a good idea where some are concerned!

(a) they are entitled to entertainment, as are their family, and £10 a month for a smartphone is a good way of providing that
(b) the internet is not just mindless entertainemnt, it provides access to services and information, and helps people look for jobs

[floo]

Well, as I said, I pay £10  a month for a smartphone, with free internet.   Is that really a luxury?  As others have said, the internet enables access to tons of information, emails, and so on.   I don't think that poor families need that less, in fact, they might need it more, e.g. to look for work, ask for advice, and so on.

Less time on the Internet playing mindless games and more time looking for gainful employment might be a good idea where some are concerned!

(a) they are entitled to entertainment, as are their family, and £10 a month for a smartphone is a good way of providing that
(b) the internet is not just mindless entertainemnt, it provides access to services and information, and helps people look for jobs

Yeh but how many use it for that?

[cyberman]

Well, as I said, I pay £10  a month for a smartphone, with free internet.   Is that really a luxury?  As others have said, the internet enables access to tons of information, emails, and so on.   I don't think that poor families need that less, in fact, they might need it more, e.g. to look for work, ask for advice, and so on.

Less time on the Internet playing mindless games and more time looking for gainful employment might be a good idea where some are concerned!

(a) they are entitled to entertainment, as are their family, and £10 a month for a smartphone is a good way of providing that
(b) the internet is not just mindless entertainemnt, it provides access to services and information, and helps people look for jobs

Yeh but how many use it for that?

Dunno., Who cares? The fact that people are spending £10 or £20 a month having a smartphone is irrelevant. They can do what they like with them. Your insinuation that they are wasters and don't deserve assistance is just snobbery.

[wigginhall]

Funny how the right wing continually slag off food banks, along the lines that the people using them are faking it, or are all using iphones, or are just feckless.  It sounds like the 1850s and Samuel Smiles, the poor are just irresponsible.   I suppose it eases the conscience, but it has a horrible whiff of the Victorian age, and the attitudes to the poor then. 

I suppose Osborne has very cleverly introduced the narrative of workers and shirkers, although ironically, many benefits go to people in work, since they get such low wages.  So there has developed a tone of disapproval of people on benefits, with stories of fat sluts with 8 kids living in huge houses.   It makes me despair really, it's a kind of moral nadir to which we are sinking.   

[floo]

Funny how the right wing continually slag off food banks, along the lines that the people using them are faking it, or are all using iphones, or are just feckless.  It sounds like the 1850s and Samuel Smiles, the poor are just irresponsible.   I suppose it eases the conscience, but it has a horrible whiff of the Victorian age, and the attitudes to the poor then.

I have a BIG PROBLEM with benefit scroungers who have no intention of looking for work. Of course not all people on benefits are lazy and many are genuinely looking for work and need a helping hand. I am of the opinion that those of working age and in good health should have to do some sort of task, however menial, in order to receive their benefits.

Our son, has Down's Syndrome, he is quite seriously mentally disabled but works two days a week packing parts for the electrical trade, a company set up by our local council. Our boy gets £3 a week as a gratuity in addition to the benefits he receives.

[BashfulAnthony]

Well, as I said, I pay £10  a month for a smartphone, with free internet.   Is that really a luxury?  As others have said, the internet enables access to tons of information, emails, and so on.   I don't think that poor families need that less, in fact, they might need it more, e.g. to look for work, ask for advice, and so on.

Less time on the Internet playing mindless games and more time looking for gainful employment might be a good idea where some are concerned!

How many people can you name who do that?  Or is it just you perpetuating another urban myth?

[Outrider]

I have a BIG PROBLEM with benefit scroungers who have no intention of looking for work.

The problem is, though, that there isn't any reliable data to show that there is an appreciable number of benefit recipients with no intention of finding work.

Of course not all people on benefits are lazy and many are genuinely looking for work and need a helping hand. I am of the opinion that those of working age and in good health should have to do some sort of task, however menial, in order to receive their benefits.

Which only results in them doing nothing useful (if it's work for work's sake) which is demoralising, or taking up jobs that someone else could be doing as their actual job, with security of employment and self-worth deriving from it.

O.

[wigginhall]

Funny how the right wing continually slag off food banks, along the lines that the people using them are faking it, or are all using iphones, or are just feckless.  It sounds like the 1850s and Samuel Smiles, the poor are just irresponsible.   I suppose it eases the conscience, but it has a horrible whiff of the Victorian age, and the attitudes to the poor then.

I have a BIG PROBLEM with benefit scroungers who have no intention of looking for work. Of course not all people on benefits are lazy and many are genuinely looking for work and need a helping hand. I am of the opinion that those of working age and in good health should have to do some sort of task, however menial, in order to receive their benefits.

Our son, has Down's Syndrome, he is quite seriously mentally disabled but works two days a week packing parts for the electrical trade, a company set up by our local council. Our boy gets £3 a week as a gratuity in addition to the benefits he receives.

And many people who get benefits actually work, so in fact, it's the employer who is getting a subsidy.  Ah well, I suppose the right wing don't like to look at it that way, much easier to slag off the poor, just as it's easier to blame them for the economic crash, while the bankers continue to get their bonuses.   Help the rich, and demonize  the poor - very clever. 

[wigginhall]

God, this is depressing, listening to this Osborne-type demonizing of the poor, sorry, the scroungers.   It seems to me like a huge moral decline we are witnessing, a sort of break-up of community and mutual help.  Back to the Victorian age,  I suppose, and self-help.  Help.  Is there any way back from this?

[floo]

A bit of self help is not a bad thing, imo!