The K M Links Game - December 2024 Week...
Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Tory Disgrace
IDS, walked out of a debate on poverty while Tory MPs were laughing and jeering about poor people using food banks and end of day left overs at supermarkets,He and they showed complete contempt for less well off families,Total disgrace.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by yansee. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I heard Today in Parliament last night, you can listen here if you have time http://
Ken, My mistake. It was in 2000. Even more reason to ask why the necessity for food banks wasn't addressed by the previous government. I don't know that the Conservatives have done all they can to avoid the debate, as you claim, but clearly they haven't ignored it completely as the last government appears to have done.
Of course they ignored it completely, Naomi. Right up until the point where they had to discuss it because of the numbers signing the on line petition - as per the rules. And they totally ignored it despite the numbers of people relying on these food banks tripled to 350,000 between April and Sep 2013. Again from the trust's own website.
Perhaps I can help a little with Sqads’s confusion.
It is all a matter of expectations. In 2013 people living wholly or partly on benefits expect to have a standard of living equal to or greater than many of their peers who receive all their cash from employment. They expect to be able to run a car; they expect to be able to go on holiday; they expect to have a large television; they expect a good standard of accommodation; they expect to be able to buy their children expensive Christmas presents; they expect to have more children (with a commensurate increase in funds) when they want to. Sixty years ago people in their position expected none of those things.
Furthermore, the definition of “poverty” has changed from an absolute measure ((inability to afford life’s basic needs) to a relative one linked to average earnings. This means of course that poverty is unlikely ever to be eradicated because even using the median measure (as the definition of poverty does) there are almost certain to be people whose income falls below the 60% which currently defines “poverty”.
I do not condone anybody laughing or fooling about during any debate in Parliament (and such antics are not confined to any particular group or party). But let’s get a grip on what the debate was really about.
It is all a matter of expectations. In 2013 people living wholly or partly on benefits expect to have a standard of living equal to or greater than many of their peers who receive all their cash from employment. They expect to be able to run a car; they expect to be able to go on holiday; they expect to have a large television; they expect a good standard of accommodation; they expect to be able to buy their children expensive Christmas presents; they expect to have more children (with a commensurate increase in funds) when they want to. Sixty years ago people in their position expected none of those things.
Furthermore, the definition of “poverty” has changed from an absolute measure ((inability to afford life’s basic needs) to a relative one linked to average earnings. This means of course that poverty is unlikely ever to be eradicated because even using the median measure (as the definition of poverty does) there are almost certain to be people whose income falls below the 60% which currently defines “poverty”.
I do not condone anybody laughing or fooling about during any debate in Parliament (and such antics are not confined to any particular group or party). But let’s get a grip on what the debate was really about.
behaviour by all was reprehensible. mps and free food takers. imo.
are we sure that the mps were laughing at people fighting for free veg?
what sort of civilised behaviour is it where people fight over free food? how desperate are they really? even in countries hit by famine we see on the reports that they seem to be better behaved than this.
i'm not in favour with any party just want to know the facts.
are we sure that the mps were laughing at people fighting for free veg?
what sort of civilised behaviour is it where people fight over free food? how desperate are they really? even in countries hit by famine we see on the reports that they seem to be better behaved than this.
i'm not in favour with any party just want to know the facts.
Trussel Group. Number of food banks in the UK.
2000 1.
2004 2
Before the financial crisis of 2007-2008, food banks in the UK were almost unheard of.
2007-2008 22 food banks.
2011 100
2012 May 212
2012 August 252
2013 352
http://
This is a recent phenomenon, in part caused by the global economic catastrophe that was the collapse of the banking sector, exacerbated by the age of austerity and introduction of cuts in benefit payments and, more importantly, delays, imposed or administrative, in benefits payments.
It is unhelpful to attempt to dismiss the current scale of the problem, or the recent rapid and accelerating useage of foodbanks as being just an extension of what happened under the last administration. This is a problem caused by the global economic meltdown in 2008, the subsequent recession, the age of austerity, and, most importantly of all, the Coalitions changes to the benefits system - not just cuts, but delays in payment.
Of that there can be no doubt. Statistics from the Trussel Trust also show support this analysis - that the use of food banks is a modern day phenomenon.
http://
Numbers of clients of trussell trust foodbanks
10-11 61,000
11-12 129,000
12-13 347,000
a 76% increase in the number of foodbanks established just since 2012. a 12 month increase of 170% in the number of clients helped and needing food.
Coupled with that, a rise in the number of admissions into the health service - a doubling of those suffering malnutrition, since 2008/9, accelerating in the rate since 2011. (letter from the BMJ, paywalled)
7th richest global economy in the world, I think we should be doing better than relying on the voluntary sector to plug the gaps in the the benefits system and to stave off hunger and malnutrition.
Cannot comment on the Parliament issues, not having seen it.
2000 1.
2004 2
Before the financial crisis of 2007-2008, food banks in the UK were almost unheard of.
2007-2008 22 food banks.
2011 100
2012 May 212
2012 August 252
2013 352
http://
This is a recent phenomenon, in part caused by the global economic catastrophe that was the collapse of the banking sector, exacerbated by the age of austerity and introduction of cuts in benefit payments and, more importantly, delays, imposed or administrative, in benefits payments.
It is unhelpful to attempt to dismiss the current scale of the problem, or the recent rapid and accelerating useage of foodbanks as being just an extension of what happened under the last administration. This is a problem caused by the global economic meltdown in 2008, the subsequent recession, the age of austerity, and, most importantly of all, the Coalitions changes to the benefits system - not just cuts, but delays in payment.
Of that there can be no doubt. Statistics from the Trussel Trust also show support this analysis - that the use of food banks is a modern day phenomenon.
http://
Numbers of clients of trussell trust foodbanks
10-11 61,000
11-12 129,000
12-13 347,000
a 76% increase in the number of foodbanks established just since 2012. a 12 month increase of 170% in the number of clients helped and needing food.
Coupled with that, a rise in the number of admissions into the health service - a doubling of those suffering malnutrition, since 2008/9, accelerating in the rate since 2011. (letter from the BMJ, paywalled)
7th richest global economy in the world, I think we should be doing better than relying on the voluntary sector to plug the gaps in the the benefits system and to stave off hunger and malnutrition.
Cannot comment on the Parliament issues, not having seen it.
Ken, Not at all. I'll level criticism where I feel it is warranted regardless of the political party it involves - but I detest the hypocritically disingenuous nature of posts such as the OP designed specifically to malign one group whilst blatantly ignoring the glaring failings in the same area of its opponents. That's all.
I'm not saying that some people aren't hard up - they are - and that's nothing new, but until fairly recently, most people weren't aware that food banks existed, but with growing publicity, that has changed - hence people are more likely to make use of them. I also think VHG has a point. Incidentally, we are not alone. Food banks also exist in Europe.
I'm not saying that some people aren't hard up - they are - and that's nothing new, but until fairly recently, most people weren't aware that food banks existed, but with growing publicity, that has changed - hence people are more likely to make use of them. I also think VHG has a point. Incidentally, we are not alone. Food banks also exist in Europe.
Food banks may well exist in other areas of europe, or the globe, but thats not particularly helpful in discussing the issues in the UK, since the overall levels of poverty, and the social measures taken to combat poverty may well differ markedly. Not comparing like for like.
I do not see any "glaring failure" of the Coalitions opponents in the specific issue of the use of foodbanks, since they were essentially a non-existent phenomenon until the global banking crash and consequent recession. The startling rise in numbers of those using the banks is a post-2010 phenomenon.
I do not see any "glaring failure" of the Coalitions opponents in the specific issue of the use of foodbanks, since they were essentially a non-existent phenomenon until the global banking crash and consequent recession. The startling rise in numbers of those using the banks is a post-2010 phenomenon.
-- answer removed --
Is that so, ummm?
Let me give you a couple of examples then (isolated, I know, but I’ve no reason to believe they are not typical).
Only this morning when getting my newspapers a taxi pulled up outside a local council-run nursery. Two women (who are known to me and who I know are single mothers and (allegedly) live entirely on benefits) alighted from the said cab with three toddlers. They paid off the cab, shoved the “kids” into the nursery and set off to the café across the road discussing where they would be going shopping for “prezzies”.
Not far from me lives a “single” mother and her two children. She lives in Housing Association accommodation. Living with her is her latest partner (he moved in just under a year ago). Before his arrival, and since, she runs a 4x4, has had two holidays a year, has a large TV with Sky, has frequent barbecue parties in the summer and goes out “clubbing“ a couple of times a month (leaving her children in the care of her mother). She does no work.
Also near to me live a couple with a teenage son. They are very well known to me and I chat to them often. The couple work about two days each per week (of choice, more work is available but they don’t consider it worthwhile). The boy does no work. They run two cars, they have at least one holiday a year and some weekends away; they live in Housing Association accommodation and because of their impecunious state pay little rent of council tax.
These I know are isolated incidents and must be considered anecdotal. Further, I’m sure you will suggest there are perfectly reasonable explanations as to how these people can live the lives they do. But all of these people obviously form part of the poverty-stricken numbers being referred to. And of course alongside them there are some who are genuinely struggling.
I’m not at all out of touch. I simply watch what is going on around me.
Let me give you a couple of examples then (isolated, I know, but I’ve no reason to believe they are not typical).
Only this morning when getting my newspapers a taxi pulled up outside a local council-run nursery. Two women (who are known to me and who I know are single mothers and (allegedly) live entirely on benefits) alighted from the said cab with three toddlers. They paid off the cab, shoved the “kids” into the nursery and set off to the café across the road discussing where they would be going shopping for “prezzies”.
Not far from me lives a “single” mother and her two children. She lives in Housing Association accommodation. Living with her is her latest partner (he moved in just under a year ago). Before his arrival, and since, she runs a 4x4, has had two holidays a year, has a large TV with Sky, has frequent barbecue parties in the summer and goes out “clubbing“ a couple of times a month (leaving her children in the care of her mother). She does no work.
Also near to me live a couple with a teenage son. They are very well known to me and I chat to them often. The couple work about two days each per week (of choice, more work is available but they don’t consider it worthwhile). The boy does no work. They run two cars, they have at least one holiday a year and some weekends away; they live in Housing Association accommodation and because of their impecunious state pay little rent of council tax.
These I know are isolated incidents and must be considered anecdotal. Further, I’m sure you will suggest there are perfectly reasonable explanations as to how these people can live the lives they do. But all of these people obviously form part of the poverty-stricken numbers being referred to. And of course alongside them there are some who are genuinely struggling.
I’m not at all out of touch. I simply watch what is going on around me.
This post was not whether people should have benefits or if labour screwed up it`s about a failed Tory leader completely out of touch with reality due to his & his in laws wealth treating needy people with complete contempt,And he did leave the debate early after refusing to answer questions on the topic.
Latest Posts
Crosswords2 mins ago
ChatterBank29 mins ago
ChatterBank36 mins ago
News49 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles52 mins ago
