There ARE NOT over one million people reliant on food banks

Watch
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
Even with the reliant aside there still aren't over one million individuals using food banks. Yesterday the Trussell Trust clarified (for the silly lefties) that the 1.1m figure is not individuals, rather "users" (as anybody with a brain could have told you initially unless using it for anti-tory rhetoric). If an individual were to over the year use 2 4 person tokens that counts for 8 people, even if there are just the 4 actual people.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...ell-Trust.html
Or, if you would prefer:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32413080
3
reply
StretfordEnd
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
Does this change much?

If the 6th largest economy in the world is growing and some of its citizens are still relying on foodbanks, I think that's a pretty damning situation. You're not going to see the Tories touch this clarification with a bargepole on the election campaign and there's a reason for that.
9
reply
Alfissti
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 6 years ago
#3
I am hardly surprised by this news, there are good reasons why many food banks are bursting at its seems with the sheer amount of food. Let's not get started that the charities that run them these days are rather wealthy organizations.
1
reply
scrotgrot
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
Welcome to the fastest growing major economy.

Watch that wealth trickle down, baby.
1
reply
futbol
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#5
Report 6 years ago
#5
A lot of food bank users are high earners who want to save money or can't be bothered to go to the shops.

Average food bank user:

Image
Attached files
1
reply
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#6
(Original post by StretfordEnd)
Does this change much?

If the 6th largest economy in the world is growing and some of its citizens are still relying on foodbanks, I think that's a pretty damning situation. You're not going to see the Tories touch this clarification with a bargepole on the election campaign and there's a reason for that.
"Relying" is a strong word, and there are a great many reasons why there will be some people for which it is not an overstatement. The reason they won't touch it is that to the electorate charity is, apparently, a bad thing. We should be welcoming the growth in availability of food banks for those that "need" them, "Rather than a sign of social decay, they are an example of the 'big society' in action"


(Original post by scrotgrot)
Welcome to the fastest growing major economy.

Watch that wealth trickle down, baby.
If you don't want the money to trickle down I guess when I'm older I'll be going abroad to buy all the things I don't actually need, I'll let their poor reap the benefits of my prospective wealth.
0
reply
StretfordEnd
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#7
Report 6 years ago
#7
(Original post by futbol)
A lot of food bank users are high earners who want to save money or can't be bothered to go to the shops.
A reduction in the scope of the welfare state means that the voluntary and informal sectors expand to fill the demand - such as with food banks.

If they are as as prone to corruption and as financially inefficient at distributing resources as you say, I am sure you will join in me in advocating for a centrally-planned publicly funded welfare system with as much state involvement as is possible
0
reply
scrotgrot
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#8
Report 6 years ago
#8
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
"Relying" is a strong word, and there are a great many reasons why there will be some people for which it is not an overstatement. The reason they won't touch it is that to the electorate charity is, apparently, a bad thing. We should be welcoming the growth in availability of food banks for those that "need" them, "Rather than a sign of social decay, they are an example of the 'big society' in action"
So Tories are trying to claim credit for the 24x growth of food banks since the coalition took office as some kind of success for Cameron's big society rhetoric? Wow. That really is a new low.

Also you just quoted the editor of the Spectator in the Barclay brother owned Telegraph. Talk about a right wing circle jerk.

If you don't want the money to trickle down I guess when I'm older I'll be going abroad to buy all the things I don't actually need, I'll let their poor reap the benefits of my prospective wealth.
Lol stop deluding yourself, you aren't going to be rich enough for that, you'll be average I expect. And if you are, good riddance! Go to one of these low-tax cesspits where people live in cages.
1
reply
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#9
(Original post by scrotgrot)
So Tories are trying to claim credit for the 24x growth of food banks since the coalition took office as some kind of success for Cameron's big society rhetoric? Wow. That really is a new low.

Also you just quoted the editor of the Spectator in the Barclay brother owned Telegraph. Talk about a right wing circle jerk.
Did you even read it? I think I shall pull this line out for you:
"Surveys since the crash have shown no real increase in people unable to afford food. Just one in five food bank customers mentions low income, and one in six cites changes to benefits."
And I guess you forget that during their 13 years in office Labour practically acted as if food banks don't exist, and Milibands Labour would quite like to get rid of them, even if the problems are not solved? What good would that do bar scoring cheap points at the expense of those in need?

Lol stop deluding yourself, you aren't going to be rich enough for that, you'll be average I expect. And if you are, good riddance! Go to one of these low-tax cesspits where people live in cages.
As an individual, no, as a collective however...How many people in this country are reliant on people spending what they don't need to for their income? How many million work in retail beyond the likes of groceries? How many people produce non-essential goods in this country? If we all suddenly stopped spending on things we didn't have to millions would be out of work. I wouldn't be buying new TVs, phones, computer, tablets, at the very least not anywhere near as frequently. I wouldn't buy a car (although I may not anyway), so then there there will be less need for mechanics, forecourt workers, oil etc
0
reply
Jasonpt
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#10
Report 6 years ago
#10
(Original post by StretfordEnd)
Does this change much?

If the 6th largest economy in the world is growing and some of its citizens are still relying on foodbanks, I think that's a pretty damning situation. You're not going to see the Tories touch this clarification with a bargepole on the election campaign and there's a reason for that.
And the US (biggest economy in the world) still has almost 30M people in poverty and huge inequality.
0
reply
StretfordEnd
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#11
Report 6 years ago
#11
(Original post by Jasonpt)
And the US (biggest economy in the world) still has almost 30M people in poverty and huge inequality.
A clear example of the utter failure of neoliberalism and trickle-down economics, then.
0
reply
domonict
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#12
Report 6 years ago
#12
austerity measures sometimes have a reverse effect to that intended,

If you say, cut wages of the workers, they don't buy stuff, other workers loose their jobs and the gov tax returns go down.

To get supplies from a food bank, you normally need to be in receipt of certain benefits and be referred through other organisations.
You can't just have a job and rock up with a carrier bag because it is a cheap alternative to Lidl/Waitrose.
0
reply
scrotgrot
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#13
Report 6 years ago
#13
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Did you even read it? I think I shall pull this line out for you:
"Surveys since the crash have shown no real increase in people unable to afford food. Just one in five food bank customers mentions low income, and one in six cites changes to benefits."
And I guess you forget that during their 13 years in office Labour practically acted as if food banks don't exist, and Milibands Labour would quite like to get rid of them, even if the problems are not solved? What good would that do bar scoring cheap points at the expense of those in need?
Those are the Trussell Trust stats he's using. (If they're good enough for the editor of the Speccie, they're good enough for you, so no complaints about how ooh they're a big wealthy charity with an agenda.)

Trussell Trust, primary referral causes, 2014-15
29%: benefit delays
22%: low income
13%: benefit changes.

See the weasel words Nelson uses by not including benefit delays. And how he doesn't mention these are the top three causes.

Want the full list?

Other 11%
Debt 7%
Homeless 4%
Unemployed 4%
Sickness 2%
Domestic violence 1%
Delayed wages 1%
Child holiday meals <1%
Refused STBA (short term benefits advances) <1%
Refused crisis loan <1%

See? That's how you do full disclosure, rather than cherry-picking, twisting stats and using weasel words.

How is any of those not to do with low pay, benefit cuts etc? - Tory or Labour. The point is food banks have soared under the Tories and people go to them for the above reasons - exactly those people whom even you would agree the benefit "reforms" have attacked.

As an individual, no, as a collective however...How many people in this country are reliant on people spending what they don't need to for their income? How many million work in retail beyond the likes of groceries? How many people produce non-essential goods in this country? If we all suddenly stopped spending on things we didn't have to millions would be out of work. I wouldn't be buying new TVs, phones, computer, tablets, at the very least not anywhere near as frequently. I wouldn't buy a car (although I may not anyway), so then there there will be less need for mechanics, forecourt workers, oil etc
Yeah, I'm pretty sure you'd have been against the unions holding the country to ransom back in the seventies. But as usual, one rule for working people, one rule for the rich.

Trickle-down is *******s because rich people don't actually spend their money - some of them, shockingly, have some financial sense. They save it, and the hallowed banks decide where it is best invested. Unless it's all offshore, of course.

Give money to the poor and they will spend it with small local businesses who are the engine of the British economy and who cannot move money outside the country.
0
reply
Jasonpt
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#14
Report 6 years ago
#14
(Original post by StretfordEnd)
A clear example of the utter failure of neoliberalism and trickle-down economics, then.
Agreed!
0
reply
StretfordEnd
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#15
Report 6 years ago
#15
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Did you even read it? I think I shall pull this line out for you:
"Surveys since the crash have shown no real increase in people unable to afford food. Just one in five food bank customers mentions low income, and one in six cites changes to benefits."
And I guess you forget that during their 13 years in office Labour practically acted as if food banks don't exist, and Milibands Labour would quite like to get rid of them, even if the problems are not solved? What good would that do bar scoring cheap points at the expense of those in need?


As an individual, no, as a collective however...How many people in this country are reliant on people spending what they don't need to for their income? How many million work in retail beyond the likes of groceries? How many people produce non-essential goods in this country? If we all suddenly stopped spending on things we didn't have to millions would be out of work. I wouldn't be buying new TVs, phones, computer, tablets, at the very least not anywhere near as frequently. I wouldn't buy a car (although I may not anyway), so then there there will be less need for mechanics, forecourt workers, oil etc
This is the best argument I can think of of why the government's fiscal role should be heavily re-distributive. Every £1 spent on a 'poor' person has more value than every £1 spent on rich person; regardless of whether the mechanism is benefits-in-kind, direct transfers, tax relief and concessions or w/e.

People below or on the poverty line spend 100% of their income. People marginally above still spend upwards of 90%. Even when you get to the kind of incomes where people can begin to hold medicore savings, a huge percentage of income is still immediately spent.

When you spend £1bn on a government policy that increases the amount of welfare (of any kind) you're looking at an overwhelming amount of that being recycled straight back into the productive economy. £1bn being spent on a policy for, say, tax cuts for the wealthiest, much less of that will see it's way back in.

You can see this in per capita growth; in the 60's and 70's when all the western countries followed a primarily 'socially democratic' model with a huge role for state provision of welfare, growth was about double what it has been from the 80's to the present where a largely neoliberal model has been employed.
0
reply
aberdaber
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#16
Report 6 years ago
#16
The bottom line is that if you are on jobseeker's you are expected to live on ten pounds a day after accommodation and bills have been paid. Please give me a breakdown on food and other expenses that will allow a person to stay healthy on this amount of money.
0
reply
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#17
(Original post by aberdaber)
The bottom line is that if you are on jobseeker's you are expected to live on ten pounds a day after accommodation and bills have been paid. Please give me a breakdown on food and other expenses that will allow a person to stay healthy on this amount of money.
The BBC did a couple of years back a week, after accommodation, on £50 a week by doing that wonderful thing called "living with other people"
0
reply
scrotgrot
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#18
Report 6 years ago
#18
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
The BBC did a couple of years back a week, after accommodation, on £50 a week by doing that wonderful thing called "living with other people"
Council tax contribution
Bedroom tax
Heating
Electricity
Water
Bus fares

That will come to more than £20, so out of JSA you wouldn't have £50 left over for food. Also if a single male you probably wouldn't get social housing so you would also be paying whatever your rent was over and above the LHA.

Also the BBC weren't in danger of being sanctioned and their oven/fridge didn't break down.

Problem is not really with the level of benefits but the way the Tories have made them so insecure. £50 is a joke, I live on £20 for food as a student and I consider what I buy food-wise to be pretty extravagant.

Final point: living with other people, you do know that's basically the same as living in a slum, don't you?

Care to answer my post about the Trussell Trust stats, by the way? Or was that one a bit embarrassing?
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 6 years ago
#19
It will probably come as no shock to the OP that i almost completely agree with him... but this is a battle that we will never win. Better to bow to peer pressure on food, water and homelessness than paint yourself as being heartless atop the moral high ground.
0
reply
democracyforum
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#20
Report 6 years ago
#20
What if someone made some hash brownies and donated them to a food bank ?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What support do you need with your UCAS application?

I need help researching unis (7)
11.86%
I need help researching courses (5)
8.47%
I need help with filling out the application form (3)
5.08%
I need help with my personal statement (25)
42.37%
I need help with understanding how to make my application stand out (14)
23.73%
I need help with something else (let us know in the thread!) (2)
3.39%
I'm feeling confident about my application and don't need any help at the moment (3)
5.08%

Watched Threads

View All