UK Politics: Iain Duncan Smith introduces death penalty for poor people

[The Marquis de Leech]

One rather gets the feeling that certain people ran across Swift's Modest Proposal, and not only failed to recognise the satire, actually decided that it was a good idea.

[paddington]

How much is being spent on food banks. I'd imagine it isn't a huge amount, can't seem to find a figure. Would be a little like complaining about the curtians as the house burns down.

[Werthead]

How much is being spent on food banks. I'd imagine it isn't a huge amount, can't seem to find a figure. Would be a little like complaing about the curtians as the house burns down.

By the government? Nothing. It's a volunteer scheme: people buy a few bits of extra food with their shop and donate them to a food bank, and the big supermarkets also send a certain amount of the stuff they'd just throw away to them as well.

[paddington]

By the government? Nothing. It's a volunteer scheme: people buy a few bits of extra food with their shop and donate them to a food bank, and the big supermarkets also send a certain amount of the stuff they'd just throw away to them as well.

I didn't know it was charity, makes this entire conversation even more weird. I think the goverment not helping fund food banks is disgraceful.

edit:- Scheme of things its probably not going to cost a huge amount of money, and probably save the money in the long run from not having to deal with long terms effect of malnourishment

[Fragile Bird]

The thread name caught my eye...

Perhaps the Government should pass out copies of that famous recipe from ancient times, Rock Soup?

[Hereward]

I'm not a huge fan of Labour at all. However, what was a small problem under Labour has become a borderline crisis under the Tories. There is no evidence that the same sort of thing would have happened under Labour.

Really?! Labour crashed the economy into a wall, but there was still a need for food banks when they're were drunkenly hurtling along the motorway in the wrong direction. They oversaw the worst crash in more than 70 years, with soaring unemployment and the economy on life support, and went into the elction promising an entire Parliament of austerity, and you see no evidence that there would have been a problem under Labour? Words fail me.

[Hereward]

PS The original complaint is lacking in evenhandedness and coherence as well.

Tories jeering while debating a Serious Issue is appalling, while Labour jeering at lack of growth and stubbornly high unemployment isn't? Also, complaining that more people are using food banks while also complaining that the government is refusing EU funding that would allow more people to use food banks? OK.

[john]

The problem is that the next government will have to do some mix of continuing austerity and raising taxes. Getting away from food banks would require some mix of raising wages, raising benefits and lowing the cost of living. None of which look particularly viable in the current politics so I don't see an easy narrative here. It certainly feeds into Labour's line on the cost of living, but I guess that politically they want to make that as broad an issue as possible rather than highlight the people who are using food banks :dunno:

This is all true and yet I can't see how they couldn't make some sort of viable policy from amongst it all especially considering the party in power apparently doesn't even consider it an issue.

[slim da reaper]

Iain Duncan Smith's Deputy Esther McVey has tried to pin the blame of food bank use on the Labour party.

“In the UK it is right that more people are... going to food banks because as times are tough, we are all having to pay back this £1.5 trillion debt personally which spiralled under Labour, we are all trying to live within our means, change the gear and make sure that we pay back all our debt which happened under them.”

Blaming Labour for the UK's £1.5 trillion debt haha, so the US debt is the fault of the Labour as well? Try this for an answer: the sell off of every public asset to super rich concerns for a derisory amount so politicians involved in that theft can put 'friend (simpering servant) of big business' firmly on their CV when they go for another second job or a future even more 'lucrative' career.

Edit to add: Politicians of all parties are in on continued grand enrichment of the super rich as long as they continue to receive their kick back and continued delusions of becoming one of the super rich themselves (£100million+ minimum personal wealth). People have had a taste of banker theft for example a favourite venue for halfwits who think they're tough and clever but are a kind of person who is covering for severe personal shortcomings.

[Werthead]

Really?! Labour crashed the economy into a wall, but there was still a need for food banks when they're were drunkenly hurtling along the motorway in the wrong direction.

Indeed. At the last election - two years after the biggest economic implosion in seven decades - there were 61,500 people relying on food banks. Earlier this year - with the economy starting to recover - it was estimated at 347,000, representing a fivefold increase until the Coalition government. At the debate, it was suggested the latter figure is highly conservative and the true figure may be between 500,000 and 600,000, including dependents.

It was bad under Labour. It's a catastrophe under the Tories and LibDems. The Coalition has taken a problem and made it far worse.

They oversaw the worst crash in more than 70 years,

A large part of which was caused by the global economic situation. In addition, the Tories spent pretty much every nanosecond from 1997 to at least the end of 2007 taking credit for the economic boom, in which case they must also shoulder some of the blame (the credit-fuelled recovery which did set the scene for the recession did begin under Major, after all). Given how much of the worse excesses of the crash were caused by the banking sector, deregulated and lacking oversight since Thatcher's day, Tories really can't start throwing bricks around about who's to blame for the economic situation.

with soaring unemployment

Unemployment went from about 1.5 to 2.5 million, which is serious but not as damaging as the 1980s and 1990s recessions, when it hit 3 million (out of a smaller population as well). The most severely damaging impacts of unemployment have also been felt under the Coalition government.

you see no evidence that there would have been a problem under Labour? Words fail me.

A further Labour government would have had to have cut broadly in a large number of areas, yes. But they are unlikely to have undertaken the same ideologically-fuelled 'punishment of the poor' policies that the Tories have instigated. The Tories are using the cover and excuse of the recession to implement their ideological beliefs in small government, less welfare etc (and have once again started their, "Let's royally fuck up the NHS to trick people into thinking it's shit so we can get away with privatising-it-by-a-thousand-cuts," masterplan), as proven when Cameron said recently that even if the British economy boomed he'd want to keep austerity in place because that's just how he rolls.

With a Labour government it is questionable if the British economy would have been in the shitter for as long (austerity is not and never has been the solution to such recessions), the recovery as pitiful as it has been and if the poor would have taken the brunt of the impact as opposed to those who actually caused most of the problems. I mean, if the chancellor had been Balls, clearly we'd all be eating rats right now, but with someone half-competent at the helm the worst problems could have been avoided.

Tories jeering while debating a Serious Issue is appalling, while Labour jeering at lack of growth and stubbornly high unemployment isn't?

Tories jeering at poor people suffering as a direct result of the government's ineptitude is appalling, yes. Labour jeering the Coalition government's policies for a lack of growth and stubbornly high employment is much more understandable (personally I'd prefer it if no-one jeered at all, but politics is partially theatre).

Also, complaining that more people are using food banks while also complaining that the government is refusing EU funding that would allow more people to use food banks? OK.

Complaining that people are in such dire straights they need to use food banks in the first place is perfectly logical. Criticising the government for refusing to allow those food banks extra funding (from non-UK sources, even) now that they are necessary is also logical. I'm not seeing the problem here. In the seventh-largest economy in the world with enormous resources at our disposal, we should not need to be donating food to our own citizens. However, now that this situation has arisen, starving that process of the resources it needs is also completely incomprehensible.

[Theda Baratheon]

Oh my god, words fail me, do people really think that lazy people turn up to food banks and demand food? it doesn't fucking work like that. And goodness, heaven bloody forbid someone buy a mobile phone, i really don't think anyone pays as little as a bloody fiver yearly for their phone bill.

Stupid passive aggressive winky face if you have something to say don't mask it as a cheeky joke because laughing at poor people daring to buy a phone is a shitty thing to do. Ugh. I'm 19 and a bit daft but have enough bloody common sense not to spew crap when i don't know what the hell i am talking about.

/angry rant on train over/

[Darth Visenya]

Is anyone else intrigued how you have a mobile phone for £5 per Year?, I know I am.

[Maltaran]

I guess it's pay as you go

[Lyanna Stark]

I guess it's pay as you go

Or paid by bank of mum and dad, alternatively.

[Darth Visenya]

I guess it's pay as you go

Even so, £5 of calling credit wouldn't last people an entire Year, unless they had a landline and don't get out much.

[paddington]

I don't own a mobile phone. People that want to contact me still can, people that don't still can unfortunatly. Just not at will.

[The Iceman of the North]

The problem is that the next government will have to do some mix of continuing austerity and raising taxes.

Why? Seems like this insistence that the government should stop spending when the economy is in the shitter is part of the problem.

[Lummel]

The problem of the Labour party not making political capital out of the food bank situation was what I was referring too iirc rather than the general problem of the economy

[Werthead]

I guess it's pay as you go

If you have a pay as you go phone and don't put any money on it at all for six months (usually a minimum of £10), the company will assume your phone is inoperative and will reassign the number.

You might be able to get away with putting £20 on your phone for the whole year, but not £5. Plus it means you don't have any friends since you're not calling or texting anyone ;)

[Daeric]

If you have a pay as you go phone and don't put any money on it at all for six months (usually a minimum of £10), the company will assume your phone is inoperative and will reassign the number.

You might be able to get away with putting £20 on your phone for the whole year, but not £5. Plus it means you don't have any friends since you're not calling or texting anyone ;)

Or you're like me and have most contacts on skype/ts/steam and thus use that to contact them instead. But even then I don't think I've gone less then £30 on my pay as you go phone.