Cameron Constituency Food Bank Faces Closure As Local Economy Stalls

BobQ

The Daily Mirror -- the only national as far as I am aware to feature this food bank story, and probably would not have done it it were not in Cameron's constituency -- could be argued to be an equally rubbish offering on the other side of the political fence. But it rarely gets a mention. The Guardian more often does because it's readership is perceived to comprise the champagne socialists and others who come in for so much derision because of their bare-faced hypocrisy. The Mail worries the left because it's readership is large, and because it often blazons the sort of stuff which they know will strike a chord even with many traditional Labour voters. Conservatives have few comparable worries about the Grauniad or the Mirror.
.

I would accept that the Mirror often publishes stories that are equally provocative which the right wing press usually prefer to ignore. Both often skew the facts to make them seem worse. The Conservatives have few worries I agree, probably because they enjoy the support of most of the press.

Foodbanks were also mentioned in the Guardian, some local newspapers and the BBC. Easily dismissed as left wing by Mail readers of course.

Of course maybe the real question is why this foodbank issue is not considered newsworthy by the right wing press. If its all true its a disgrace in a rich country. If its untrue then why are they not exposing it as a lie?

In reality its arguably a manifestation of Cameron's Big Society as charities and local volunteers combine to help the needy. The problem may be that Cameron is quite content for the Big Society to help the disabled but less content to help the unemployed, homeless or those on a low income in difficulty. Its so much easier to ignore them and let others slag them off as !!!!less, lazy scum.

I actually believe the system needs to be tightened up to stop abuse of benefits but this is a very different thing to making the genuine suffer in a rich nation like ours.

grizzly1911

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

They are those who would rather live on benefits than work for a living. Any who don't get every penny the system says they can must be pretty dim. The social workers usually make sure that they claim everything they possibly can.

Does any one here know how many, as a percentage of the benefit claimants, are the type of heriditry/perpetual benefit claimants vilified on these threads?

I don't dispute there are a number but wonder just how bad the problem is.

A._Badger

BobQ wrote: »

More pontification. I was asked a question I expressed my opinion. Its based on my experience of speaking to a small sample of Mail readers. I concede it is not a full and complete analysis of all Daily Mail readers on all dates in all years since the inception of that august publication.

Just as I said, then. You made it up.

Generali

BobQ wrote: »

Pontification from abroad adds to the incredibility of your explanations in this matter. I am glad you still read the Daily Mail, how else could you stay in touch with the realities of life in the UK.

Thanks for that BobQ. I hoped that my perspective gained from having lived in 3.5 countries would add something to this board but apparently there's an unwritten residency qualification.

I notice that the more left leaning posters that have bothered to reply to me haven't addressed the substance of my posts, ie why do people need food banks when they are getting substantial amounts of money when on the dole if they have kids? The figures I posted are a matter of fact not something from a right wing wet dream.

Generali

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Does any one here know how many, as a percentage of the benefit claimants, are the type of heriditry/perpetual benefit claimants vilified on these threads?

I don't dispute there are a number but wonder just how bad the problem is.

I often wonder the same thing. I suspect that the problem is either vastly over-exaggerated or larger than anyone dare admit.

Given the numbers that I got from the Government's website I fear that it's the latter. Why would anyone with kids and an ounce of sense work? You'd have to be rich or mad.

A._Badger

Generali wrote: »

Thanks for that BobQ. I hoped that my perspective gained from having lived in 3.5 countries would add something to this board but apparently there's an unwritten residency qualification.

I notice that the more left leaning posters that have bothered to reply to me haven't addressed the substance of my posts, ie why do people need food banks when they are getting substantial amounts of money when on the dole if they have kids? The figures I posted are a matter of fact not something from a right wing wet dream.

I think it is pretty plain that what has been happening here is a process of repackaging existing (worthy) charitable activities under a new brand name that can be used by the Left to propagandise against "austerity" (though where they can find much genuine austerity is a mystery to me).

It's quite a clever marketing exercise as it enables the usual sanctimonious cries of 'Oh, how could anyone be so heartless?' while, all along, the real cynicism lies in the exploitation of the genuinely needy as a tool to gain political advantage.

grizzly1911

Generali wrote: »

I often wonder the same thing. I suspect that the problem is either vastly over-exaggerated or larger than anyone dare admit.

Given the numbers that I got from the Government's website I fear that it's the latter. Why would anyone with kids and an ounce of sense work? You'd have to be rich or mad.

Hopefully someone will be along to tell us.

Something tells me that what may be available and reality of living in that situation will be much different, for the majority.

For those that do mint it they must be pretty thick skinned as I am sure they are made to feel pretty shabby signing on.

DecentLivingWage

Are you really genuinely unaware that some of these families have been cut off without a penny on a whim or an excuse? petrol to get to work, gas and electric to keep children from the cold takes the rest,there are no loans and people's houses arent selling or are in negative equity! Did you really not know that? Dads are getting laid off and People are getting hundreds of rejections and genuine jobs are drying up!

BobQ

Generali wrote: »

Thanks for that BobQ. I hoped that my perspective gained from having lived in 3.5 countries would add something to this board but apparently there's an unwritten residency qualification.

Persprectives of other countries are of interest (to me at least). I do wonder how current your views are on the UK when you choose not to live here.

I notice that the more left leaning posters that have bothered to reply to me haven't addressed the substance of my posts, ie why do people need food banks when they are getting substantial amounts of money when on the dole if they have kids? The figures I posted are a matter of fact not something from a right wing wet dream.

I frankly do not know enough about the benefit rules to comment on the details of what everyone gets never having had to claim them myself. What I do know its not as simple as people who have never had to combat such a situation make out. Some people cope better than others. I agree there are serial spongers who need to be "motivated " back into the world of work, but the perception that these are the majority is the sort of misrepresentation the Daily Mail often contains. Of course its not right that people are better on benefits than those in work, but those that are constitute a minority.

The figures you quote probably do provide enough for subsisting if they receive the benefits in a stable situation. But most people get made redundant when they have debts, or maybe have uncancellable contracts for Sky or a Phone. Of course they should cutback on these things but often you cannot cancel the contracts and get pursued whether you use the servce or not. As others have pointed out not everyone gets housing benefit or council tax benefit. Benefits do not generally cover travel costs yet they are expected to attend interviews, visit places where they can access internet to make applications etc. Do they sell their car? Or hang on, realising that having a car may make the difference between getting a job and not? Benefits do not generally cover the unexpected things that happen in the home, some you can manage without but not all, or some medical costs.

So yes in an ivory tower we can blame someone who a few months ago worked in a shop and was made redundant for not finding a job and for getting into a pickle with his finances, and berrate him for not following the exaxt budget we would have done in our perfectly planned world, but not everyone thinks logically in stressful circumstances.

BobQ

A._Badger wrote: »

I think it is pretty plain that what has been happening here is a process of repackaging existing (worthy) charitable activities under a new brand name that can be used by the Left to propagandise against "austerity" (though where they can find much genuine austerity is a mystery to me).

It's quite a clever marketing exercise as it enables the usual sanctimonious cries of 'Oh, how could anyone be so heartless?' while, all along, the real cynicism lies in the exploitation of the genuinely needy as a tool to gain political advantage.

I can see the men in white coats coming to collect you any moment now.....

If there were any truth in your wild assertions I am sure this would have been exposed by the Daily Mail already.

And you accuse me of making things up!:rotfl: