Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on July 22, 2015, 01:45:28 PM
-
Good old David (Mundell).
http://www.thenational.scot/news/mundell-under-fire-for-hypocrisy-after-agreeing-to-open-food-bank-in-constituency.5476
-
I saw this elsewhere this morning.
I thought it was a spoof - but it wasn't.
The ultimate in irony - and insult to the people his ravvle of a government have forced into this situation.
-
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?
-
Dear Hope,
Yes, humans are stupid and greedy, government, big business and wankers depend on it.
Gonnagle.
-
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.
-
Actually far worse than the food banks is what appears to be a major cause of them - the benefits sanction. I've only just heard of this and am shocked beyond belief, not least because they are designed to deliberately affect a person's health.
“it would be usual for a normal healthy adult to suffer some deterioration in their health if they were without . . . sufficient money to buy essential items for a period of two weeks”. (DWP guidelines)
'Sanctions' last for between 4-13 weeks.
Full article here:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/why-are-so-many-people-using-food-banks
-
Dear Rhiannon,
Sanctions, yes I forgot sanctions over on the why are SNP thriving thread, a joke, this is Job centres only incentive ( incentive >:( ) to help citizens back into employment, the Tories live in cloud cuckoo land, I think Cameron watches to many channel 4 programmes.
Gonnagle.
-
I doubt Cameron has the first idea what effect 'his' policies have.
-
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.
You can have a smartphone for about £20 a month. If you haven't got a computer, it's a very cheap way of providing your household with entertainment, access to online services, email, communications, information, etc,etc.
Presumably finding Victorian values too liberal, you have gone right back to Elizabethan ones!
The notion (as very clearly implied) that if a household possess a smartphone they are not in genuine need is dreadful and stupid.
-
Not only that, it might simply mean that the smartphone was purchesed months - even years - before circumstances meant that food banks made the difference between an empty belly and a basic meal.
-
I have a smartphone for £10 a month. It's a classic tabloid argument - they're not starving, look, they have a TV.
-
Sure, I'd agree with those points to a degree - but these are not the starving individuals that the media portray - they are simply people a bit short of cash who have found an easy option.
-
Sure, I'd agree with those points to a degree - but these are not the starving individuals that the media portray - they are simply people a bit short of cash who have found an easy option.
-
Tell that to those in my local church group who help administer the two food banks in my area.
Tht's an area of smallish towns, where most people know who is - and is not - pretending to be in need.
I wish more were pretending.
Too many are victims of this inhuman government's sanction policy.
When some idiot sanctions you because the bus you were on in an effort to meet a job centre interview is twenty minutes late because it broke down, and that sanction will take between three and six weeks to correct, then, even though you know you will get the money you are due back, that doesn't help feed your family for a month.
And that applies to the DOZEN people put in that position by the criminal actions of this rotten government.
-
Sure, I'd agree with those points to a degree - but these are not the starving individuals that the media portray - they are simply people a bit short of cash who have found an easy option.
Did you read the link in my earlier post? Lose your childcare, lose your job, how do you feed your kids whilst waiting for problems with benefits to iron out? A friend of mine north of the border used to eat two slices of toast a day after her husband left her and her children. A good bank would have made the world of difference.
-
I doubt Cameron has the first idea what effect 'his' policies have.
I think Cameron morphs into Mrs. Thatcher when he gets home at night!
-
I doubt Cameron has the first idea what effect 'his' policies have.
I think Cameron morphs into Mrs. Thatcher when he gets home at night!
That suggests he would at least have convictions. I've yet to see anything that suggests he does. What is Cameronism? I haven't a clue.
-
these are not the starving individuals that the media portray - they are simply people a bit short of cash who have found an easy option.
What makes you think that?
-
Good old David (Mundell).
http://www.thenational.scot/news/mundell-under-fire-for-hypocrisy-after-agreeing-to-open-food-bank-in-constituency.5476
Pretty crass but not surprising of the Tories. Lets face it the food bank is the perfect example of David Cameron's 'Big Society' (a term he has quietly dropped). The Big Society agenda was always about 'privatising' resposibilities of government to others. In this case not necessarily to big business (although often they are there in the background) but to the third sector of charities and volunteers. It fits perfectly with the shrink government agenda.
And there are too many who are facing both ways over this - wring their hands about the terrible cuts in necessary welfare etc imposed by government and its effects, yet first in line to sign up to the government's agenda by running the food banks - and claiming pride in doing so.
-
Apart from being an incorrect characterisation of schizophrenia, it's also a fairly thoughtless use of a term for mental illness that you have just used.
-
Apart from being an incorrect characterisation of schizophrenia, it's also a fairly thoughtless use of a term for mental illness that you have just used.
Yes you are correct - apologies. I think you know what I meant (and is often a colloquial use of the term), but I recognise this was not appropriate and have changed it. Although actually my use and its definition is recognised:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/schizophrenic
Note:
'2. a state characterized by the coexistence of contradictory or incompatible elements.'
Do you have any comment on the actual point - that those running food banks seem to nod to disapproval of the government's approach while signing up as a key component of the government's agenda to transfer responsibility from itself to charities.
-
Apology accepted, I did indeed know what you mean but I find the colloquialism is something to be avoided.
I am not sure I see the problem. If people see a need that they think is caused by govt policy and think needs to be addressed, then why not do something to help. That does not seem contradictory to me, since the alternative is surely just to do nothing see people suffer and then go 'Told you so'
-
Apology accepted, I did indeed know what you mean but I find the colloquialism is something to be avoided.
I am not sure I see the problem. If people see a need that they think is caused by govt policy and think needs to be addressed, then why not do something to help. That does not seem contradictory to me, since the alternative is surely just to do nothing see people suffer and then go 'Told you so'
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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. ::)
-
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"
-
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"
A shirt! A shirt! Luxury - we used to dream of a shirt!
-
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.
-
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"
A shirt! A shirt! Luxury - we used to dream of a shirt!
Only a sackcloth one, complete with ashes.
-
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.
If you are not willing to help when people are suffering because of your moral purity, you are part of the cause of the suffering.
-
Only a sackcloth one, complete with ashes.
A mobile phone! We used to have to communicate with two cans tied together with string, except we only had one can which we lived in and no string.
-
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!"?
-
Only a sackcloth one, complete with ashes.
A mobile phone! We used to have to communicate with two cans tied together with string, except we only had one can which we lived in a...
String!! When I was young we didn't even have that. We had to use the cord out of our pyjamas, and we only had one pair of those between us.
-
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.
If you are not willing to help when people are suffering because of your moral purity, you are part of the cause of the suffering.
Sometimes you have to recognise that if you say 'no I won't be part of this' you can change the course of the future so that far fewer people suffer.
The statistics on food banks are appalling - so in 2009-10 (remember this was at the deepest point of the recession) just 41,000 people received food via food banks. This was before the effective privatisation of the welfare responsibilities by the coalition. Since then, despite a slow, but clear recovery in the economic position of the UK, including falling unemployment, there has been a 19% year on year increase in their use, so that over 1 million people are now relying on them.
Are you really suggesting that the increase isn't fundamentally due to government policy and the provision has arisen to support that policy. Without the presence of the food banks there is no doubt in my mind that the government would have been forced to think again about its policy.
-
Only a sackcloth one, complete with ashes.
A mobile phone! We used to have to communicate with two cans tied together with string, except we only had one can which we lived in and no string.
A can? Would have been a palace to us! We lived wrapped up in that piece of string you lost.
-
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.
-
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.
If you are not willing to help when people are suffering because of your moral purity, you are part of the cause of the suffering.
Sometimes you have to recognise that if you say 'no I won't be part of this' you can change the course of the future so that far fewer people suffer.
The statistics on food banks are appalling - so in 2009-10 (remember this was at the deepest point of the recession) just 41,000 people received food via food banks. This was before the effective privatisation of the welfare responsibilities by the coalition. Since then, despite a slow, but clear recovery in the economic position of the UK, including falling unemployment, there has been a 19% year on year increase in their use, so that over 1 million people are now relying on them.
Are you really suggesting that the increase isn't fundamentally due to government policy and the provision has arisen to support that policy. Without the presence of the food banks there is no doubt in my mind that the government would have been forced to think again about its policy.
We know that government policy is responsible, but we don't know by how much. Food banks were not well known until recently - Job Centres didn't publicise them until 2011 but that doesn't mean people didn't need them before that. The increased number means they are more accessible to more people and good publicity means some of the stigma has gone. I read somewhere that actual efficiency in getting payments out was worse under Labour, suggesting that people had food emergencies then too, but had nowhere to go.
Whether or not the existence of food banks makes it easy for the government to implement its policies, the fact is they are needed. People need food and we cannot expect them to suffer in the hope - and it would only be a hope - of getting a change in policy. If anything the existence of food banks raises the plight of those unable to feed themselves into the public conscience. I think without them the issue would be swept under the carpet and nothing would change at all.
-
More here.
https://fullfact.org/factcheck/economy/food_bank_number-40853
-
If you are not willing to help when people are suffering because of your moral purity, you are part of the cause of the suffering.
Sometimes you have to recognise that if you say 'no I won't be part of this' you can change the course of the future so that far fewer people suffer.
The statistics on food banks are appalling - so in 2009-10 (remember this was at the deepest point of the recession) just 41,000 people received food via food banks. This was before the effective privatisation of the welfare responsibilities by the coalition. Since then, despite a slow, but clear recovery in the economic position of the UK, including falling unemployment, there has been a 19% year on year increase in their use, so that over 1 million people are now relying on them.
Are you really suggesting that the increase isn't fundamentally due to government policy and the provision has arisen to support that policy. Without the presence of the food banks there is no doubt in my mind that the government would have been forced to think again about its policy.
I don't really care about the cause in the immediate focus of someone not having enough money to buy food. I care about helping them eat rather than sacrifice them to my morality to make me feel better. By this logic we should stop all charity because it just creates more starving mouths to feed. I picture them with their faces pressed up against the windows of the shop where you are buying your kid's shoes while patting yourself on the back for having nothing to do with a system where they starve.
-
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.
Yes, yes, yes but what do we actually do now, today? As well as this nebulous and insubstantial "standing up against" policies, what do we actually do? You repeatedly dodge the question (and I can see why!) - what would you actually do? Would you clothe the analogy baby? Will you hand a starving mother a tin of soup? What do you propose we should actually DO today? (And although "oppose" is a verb, is isn't actually an action, is it? I am talking about actual practical actions to help people with today's hunger - which we can do at the same time as opposing things in order to prevent hypothetical future hunger as well). What should I do today?
I cannot stand the pompous self-congratulatory way that people think that the best way to help the hungry is to let them starve, and then have the nerve to tell me about the road to hell being paved with good intentions!!
Despicable.
-
If you are not willing to help when people are suffering because of your moral purity, you are part of the cause of the suffering.
Sometimes you have to recognise that if you say 'no I won't be part of this' you can change the course of the future so that far fewer people suffer.
The statistics on food banks are appalling - so in 2009-10 (remember this was at the deepest point of the recession) just 41,000 people received food via food banks. This was before the effective privatisation of the welfare responsibilities by the coalition. Since then, despite a slow, but clear recovery in the economic position of the UK, including falling unemployment, there has been a 19% year on year increase in their use, so that over 1 million people are now relying on them.
Are you really suggesting that the increase isn't fundamentally due to government policy and the provision has arisen to support that policy. Without the presence of the food banks there is no doubt in my mind that the government would have been forced to think again about its policy.
I don't really care about the cause in the immediate focus of someone not having enough money to buy food. I care about helping them eat rather than sacrifice them to my morality to make me feel better. By this logic we should stop all charity because it just creates more starving mouths to feed. I picture them with their faces pressed up against the windows of the shop where you are buying your kid's shoes while patting yourself on the back for having nothing to do with a system where they starve.
Yes, you could argue the same for any homeless charity, medical fundraising (no more neonatal incubator appeals, Blue Peter), hospices - don't fund any of them, its the job of government.
It reminds me somewhat of the fact that vastly more people signed the Change petition for Katie Hopkins to be sacked for her comments about immigrants in the Med than signed the petition asking for action to save their lives.
-
Yes, you could argue the same for any homeless charity, medical fundraising (no more neonatal incubator appeals, Blue Peter), hospices - don't fund any of them, its the job of government.
It reminds me somewhat of the fact that vastly more people signed the Change petition for Katie Hopkins to be sacked for her comments about immigrants in the Med than signed the petition asking for action to save their lives.
Which is the great thing about such as Hopkins - she's a lightning rod for 'action'. We get to disappove of things and feel that we are doing something. To be fair I tend to think that of petitions as well, I sign them but I think if you do, you need to ask what can I actually do about this, not bask in the warmth of having signed a petition.
-
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.
-
Yes, you could argue the same for any homeless charity, medical fundraising (no more neonatal incubator appeals, Blue Peter), hospices - don't fund any of them, its the job of government.
It reminds me somewhat of the fact that vastly more people signed the Change petition for Katie Hopkins to be sacked for her comments about immigrants in the Med than signed the petition asking for action to save their lives.
Which is the great thing about such as Hopkins - she's a lightning rod for 'action'. We get to disappove of things and feel that we are doing something. To be fair I tend to think that of petitions as well, I sign them but I think if you do, you need to ask what can I actually do about this, not bask in the warmth of having signed a petition.
I couldn't agree more. Sometimes joining our voice to a protest really is all we can do, but not always.
In a way this is also reminding me of the video I posted a link to around the time of the election of the bloke from the Green Party enjoying an anti-Israel rant at some right-on rally or other. No doubt all there felt the warm glowiness that being right-on brings, but what an ineffective waste of time and energy.
-
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.
-
Great idea, Gonners.
Unless you live in a rural area and your nearest CAB is fifteen miles away, you can't afford the bus fare 'cos that nice Mr Cameron has sanctioned you for being ten minutes late for an appointment - and, believe me, I know people less than a stone's throw from my gaffe who are in that predicament.
They will win their appeal, of course, and the cash will be restored.
Even with the job centre bods trying their hardest, though, that takes four-six weeks....four -six weeks in which they have literally no money whatsoever.
That means no money to buy cards for the electric or gas meters.
So they are in an unlit, unheatedhouse with no cash.
Thank heaven it's summer, and not winter.
-
The CAB will do home visits, telephone consultations or web chat.
-
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
-
The CAB will do home visits, telephone consultations or web chat.
-
Agreed, Rhi;
However, given the massive pressure under which they work, with some housing schemes succh as Onthank in Kilmarnock in virtual meltdown (the Beeb had a controversial fly-on-the-wall doc entitled "the Scheme" based there a while back), not to mention agricultural crises (three suicides amongst farmers in Ayrshire in 2015, and rising), plus the rural nature of the area and the post-mining depression which is Thatcher's gift to the area, the CAB is literally snowed under with requests.
It can take a fortnight or three weeks for such a visit to be arranged., and families with young children are, of necessity, first in the queue.
-
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.
-
Neither the present government nor the last seem to give a shit about rural areas. Labour's 'management' of foot and mouth was an abomination but I don't think for a moment it would've better managed now. Neither of the main parties seem to have the first idea about rural life, its isolation and its hardships. I live in a relatively affluent county but even here the vast majority of the county council funding is targeted towards the towns - the few facilities (youth centres, adult education, outward bound centre) that existed here have all been closed and the buildings sold off to the highest bidders.
Most people can afford the bus fare if I'm honest, only there are no buses to catch.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Dear Outrider,
Good post old chap ;)
Gonnagle.
-
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).
-
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!
-
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.
-
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
-
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!
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
A bit of self help is not a bad thing, imo!
-
A bit of self help is not a bad thing, imo!
And no doubt you think that the poor are to blame for their poverty. I'd better stop, this is just too depressing.
-
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?
It's an un-written constituent of Tory thinking to behave as Osborne is now. It won't change. Same old, same old with them: the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It's in progress around us now.
-
A bit of self help is not a bad thing, imo!
No one disagrees with you. Also, a bit of help is not a bad thing. Do you disagree?
-
A bit of self help is not a bad thing, imo!
And no doubt you think that the poor are to blame for their poverty. I'd better stop, this is just too depressing.
Sometimes they are.
-
And no doubt you think that the poor are to blame for their poverty.
Sometimes they are.
Really? How much of the time? In what circumstances?
-
A bit of self help is not a bad thing, imo!
No one disagrees with you. Also, a bit of help is not a bad thing. Do you disagree?
I don't disagree with giving people a helping hand, providing they are prepared to use it wisely.
-
A bit of self help is not a bad thing, imo!
No one disagrees with you. Also, a bit of help is not a bad thing. Do you disagree?
I don't disagree with giving people a helping hand, providing they are prepared to use it wisely.
And you are here to help us all by judging what is wise!
-
Floo always reminds me of the old "I"m all right, Jack," attitude.
-
Floo always reminds me of the old "I"m all right, Jack," attitude.
It's worse than that, isn't it? "I'm all right, and I'm just going to step on Jack's neck, just to make sure he knows he's inferior to me".
-
Floo always reminds me of the old "I"m all right, Jack," attitude.
It's worse than that, isn't it? "I'm all right, and I'm just going to step on Jack's neck, just to make sure he knows he's inferior to me".
With her superior attitude, I'm not surprised the servants tried to blow up her house!
(Yes, she had servants)
-
Floo always reminds me of the old "I"m all right, Jack," attitude.
It's worse than that, isn't it? "I'm all right, and I'm just going to step on Jack's neck, just to make sure he knows he's inferior to me".
That isn't true at all. I have helped many people over the years, and will continue to do so!
-
Floo always reminds me of the old "I"m all right, Jack," attitude.
It's worse than that, isn't it? "I'm all right, and I'm just going to step on Jack's neck, just to make sure he knows he's inferior to me".
If they get their way, over the next nearly five years, they will not only step on his neck, they will grind it into the dirt.
-
Must say I do support some of the policies announced in the budget like the cut in benefits cap to a maximum of 23,000 pounds and end to child benefit for more then 2 children but I cannot see how a 40% reduction in public sector can work to implement govt policies esp as those depts with ring fenced budgets like health, education, overseas aid will be spared any cuts.
-
I have just spent some time in the Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, and to see the amount of work being done there, and the quality of the care, it is an utter disgrace that those people should have their pay frozen for five years. I believe they were asking for a massive 1% rise!!
-
I have just spent some time in the Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, and to see the amount of work being done there, and the quality of the care, it is an utter disgrace that those people should have their pay frozen for five years. I believe they were asking for a massive 1% rise!!
Thousands of public sector employees in local govt or home office are unlikely to keep their jobs if a 40% reduction is implemented.
-
I have just spent some time in the Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, and to see the amount of work being done there, and the quality of the care, it is an utter disgrace that those people should have their pay frozen for five years. I believe they were asking for a massive 1% rise!!
Thousands of public sector employees in local govt or home office are unlikely to keep their jobs if a 40% reduction is implemented.
Of our massive, and guaranteed, Foreign Aid Budget, some of the money is spent quite bizarrely: cash has been squandered finding mates for tropical fish off Africa after being funded by the debt-ridden Foreign Office, etc. Osborne and Cameron's idea of helping, whilst people here have to use food banks! It's Alice in Wonderland thinking!
-
Dear Bashers,
The Tories have worked the biggest con in political history, smoke and mirrors at every turn, even if they do rescue the economy ( which they think is the be all and end all ) the British public will have lost, they are the most anti Christian anti British party we have.
Gonnagle.
-
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
If you have kids at any secondary school (and most primaries) kids can't do their homework without the internet. Many schools local to me make iPads compulsory from year 6; although they often have loan schemes there still has to be access to the net available.
-
Dear Bashers,
The Tories have worked the biggest con in political history, smoke and mirrors at every turn, even if they do rescue the economy ( which they think is the be all and end all ) the British public will have lost, they are the most anti Christian anti British party we have.
Gonnagle.
Gonners,
Based on Margaret Thatcher's thinking, who is one of Cameron's icons!
-
Must say I do support some of the policies announced in the budget like the cut in benefits cap to a maximum of 23,000 pounds and end to child benefit for more then 2 children but I cannot see how a 40% reduction in public sector can work to implement govt policies esp as those depts with ring fenced budgets like health, education, overseas aid will be spared any cuts.
-
That cap sounds OK - in theory....till you have a scenario where the parents are disabled, and their children are on family allowance - and housing benefit.
Then, dependant on the severity of the disabilities, £23,000 may nor be enough.
The disability network has already heard of such cases in London, where the family will have to be split up and the children put into care.
(BTW, one of the parents is multi-disabled through MS, the other as a result of 7/7. Yet this travesty of a government will label them as scroungers.
-
Dear Jim,
Tory thinking, one size fits all, I have no doubt that there are some who scrounge ( a tiny minority ) but genuine cases are being tarred with the same brush, I have a theory that private schools have a convare belt that churns out unthinking, unimaginative, heartless bastards.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Jim,
Tory thinking, one size fits all, I have no doubt that there are some who scrounge ( a tiny minority ) but genuine cases are being tarred with the same brush, I have a theory that private schools have a convare belt that churns out unthinking, unimaginative, heartless bastards.
Gonnagle.
Especially Eton!!
-
Dear Jim,
Tory thinking, one size fits all, I have no doubt that there are some who scrounge ( a tiny minority ) but genuine cases are being tarred with the same brush, I have a theory that private schools have a convare belt that churns out unthinking, unimaginative, heartless bastards.
Gonnagle.
Yeah, well not all wealthy people are selfish bastards who get there through treading on others either. Some just get there through hard work.
Do you think my children will emerge from their private school as heartless bastards too?
-
Dear Jim,
Tory thinking, one size fits all, I have no doubt that there are some who scrounge ( a tiny minority ) but genuine cases are being tarred with the same brush, I have a theory that private schools have a convare belt that churns out unthinking, unimaginative, heartless bastards.
Gonnagle.
-
Yep!
-
Dear Jim,
Tory thinking, one size fits all, I have no doubt that there are some who scrounge ( a tiny minority ) but genuine cases are being tarred with the same brush, I have a theory that private schools have a convare belt that churns out unthinking, unimaginative, heartless bastards.
Gonnagle.
Yeah, well not all wealthy people are selfish bastards who get there through treading on others either. Some just get there through hard work.
Do you think my children will emerge from their private school as heartless bastards too?
-
Too often the Harrow/Eton set are the norm by which people measure the private school, Rhi.
The socialist in me wants to burn them to the ground.
Sometimes this Christian thing's a pain....I'd empty them first, out of compassion.
-
I saw this elsewhere this morning.
I thought it was a spoof - but it wasn't.
The ultimate in irony - and insult to the people his ravvle of a government have forced into this situation.
Haven't got involved in this discussion before, so hadn't read the item before today. Whilst it true that the use of the foodbank based in our church has grown over the last 5 years faster than in the previous 5 or 6 - we opened it in the mid-noughties - the fact that we opened it in the mid-noughties suggests that that was a problem as far back as then. It is interesting that the very first foodbank in the UK was opened in 2000, with a second opening in 2004. Clearly, even before the financial crisis from 2006 and the recession from 2008, there were people who were not be served by the state. Rather than simply blaming the Tory/Lib.Dem. coalition, perhaps Labour ought to be being asked to face up to its failings.
-
I saw this elsewhere this morning.
I thought it was a spoof - but it wasn't.
The ultimate in irony - and insult to the people his ravvle of a government have forced into this situation.
Haven't got involved in this discussion before, so hadn't read the item before today. Whilst it true that the use of the foodbank based in our church has grown over the last 5 years faster than in the previous 5 or 6 - we opened it in the mid-noughties - the fact that we opened it in the mid-noughties suggests that that was a problem as far back as then. It is interesting that the very first foodbank in the UK was opened in 2000, with a second opening in 2004. Clearly, even before the financial crisis from 2006 and the recession from 2008, there were people who were not be served by the state. Rather than simply blaming the Tory/Lib.Dem. coalition, perhaps Labour ought to be being asked to face up to its failings.
I would, of course, be non-sense to suggest that there weren't people who fell through the welfare net back in the pre-recession days. And indeed the presence of organisation to support those people is evidence of that.
But that, I would argue, was an unintended consequence. Over the past 5 years or so there has been a deliberate policy from government to remove the welfare net from some of the very poorest in our society and to transfer responsibility for these people from government to the third sector. This is without doubt a clear (although not overtly stated) policy of both the coalition and now the Tory government, evidenced by both the 'shrink the state, slash welfare' agenda, and the 'big society' agenda.
-
Dear Jim,
Tory thinking, one size fits all, I have no doubt that there are some who scrounge ( a tiny minority ) but genuine cases are being tarred with the same brush, I have a theory that private schools have a convare belt that churns out unthinking, unimaginative, heartless bastards.
Gonnagle.
Yeah, well not all wealthy people are selfish bastards who get there through treading on others either. Some just get there through hard work.
Do you think my children will emerge from their private school as heartless bastards too?
-
Too often the Harrow/Eton set are the norm by which people measure the private school, Rhi.
The socialist in me wants to burn them to the ground.
Sometimes this Christian thing's a pain....I'd empty them first, out of compassion.
Then you are referring to public schools, not private schools, which include a multitude of different kinds of school outside the state system.
-
My first move would be to withdraw charitable status from such schools.
Happily, the Scottish government may well have the powers to do this once the Scotland Bill is made law.
-
My first move would be to withdraw charitable status from such schools.
Happily, the Scottish government may well have the powers to do this once the Scotland Bill is made law.
And that would achieve what exactly? - you don't improve education by destroying excellence.
Might it not be better to concentrate on getting state schools up to and even beyond the levels of private schools?
-
My first move would be to withdraw charitable status from such schools.
Happily, the Scottish government may well have the powers to do this once the Scotland Bill is made law.
And that would achieve what exactly? - you don't improve education by destroying excellence.
Might it not be better to concentrate on getting state schools up to and even beyond the levels of private schools?
Firstly not all private schools are excellent and many aren't as good a state schools when the characteristics of their intake are taken into account, e.g. by looking at added value, in other words the progress the students male during the time at the school. The notion that all private schools are beacons of excellence is absolutely laughable.
Secondly removing tax breaks (which is what charitable status is) increases the revenue of the treasury which can then be used to increase funding for state schools.
-
My first move would be to withdraw charitable status from such schools.
Happily, the Scottish government may well have the powers to do this once the Scotland Bill is made law.
And that would achieve what exactly? - you don't improve education by destroying excellence.
Might it not be better to concentrate on getting state schools up to and even beyond the levels of private schools?
Firstly not all private schools are excellent and many aren't as good a state schools when the characteristics of their intake are taken into account, e.g. by looking at added value, in other words the progress the students male during the time at the school. The notion that all private schools are beacons of excellence is absolutely laughable.
Secondly removing tax breaks (which is what charitable status is) increases the revenue of the treasury which can then be used to increase funding for state schools.
Having had a fair amount of experience of private schools, I can endorse that. There are private schools that are woefully inadequate, both in terms of resources and staffing.
-
My first move would be to withdraw charitable status from such schools.
Happily, the Scottish government may well have the powers to do this once the Scotland Bill is made law.
And that would achieve what exactly? - you don't improve education by destroying excellence.
Might it not be better to concentrate on getting state schools up to and even beyond the levels of private schools?
Firstly not all private schools are excellent and many aren't as good a state schools when the characteristics of their intake are taken into account, e.g. by looking at added value, in other words the progress the students male during the time at the school. The notion that all private schools are beacons of excellence is absolutely laughable.
Secondly removing tax breaks (which is what charitable status is) increases the revenue of the treasury which can then be used to increase funding for state schools.
Well, if they the schools are crap - Why would anyone pay good money to get a worse education?
If you are correct, I don't understand why they exist.
-
My first move would be to withdraw charitable status from such schools.
Happily, the Scottish government may well have the powers to do this once the Scotland Bill is made law.
And that would achieve what exactly? - you don't improve education by destroying excellence.
Might it not be better to concentrate on getting state schools up to and even beyond the levels of private schools?
Firstly not all private schools are excellent and many aren't as good a state schools when the characteristics of their intake are taken into account, e.g. by looking at added value, in other words the progress the students male during the time at the school. The notion that all private schools are beacons of excellence is absolutely laughable.
Secondly removing tax breaks (which is what charitable status is) increases the revenue of the treasury which can then be used to increase funding for state schools.
Well, if they the schools are crap - Why would anyone pay good money to get a worse education?
If you are correct, I don't understand why they exist.
Some people still send their kids there because of the snob value; some genuinely think they are all better than State schools; and there are still a few who "hide" their kids away because of some problem or other with the State System and the Authorities. Having said that, the majority, I am sure, are good or better, but it seems to me that many parents seem unable to differentiate.
-
Well, if they the schools are crap - Why would anyone pay good money to get a worse education?
If you are correct, I don't understand why they exist.
Oh come on! Your slavish dedication to market forces is noteworthy, but ridiculous. You could just as easily say "if the Daily Mail is crap, why would people buy it?" or "If McDonald's is crap, why do people eat it?"
-
My first move would be to withdraw charitable status from such schools.
Happily, the Scottish government may well have the powers to do this once the Scotland Bill is made law.
And that would achieve what exactly? - you don't improve education by destroying excellence.
Might it not be better to concentrate on getting state schools up to and even beyond the levels of private schools?
Firstly not all private schools are excellent and many aren't as good a state schools when the characteristics of their intake are taken into account, e.g. by looking at added value, in other words the progress the students male during the time at the school. The notion that all private schools are beacons of excellence is absolutely laughable.
Secondly removing tax breaks (which is what charitable status is) increases the revenue of the treasury which can then be used to increase funding for state schools.
Well, if they the schools are crap - Why would anyone pay good money to get a worse education?
If you are correct, I don't understand why they exist.
Some people still send their kids there because of the snob value; some genuinely think they are all better than State schools; and there are still a few who "hide" their kids away because of some problem or other with the State System and the Authorities. Having said that, the majority, I am sure, are good or better, but it seems to me that many parents seem unable to differentiate.
Assuming that all that is true - Why would it be of any concern to anyone? It means that the state sector has less children to educate!
Are you all concerned that the rich are getting a poor deal ☺
-
My first move would be to withdraw charitable status from such schools.
Happily, the Scottish government may well have the powers to do this once the Scotland Bill is made law.
And that would achieve what exactly? - you don't improve education by destroying excellence.
Might it not be better to concentrate on getting state schools up to and even beyond the levels of private schools?
Firstly not all private schools are excellent and many aren't as good a state schools when the characteristics of their intake are taken into account, e.g. by looking at added value, in other words the progress the students male during the time at the school. The notion that all private schools are beacons of excellence is absolutely laughable.
Secondly removing tax breaks (which is what charitable status is) increases the revenue of the treasury which can then be used to increase funding for state schools.
Well, if they the schools are crap - Why would anyone pay good money to get a worse education?
If you are correct, I don't understand why they exist.
Oh the naivety.
There are plenty of people with more money than sense in all sorts of areas and that includes education. Interestingly where I live there are some of the best state schools in the country (and some less good ones) and also a range of private school, ranging from excellent to ... well ... schools that have taken on really poor teachers from the state sector who really weren't good enough in state school, but have now been put in positions of senior responsibility in private schools - wtf!!
Anyhow, with my wife I own a preschool nursery which caters for children up to 5 so before the age when there is universal state provision. SO not surprisingly we have kids who head off to both state schools and private schools. And you would be astonished by the levels of snobbery that exist in some people in justifying sending their kids to private school, indeed often to private schools that are worse than state schools they could have chosen. Common examples are:
1. If you pay for it directly (i.e. private) it must be better than a state school - the kind of 'throw money at it' argument.
2. The socially mobile social climber snob - we've made it in the world if we send our kids to private school.
3. The 'can't let down the family tradition' argument - from parents who went to private school themselves and therefore feel they are letting themselves and their parents down if they don't send their kids their.
4. The pushy grandparents argument - where one set of grandparents insists on paying for private education (whether or not they have any idea of the quality of schools available in local state and private schools). Often links to '3' but where just one parent (and set of grandparents) went to private school.
5. The 'just don't understand what quality in schools is' argument. In other words that a school must be better if it gets better overall grades, regardless of the intake. Rather than realising that the best school is the one where your child will make most progress (purely talking about academic quality here).
So there are all sorts of reasons why 'a fool may be easily parted from their money'. I've seen it loads of times, parents sending their kids to poor private schools when they could have sent them to better state schools. But of course ounce they've started paying for something they are loath to admit it isn't top quality.
Now none of this should be taken to imply that all private schools are poor. That's not the case. There are fantastic private schools, just as there are fantastic state schools. But there are also really poor private schools as well, ones that often hide they poor academic standards and coasting nature behind the nice middle class intake (who would do pretty well in any school).
-
I pretty much agree with PD. Interestingly lots of private schools are closing because they just aren't good enough - I know of two in the last two years.
But these aren't the only reasons. The school we chose has as one of its policies to offer bursaries to children with autism, dyslexia and who are bullied in mainstream school. My daughter fell into the latter category, but also we wanted the children to learn alongside others who often get excluded from mainstream schools (I used to be a school governor and saw how schools try to keep out those who won't do well in SATs in order to maintain their league table position).
Our second reason was linked to that - we wanted our children to be more than an exam statistic. The state school here excludes pupils from its sixth form who it believes won't get A grades at A level to keep its league table position, no matter how hard a pupil works. And yes, that is against the rules, but it still does it.
The thing that would slam the private schools into extinction would be if we still had proper grammar schools. It was a grammar school that let my mum escape a life of poverty in the East End and rise to become one of our country's leading experts in her field.
-
I pretty much agree with PD. Interestingly lots of private schools are closing because they just aren't good enough - I know of two in the last two years.
But these aren't the only reasons. The school we chose has as one of its policies to offer bursaries to children with autism, dyslexia and who are bullied in mainstream school. My daughter fell into the latter category, but also we wanted the children to learn alongside others who often get excluded from mainstream schools (I used to be a school governor and saw how schools try to keep out those who won't do well in SATs in order to maintain their league table position).
Our second reason was linked to that - we wanted our children to be more than an exam statistic. The state school here excludes pupils from its sixth form who it believes won't get A grades at A level to keep its league table position, no matter how hard a pupil works. And yes, that is against the rules, but it still does it.
The thing that would slam the private schools into extinction would be if we still had proper grammar schools. It was a grammar school that let my mum escape a life of poverty in the East End and rise to become one of our country's leading experts in her field.
Exam statistics are encouraged by the millionaires who run the Conservative Party.
-
Not true. I was a governor under Labour and they were just as enthusiastic in encouraging high stakes testing and performance tables.
-
I pretty much agree with PD. Interestingly lots of private schools are closing because they just aren't good enough - I know of two in the last two years.
But these aren't the only reasons. The school we chose has as one of its policies to offer bursaries to children with autism, dyslexia and who are bullied in mainstream school. My daughter fell into the latter category, but also we wanted the children to learn alongside others who often get excluded from mainstream schools (I used to be a school governor and saw how schools try to keep out those who won't do well in SATs in order to maintain their league table position).
Our second reason was linked to that - we wanted our children to be more than an exam statistic. The state school here excludes pupils from its sixth form who it believes won't get A grades at A level to keep its league table position, no matter how hard a pupil works. And yes, that is against the rules, but it still does it.
It is certainly true that there are some private schools that market themselves on the basis of supporting children with SEN. But this is the minority. Sadly for most private schools (even more so than state schools) the need to demonstrate fantastic academic results is paramount to ensuring they get bums on seats (and of course fees in the bank) and are often both wary of taking kids with known special educational needs and often very poor at catering for those kids, probably hoping that the parents will choose to move their children. Indeed I know some private schools that don't really even have the most basic of provision, i.e. a designated member of staff who is the SEN coordinator.
So it is certainly true that many state schools have become obsessed by their grades, but most private schools have been similarly obsessed and for a great deal longer, plus have a lot more to lose if they aren't able to demonstrate sufficiently impressive exam results in their marketing brochure to prospective fee paying parents.
To stress - this doesn't apply to all schools but is certainly the norm.
-
Not true. I was a governor under Labour and they were just as enthusiastic in encouraging high stakes testing and performance tables.
Compared with Gove and Morgan that was mild interest. Besides like Woodhead they were kept up by Blunkett so as not to upset the Daily Mail readers.
League Tables came in with the Education Reform Act 1988.
-
Not true. I was a governor under Labour and they were just as enthusiastic in encouraging high stakes testing and performance tables.
Compared with Gove and Morgan that was mild interest. Besides like Woodhead they were kept up by Blunkett so as not to upset the Daily Mail readers.
League Tables came in with the Education Reform Act 1988.
The big difference is that under the Labour administration a focus on standards was matched by an increase in funding for schools to support them improve. Under the current government schools are expected to be achieving more but with massively less resource.
Rhiannon - you should be glad you aren't a school governor now (as I am) - We don't have time to focus on improvement, so busy are we working out how to deal with the huge financial black hole that is looming in a couple of years time. And that isn't just our school, but for all schools as income is flat cash (no increase in funding per pupil as all despite inflation etc) coupled with significant increases in expenditure which is totally beyond the control of schools largely due to NI and pension changes.
-
It doesn't surprise me, Prof. I used to be a governor at an over-subscribed small village school. Its funding fell by a third - the policy is clearly designed to persuade small schools to merge, probably through having infants on one site and juniors on another.
-
Not really getting this ... you could close all the private schools, and then the grammar schools if you like and there would not be one less person in the food bank queue.
You could send all the middle classes back to work the land, then send the intellectuals to the gulags - we have tried this before - there will be no queues as there will be nothing available to queue for!
-
Not really getting this ... you could close all the private schools, and then the grammar schools if you like and there would not be one less person in the food bank queue.
-
Grammar schools?
History, as far as Scotland goes.
Unlike food banks, which multiply like Westminster snouts in the trough.
-
You could send all the middle classes back to work the land, then send the intellectuals to the gulags - we have tried this before - there will be no queues as there will be nothing available to queue for!
-
When did we try this in the 'UK', please?
-
Dear Udayana,
Yeah!! Funny how threads evolve ???
Gonnagle.