Injecting more facts in to the Welfare debate: "We’d rather have Big Benefits Facts than a Big Benefits Row"(20 Posts)
Channel Five scored a ratings hit with the Big Benefits Row, but it seemed to prefer bluster and shouting to facts. At Ampp3d we like facts. Here are some about benefits:
In general Ttosca I agree with most of that link.
I especially love their analogy to a personal budget which is something I have tried to do but you usually tell me I'm being too simplistic. Yet it highlights to me the point I've been trying to get across.
We're in so much debt and overspending by so much that tinkering around the edges like we have been doing isn't going to help us.
We need to start looking at some serious changes such as....pensions. I simply cannot see how we can effectively cut our overspending if we're protecting the vast majority of our benefits bill and expecting everyone else to take more pain.
The household budget analogy is indeed flawed.
And we can balance the budget by collecting the tens of billions in tax avoidance/evasion owed to the treasury.
Going after the poorest for their pennies isn't going to solve any budgeting problems. It's just nasty ideology.
The size of New Labour’s benefits bill legacy, was a national scandal.
If collecting taxes would even dent our national overspend, why didn’t New Labour’s Brown do it, rather than start borrowing £30-£40 billion a year to pay our national bills BEFORE the crash? Do your homework and you’ll find Osbourne has done more to bring in tax evasion than Brown/Darling – if you disagree, please compare figures and get back to me, or if you wish, ask me to do it.
Next on the huge increase in UK benefits during a global/UK boom in employment, THAT WAS NEW LABOUR POLICY INCOMPETENCE, as basic economic theory (called The Economic Stabilisers) on Growth. Unemployment & Benefits says that it should not happen – in FACT, Brown’s increasing debt, increasing unemployment & rising benefits, heavily funded by his relaxed regulation City profits (that quickly declined into the crash) was the reason why the Annual Budget Deficit reached £158 billion by 2010, once we went INTO a recession..
•“HIGH GROWTH – In a period of high economic growth, automatic stabilizers will help to reduce the growth rate. With higher growth, the government will receive more tax revenues – people earn more and so pay more income tax (note the tax rate doesn’t change, the amount received just becomes higher). With higher growth, there will also be a fall in unemployment so the government will spend less on unemployment benefits.
•RECESSION. In a recession, economic growth becomes negative. However, automatic stabilisers will help to limit the fall in growth. With lower incomes people pay less tax, and government spending on unemployment benefits will increase. This increase in benefit spending and lower tax helps to limit the fall in aggregate demand.”
As much of the pre crash benefit bill was due to New Labour’s LACK of benefits checks/reforms, an engineered housing/rental boom AND their planned open door immigration policy - that they NEVER asked ‘the people’ to vote on BEFORE any general election – your socialist complaint that the Coalition is just attacking the poor is not JUST lies, they are PROVEN lies.
And the increased size of the benefit bill during a boom was not the only scandal, it was New Labour’s assumption that every claim just justified and for many it wasn’t just ‘a way of life’.
The more reforms, uncovering of fraud and ensure DOMESTIC unemployment claimants find jobs through stimulating the private sector, the MORE money that can be spent on those that NEED help from the State, rather than taxing the taxpayers.
Common social and economic sense really, but Newest Labour STILL haven’t worked out what they have done to the country and why our grandchildren’s children will still be paying off the national debt.
What the Tory scum have done about tax avoidance/evasion, and collecting more taxes from those able to pay instead of those who aren't:
1) Increased VAT to 20% - a regressive tax which hurts the poorest most
2) Decreased the top rate of income tax for the richest to 45%
3) A plan to reduced corporation tax down to 20% from April 1, the lowest in the G7.
4) Presided over a 3 Billion pound 'tax gap' increase (difference between theoretical money owed and money paid) in the first two years of being in power.
4) Appointing Philip Green, serial tax avoider, to an advisory role over government spending.
5) Has strongly resisted implementing the Tobin tax - a tax of .05 percent (not 5%, 0.05%) on all speculative financial transactions.
6) Massive cuts in 'HMRC' staff, set to shed more 10,000 jobs in the next couple of years.
7) When the 'HMRC' received 6000 names of tax avoiders in Geneva ufrom Christine Lagarde's list of tax avoiders, and who lied on their tax returns, they prosecuted only 1 person. 1200 people settled.
"Astonishingly, all those who settled were given anonymity and immunity from prosecution despite new powers that allow anyone who has evaded more than £50,000 in tax to be named and shamed on the HMRC website."
So basically, we've seen an increase in charges for the poorest, along with cuts in public spending, along with a completely blase' attitude towards tax avoidance and evasion.
ttosca…..*so to get this straight, based on economic historic facts, you are neither DEFENDING New Labour’s policy incompetence in INCREASING unemployment/benefits during a boom, or their resulting policy in CONDEMING many of their core voters to benefit dependency, whether genuine or fraudulent – as our European cousins, were in some cases, more willing to work?*
So OK, lets look at the tax issues to FUND the economic incompetence of Labour, ‘as ‘tax high, spend badly’, IS Labour’s way and they were so pro active in bringing in taxes themselves. Not.
Increasing VAT to 20% may be regressive, but it is a tax on consumption, the more money rich people have and spend (rather than save), the more VAT they pay. But unlike Brown who took away the low rate of tax for the poor, the coalition with their £10k start in income tax, have taken millions out of tax altogether – plus did better for pensioners than Brown e.g. annual 72p award in the early 2000’s.
Oh I forgot, New Labour’s great economic plan to get the UK out of the greatest recession, was for 1 or 2 years only to lower VAT (struggling shops might not have passed on) and offer the poor a £2,000 taxpayer subsidy on a new car ‘cash for clunkers’, usually imported – whilst still spending untold £billions on their fat State and pre election increasing National Insurance payments, to come in AFTER the election – how could that cunning economic plan have failed? Lol
Decreasing tax to 45p, after Labour hiked it 100-days before leaving their 13-year administration, which was an obvious political gimmick to trap the Tories and throw red-meat to their faithful – what a shame New Labour didn’t put more thought into solving the consequences of their economic incompetence, rather than setting political traps – especially as historically penal taxes RAISES LESS TAX over time.
Ask why Labour lowered Capital gain Tax at 18%, nothing to do with their rich friends in the City e.g. Private Equity, or those getting other favours – see the link below on the BBC’s Robert Peston’s book .
“Some of the largest donations (to Labour) came from private equity. Sir Ronnie Cohen and Nigel Doughty, for example, have donated £2.8 million between them since 2001. Cohen co-founded Apax - a private equity firm behind the leveraged buy-outs of companies such as Waterstones and Virgin Radio. He is now chairman of Portland Capital hedge fund and an adviser to the government on ‘encouraging enterprise’ in deprived areas. Once a Liberal Party member, he moved over to Labour after meeting Blair in 1996.
Other contributions include £750,000 from former Goldman-Sachs partner, John Aisbitt, £500,000 from hedge fund executive, William Bollinger, and an estimated £17 million over the past decade from supermarket tycoon, David Sainsbury. Sainsbury became a lord in 1997 and was given a position in the cabinet. Paul Drayson, a healthcare entrepreneur, donated £1.1 million after being appointed to the House of Lords by Blair. Drayson had already courted controversy by donating £100,000 to the Labour Party before his company had won a £32 million government contract supplying a smallpox vaccine. In May 2005, he became a junior defence minister.”
And figures to show the rich are paying more under the Coalition, than under Labour.
The coalitions declining Corporation Tax over years, helps create private sector jobs and is still a lot higher that Irelands 12% tax.
Maybe if Brown was concentrating more on the private sector, he woulddn’t have lost 1million manufacturing jobs by 2005?
Regarding Tobin taxes on bank speculation, as like most socialist tax plans they look good on paper but are not practical – so will just get passed on the consumer e.g. on the transactions of pension funds – as most hedge bid/offer transactions done on behalf of clients e.g. pension funds, are quotes on LESS than 0.05% i.e. futures and government bonds.
So basically, the problem was Brown’s economic, social, spending and private sector mismanagement – and no policies in 2010 to fix it all, themselves.
Why do you keep bringing up New Labour? Who gives a crap about New Labour?
If you want to argue with me that New Labour are a corporate party, then you'll have no argument here. I entirely agree. The crisis of British politics is that none of the three mainstream parties represent the interests of the working public.
They are all corporate parties to a greater or lesser extent. The Tory scum additionally have been the party of conservatism and the landed gentry, which is why they're especially nasty and contemptuous towards working people and the poor.
As far as welfare goes, I don't buy the line that providing enough welfare so that people don't have to struggle to survive (and anyone who has been on welfare will tell you, it is a daily struggle) creates 'dependency'. That's patronising and cruel.
Most people want to work. Most people want a job - and the majority of benefits go to people in work. The problem isn't that there is a culture of 'welfare dependency' in the sense that people are avoiding work and claiming the dole. The problem is that work doesn't pay enough, and around 1/5th of employed people earn below a 'living wage'.
This is the result of decades of corporate cocksucking and attacks on unions and workers rights. We're basically collectively subsidising corporations so that they can hire workers on the cheap.
Finally, fraud is estimated by the DWP itself as less than 1% overall - in fact, there is more money unclaimed than lost to fraud.
So talking about welfare is a total red herring. By far the largest cost of social security are pensions. Next up is housing, which again caused by factors beyond people's control - house prices are insane and, despite the bedroom tax, there aren't enough fewer-bedroom houses to move in to.
The rest of your post is conservative mythology, like taxes are always passed on to the consumer. I shan't bother.
ttosca….why do I keep mentioning New Labour? For two reasons, the first being the Coalition inherited a social and economic problem that in breadth, has not existed since the 1930’s, Secondly, in a two main party system, where one of them will be the main party in 2015, if Labour screws up with all the money in the UK, what could they possibly achieve with it bust?
Regarding your view New Labour being a corporate party, nothing could be further from the truth; they are still the anti business, pro big, expensive, nanny State party, where Trade Union power now resides – and tried to use the unregulated loose money and borrowing via capitalism, to fund it all. Ooops.
Your negative anti working class stereotyping of the Conservatives and the apparently sustainable benevolence of the pre Thatcher Trade Union movement and anti any UK government motives, are frankly a joke – and history confirms it. I’d call any movement headed by proven Russian spies the real scum and traitors, choosing an ideology that never worked in the old Soviet Union
never mind the factories in the Uk – I dare you tell me this was not UK trade union led typical, as it certainly wasn’t in Germany or Japan, then kicking our manufacturing and uncompetitive State subsidized industries.
Yet just because the Conservatives CREATES the conditions for business investment/jobs, not causes business to close, THEY are the enemy of the normal working class people who can’t ALL be employed by the State, 100% funded by a declining private sector, New Labour style? What’s the next step, Old Labour high taxes for EVERYONE to keep the ideological ponzi scheme going.
As for benefits, stop hiding by misrepresenting the MAIN problem; Uk benefits, especially unemployment, should not have shown a massive increase when Brown was boasting about record numbers in work.
The Labour Party brought into the UK cheap workers (within the 1.5 to 2 million net increase), not the Conservatives and BETRAYED the working classes in the UK they pretended to represent.
And what was Labour’s main motive for immigration they planned back in 2001?
They were so obsessed staying in power, and knowing that migrants from Eastern Europe mostly vote for socialist parties, by them mainly settling in the work available South, it would help their electoral chances – but screwed their core voters competing for jobs, homes (they weren’t building), schools and other services, -as a price worth paying
Only a socialist dinosaur would call the Tories the scum or the nasty party, after that Labour betrayal of our youth and working class
Your posts contains a great many lies and stupidities.
Both Labour and the Tory scum have run deficits for the majority of time they have been in power. Neither one of them is particularly remarkable in 'running the economy'. Funnily enough, Capitalism bumbles on from crisis to crisis periodically.
The dominant ideology since the late 1970s has been neo-liberalism, with all of the mainstream parties adopting it and advocating that There Is No Alternative (there is even a handy acronym for this: TINA). This includes 'New' Labour, the party who abolished Clause 4 to nationalize industries, and which deregulated the labour market, and continuation of the privitization of state industries of the Tory scum. They also helped further deregulate the banks, which contributed to the financial crisis.
Neo-liberal economic idiocy is something we've seen in the West in almost all countries. That's why working class and middle class people have suffered economically in the form of stagnating wages, job insecurity, dwindling pensions, unaffordable house prices, and rising cost of living.
Far from helping working people, the Tory scum have further pressed for more economic idiocy and brutality in the form of attacks on the welfare state, attacks on workers rights (such as scrapping employers liability for workers health and safety, as well as making it harder and more unaffordable for employees to taker employers to employment tribunal), and suppressing wages by giving employers free labour in the form of the wicked 'Workfare' scheme.
These nasty Tory policies have resulted in:
* 30% rise in homelessness since the Coalition came to power, thanks for 'welfare reform', and the 'bedroom tax'.
* Roughly 30% rise in the use of foodbanks, directly linked to 'welfare reform':
* A 5% drop in real-wages since the Coalition came to power - one of the worst in the EU:
* The cost of living soaring, greater than anywhere else in europe:
* Thousands of disabled people being killed by ruthless 'fitness for work' assessments which tell dying cancer sufferers and quadriplegics to get out of bed and back to work:
The evidence is overwhelming, and most importantly, people's experiences with Tory policies let me know exactly who the Tories are and what the stand for.
The Tory scum haven't won a majority in 21 years, and they never will again. Tell your paymasters to get over it.
ttosca….I have to laugh at these labels like ‘neo liberal’ you use, especially out of economic reality context, rather than acknowledge economic and social events shaping our country up to 1980, where after those dire times, any sustainable ‘label’ after that had to be seen as welcome; as following the destruction of our manufacturing base by militant UK trade unionists, ANY job should have been welcomed over NO jobs, even by communist trade unionists standards.
And you and Bob Crow are clearly dinosaur throwbacks to those old 1970’s days, where bringing all London workers to their knees for a few rail workers in ticket offices (who were happy to take redundancy or other payments) was more important to your ideology, of attacking Conservative governments.
What worked more for sustainable British job security, traitorous communism, or this neo liberalism malarkey you mention? What worked for Russia whose advice, guidance and money trade union leaders sought, have you bought any Russian electrical appliances lately, ever?
So what is it about the Labour Party and their fanatical support that cannot see their recent utter betrayal of the working man, not by accident but by policy design, if not due to some ideological sickness of envy, masked as their crusade? Interesting reading here, that explains your illness better than I can.
“It’s no coincidence the MPs found guilty of fiddling are all Labour”
“The party may take the moral high ground, but lying and cheating are deep in its DNA”
“But one puzzling question remains. Why is it that only Labour MPs have been found guilty of expenses fraud as a result of the Telegraph revelations?”
And what did Labour do regarding Labour's Commons Speaker 'Gorbals' Mick Martin for his part in encouraging Labour MP's to claim expenses and getting rid of the woman overseeing them, as Speaker to have step down in 300-years? They made him a Lord for services to Labour expenses
Therefore your attack on Conservatives for the many social consequences of a mass population growth, when Labour let the working classes down “for (Labour) votes”, quick economic growth figures and diversity points scoring with the Right – rather than solve existing social problems here e.g. our unemployed, is unbelievable
“Mass immigration happened for the obvious, boring reasons: business likes cheap labour, and Labour likes new votes.”
“The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.
“He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".
As is your attack on any spending cuts the Conservatives had to make inheriting a £150 odd billion annual spending deficit, under Labour that debt figure was set to rise and the cowards refused to tell voters what they would cut, and what extra ‘taxes for growth’ they would force onto everyone.
That was a cynical electoral strategy to limit the damage at the polls in 2010, and allow dinosaurs like you to mention it anything a responsible government did after to address the unsustainable benefits/welfare rises under Labour – but cut welfare they had to, as confirmed here, and who knows what else
In Housing this was New Labour’s record with money burning a hole in their pocket, during a global economic boom, when Labour was spending huge amounts of money of forming Quangos – but let in 1.5 to 2 million migrants that needed to be housed.
Social housing supply - by Shelter 2009
- There are more than 3.8 million social homes in England. The number of social homes declined by 10 per cent between 1998 and 2007.
-However, the number of new lettings19 fell by one third during the same period (see Table 6).
-As a result,households in housing need have to wait longer as fewer homes become available.
- At the end of March 2008 there were 1.77 million households on local authority housing registers (or housing waiting lists) for the allocation of a social home
Regarding Food bank increased usage which is bound to cumulatively happen each year the further we get into New Labour’s great recession, someone in the coalition had the bright idea of promoting Food Bank services at Job Centres, Why didn’t Labour think of that, or were they more worried about bad government stats before the 2010 election?
“Thousands of welfare claimants are being referred to food banks by Job Centre staff over concerns they have not got enough money to eat, the BBC has learned.”
“Since October 2011 Job Centres have been able to issue vouchers for clients to access help at registered food charities.”
“The trust says the number of people being sent to them from unemployment officers has doubled in the last few months.”
As for your last out of date October link on the Cost of Living citing energy bills that is Milibands legacy, and inflation that was around 5% under Labour in 2008 eroding ‘real’ earnings, I suggest you check todays inflation, as that helps ‘real’ earnings, as very employers raise salaries during the biggest recession in 80-years.
“The UK's inflation rate, as measured by the consumer prices index, fell to 1.9% in January.”
And unlike Labour who’s policies promote welfare dependency, this is what happens when your policies promote employment as recorded in the last figures; UK unemployment rate fell to 7.1% during the three months to the end of November.
It was the biggest EVER quarterly increase in employment. A total of 280,000 jobs were created in the period – 1.3 million since 2010
You crazy guy. You're clearly hired by Tory HQ, and you spend enormous amounts of time defending the Tory scum and attacking Labour, even in replies to me when I'm not defending Labour or haven't mentioned them.
Your replies are also vacuous. Claiming that food bank rises are the result of referrals rather than welfare 'reforms' (cuts) is pretty disgraceful. Many charities and organisations have already commented that the rise is the result of welfare cuts, sanctions, rising house prices and cost of living, and falling wages.
Your lie again regarding employment, and I've already corrected you on the matter: there is no big increase in employment; the government now counts unpaid Workfare placements as 'employed', and redefining 'unemployment'. Not to mention the people count as 'employed' who are on 'zero-hour' contracts with no job or income security.
If anyone besides this crazy guy wants to low-down on how the Tory scum are fiddling employment figures, read this:
Here is How the UK Govt Hid 1 million Jobless From Official Unemployment Figures
One of the purported achievements of the Coalition government’s disastrous economic policy of austerity, has been the unemployment figures. Pundits say that at 7.8% (2.51m) they are nothing to shout about but not the disastrous rates seen in states such as Greece (26.9%) or Spain (26.3%). In reality, the unemployment rate is more than double this in many areas, while those in employment are facing ever worsening conditions to retain their non-jobs.
We have the Thatcher government to thank for the majority of the statistical trickery which currently renders the government released unemployment figures redundant. Prior to 1979, the unemployment rate was anyone registered as unemployed, this was converted to a percentage of the total workforce and that was the published unemployment rate. Then some changes came in:
1. Redefining Unemployment: originally defined as those ‘registered’ unemployed, changed to only count ‘claimants’ – this obviously reduced the number greatly as many unemployed people do not, for various reasons, claim benefits.
2. Cutting Benefit Entitlements: By making changes to the benefit system (who is eligible and not) the government can magic away unemployment numbers by simply removing eligibility for benefits. If the person cannot claim, they are not classed as unemployed.
3. Training Schemes & Work Programmes: the conservative government of the 80’s began to double count those in training & work programmes. First, they excluded them from the unemployed figures, then they added them to the total workforce figures – this means that simply by recruiting people into a work programme, the government has reduced the unemployment figures. Prior to Thatcher, these schemes were not counted as employment.
ttosca…FYI I can guarantee you on children lives that I’m not hired by anyone (which frankly IS a current problem), but while posters try to manipulate others here by giving false information and indicating that from 2010 ALL our problems began, then Labour’s policies/record of economic and social incompetence (by policy design) will come up – especially to those using colourful language more suited to the fan-atical football terraces.
Firstly I’ll always dismiss any ‘qualified’ link from the half wit websites as ‘coalition policy scum’ gospel, unless there is a pre 2010 unspun 'New Labour could change what they wanted to' comparison – or from a scan of the usual literary bile, I see “Thatcher” name, as she left office nearly 25-years ago, and you should be comparing what economic incompetence built up with huge parliamentary majorities they left, versus the fastest growing economy in Europe they inherited in 1997.
Brown is responsible for this country’s mess, and he is still alive, for credibility sake you NEED to move on from the Thatcher ‘thing’, Labour showed us what they can do in 13-years of uninterrupted power, and it didn’t work out well for the people they pretend to represent, unless they were productive East Europeans that Blair’s ‘couch cabinet’ in the early 2000’s understood would vote for socialist parties, especially the one that gave THEM opportunities.
Next on Unemployment that Brown pre 2010 election policy decided that a few National Insurance Contribution increases (a ‘Jobs Tax’, in Labour parlance) after the election, was his magic fairy dust to get the unemployed back to work, you provided figures of several months ago, when employment has been gathering speed since, were you being ‘selective’?
The recent figures and partial breakdown I gave you tells the real story, including growth in Full Time Employment; the results of Osbourne reversing most of Labour’s ‘job tax’ and giving employers other incentives to hire people, that your flawed and failed ideology would call ‘sucking up to corporations’.
Brown’s ‘job tax’, a short term VAT cut, and a £2,000 cash for old cars-for-new was New Labour’s cunning ‘plan’ to reverse the huge fall in employment under their watch (especially those in manufacturing lost well BEFORE 2007), so with those ‘long term measures to rebalance the UK economy’, just think how bad Unemployment WOULD HAVE BEEN, under the current ‘tax every business to economic growth’ Old Labour, under Miliband???
Regarding Welfare & Benefits I’d suggest that you and a few other preaching on what the nasty Conservatives are doing, looks at the truth; how benefits like employment ROSE when Brown bragged about record numbers of EMPLOYED, how much has actually been ‘cut’ from what had become a welfare depend State, while Brown subbed out our jobs to Europe AND that the combined consequences of Labour’s policies and the greatest recession (they left) since the 1930’s - would continue to cause hardship and increase those numbers, UNTIL a government with a plan got us out of that great recession, called THE great recession due to the severity of it, especially on an unbalanced economy full of debt, that wasn’t the case in 1997.
"Welfare spending in Britain has increased faster than almost any other country in Europe since 2000, new figures show"
The cost of unemployment benefits, housing support and pensions as share of the economy has increased by more than a quarter over the past thirteen years – growing at a faster rate than in most of the developed world
In the developed world, only the United States and the stricken eurozone states of Ireland, Portugal and Spain - which are blighted by high unemployment - have increased spending quicker than Britain.
And in Britain since 2010, when the Coalition came to power, spending on welfare as share of GDP has barely moved – falling by just a quarter of one per cent over three years, according to OECD data
By contrast, more than a third of developed nations have cut their welfare bills steeply in that period. Germany has cut social security spending as a share of GDP by 3.4 per cent, Canada by 3 per cent, Iceland by 4.2 per cent, Switzerland by 7 per cent and Estonia by 11 per cent.
Despite Mr Osborne’s promise to get welfare under control, the benefits bill is due to increase rapidly in cash terms, from £180bn this year to £203bn in 2018-19.”
There was a huge amount of abuse in the welfare system built up when spending taxpayers money on unreformed services was rife, as the international comparison figures above proves, and no one will ever know how many claims (or what it cost annually) was fraudulent.
Anyone who ideologically chooses to believe that there wasn’t widespread benefit/welfare abuse is giving themselves ‘mind wedgies’ and politicians of all parties should be glad that abuse it coming out of the system, as it gives them more money to give to those that NEED IT, and that should be a priority
Socialist fan-atics are similar to a mother giving birth, where afterwards nature makes them forget that all that pain, and their chosen journey that led to it, so they forget all about it
The difference being that a mother remembers all that pain, as soon as she goes into labour for the 2nd child, whereas a socialist fan-atic has the ability to transfer the pain (and their part in it) from Day One after a general election onto the Conservative Party
If my theory isn’t sound, why would Mr Miliband, as a senior member of the administration that left office in 2010, weekly stand up at PMQT and blame the coalition for all the (trending up for several years) problems he left e.g. youth unemployment?
David Cameron Meets With Food Bank Bosses
Prime Minister David Cameron met with bosses of Britain’s biggest food bank charity, Trussell Trust, on Thursday for “frank and open” discussions about the food poverty crisis sweeping across the Country in the wake of coalition cuts to welfare spending and stagnating wages.
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Iain Duncan Smith MP, has so far refused to meet with the Trussell Trust, but it is believed by some that PM David Cameron was pressurised into a meeting with charity bosses by Labour MP Stephen Timms, during a session of Prime Ministers questions in January.
The meeting comes after 27 church leaders wrote to the Daily Mirror blaming government welfare cuts and “punitive” benefit sanctions for a record surge in the number of malnourished families forced to turn to food banks, including those run by the Trussell Trust charity, for help in putting food on the table.
A spokesperson for the Trussell Trust told the Daily Mirror:
“The Prime Minister listened to our stories of individuals who have been helped by food banks, and we had a good discussion about how Trussell Trust food banks work, what our data shows and what we believe to be the main causes of increased food bank use. The conversation was practical and solution-focused.
“We are very grateful to David Cameron for his time and hope that this will open the way to further engagement with Government, enabling us to speak up about the problem of food poverty in this country to those who have the power to bring about change.”
The Trussell Trust mainly blame low wages, rising living costs, benefit payment delays and welfare cuts for a 76% increase in the number of people turning to the charity for food aid in the last 12 months.
Trussell Trust Food Parcel Distribution By User Type
Trussell Trust Food Parcel Distribution By User Type
According to the Trussell Trust, nearly 350,000 were helped by the charity in 2012-13 compared with 128,697 in 2011-12 and 126,889 (36.6%) of those were children.
The apparent boom in the number of food banks in Britain isn’t just limited to poorer areas. Poverty campaigners now claim that there are signs of an increase in demand for food aid in some of the richest parts of the Country, with 1,000 food parcels having been handed out in Hart, Hampshire. Average income in the district is believed to be a third higher than the national average.
The founder of one of the country’s leading food banks declared yesterday that soaring demand for the free handouts has nothing to do with benefit cuts
Robin Aitken spoke out the day after 27 Anglican bishops claimed that benefit cuts had led to many going hungry, and that as a result 500,000 people have used food banks since last Easter.
The bishops and 42 clergymen, supported by Archbishop of Canterbury the Most Reverend Justin Welby, said that more than half the people using food banks had been put in that position by welfare cutbacks or failures in the benefits system.
But Mr Aitken said there was no evidence to back such a claim
He said: ‘If you provide a service, people will use it.
‘They will go and get good food. Of course they will.’
Look at the percentage increases of use of Food Banks under Labour as the recession they caused BEGAN to bite – clearly few lost their jobs in 2007/8 and the longer it went on, the more that were laid off or exhausted their savings.
Except there is evidence, as there was a huge increase in referrals from the DWP for foodbank vouchers before the Tory scum stopped keeping records of this so as to avoid accountability.
Furthermore, the Trussel Trust has repeatedly made stated that they've seen a huge rise in food bank use and give reasons:
"Trussell Trust foodbanks have seen the biggest rise in numbers given emergency food since the charity began in 2000. Almost 350,000 people have received at least three days emergency food from Trussell Trust foodbanks during the last 12 months, nearly 100,000 more than anticipated and close to triple the number helped in 2011-12.
Rising cost of living, static incomes, changes to benefits, underemployment and unemployment have meant increasing numbers of people in the UK have hit a crisis that forces them to go hungry. This dramatic rise in foodbank usage predates April’s welfare reforms, which could see numbers increase further in 2013-14. "
Food banks use did indeed increase after the financial crisis and recession. Tory policies have exacerbated the crisis, when they should be mitigating it:
That's a five-fold increase since the Coalition came to power. A direct result of the nasty policies of the nasty party.
Give it a rest, isitmebut.
ttosca….*the FINANCIAL recession began in 2007/8, it took years for the ECONOMIC recession to feed through into the highly indebted economy, creating growing unemployment (increasing year after year) and people with savings deposits to run out of spending power, partially thanks to high UK inflation (5.2% in 2008) and a Base Rate of 0.50% under Labour returning nothing on peoples savings* .
All this time and up to the months they left office in 2010, Labour kept hiring ‘non job’ public sector employee and throwing £billions in to the economy we did not have, to make it look like real Ballsian style ‘growf’ and make promises they knew could not be kept e.g. £10.5 billion on one off projects.
So the cumulative affect of the Labour great financial recession, causing the great economic recession e.g. growing unemployment, plus the jobcentre initiative Labour failed to implement, plus more people KNOWING about Food Banks, OF COURSE THE NUMBERS HAVE INCREASED, but only by about 15% due to welfare reforms
“Since October 2011 Job Centres have been able to issue vouchers for clients to access help at registered food charities.”
But the question YOU should be more concerned about, is WHY during a Labour government when they apparently had ££££billions to waste, was Food Bank figures going up by around 50% a year and they passed on such a huge unemployment/welfare dependency legacy to the coalition-if Labour’s economic migrant policy had nothing to do with it?
“The gap between rich and poor has widened under Labour, a major new Government report will say next week
The 450-page study by the National Equality Panel is expected to report that the billions of pounds poured into extra benefits, tax credits and anti-poverty drives over the last 12 years have failed to reverse the rise in inequality.
The findings are a major embarrassment for Gordon Brown who has adopted a controversial ‘class war’ election strategy designed to position Labour as the party of equality"
But where was much of the money going that Brown called “investment”, the fat government full of their apparatchiks and non jobs in local government, where Council Taxes rose over 110% in 13-years and over 22% of council tax paid, covers their final salary pensions – as Labour’s contribution to the ‘cost of living crisis’, while in power
ttosca….I can understand why socialists chose to blame the coalition for the consequences of Labour’s incompetence on finance, the economy, immigration and looking after the poorest in society, as if they had to face up to the reality of the opportunity Labour blew - they hypocritically couldn’t get up every morning and blame the coalition for their legacy. Read this and weep, as our poorest that were told Labour would look after their interests, will.
Your posts are getting tiresome. I understand that you're getting paid to post Tory propaganda in the belief that the next election will either be won by the 'Red' team or the 'Blue' team (in reality both the same business team), as you so aptly put it.
However, it's ridiculous that you respond with every post trying to deflect blame on to Labour without taking responsibility for Tory policies which are clearly having a detrimental effect on the population.
I'm not here to defend Labour. When Labour get back in power, I will also criticise them on here. They will, no doubt, continue the same neo-liberal policies that Tory scum have enacted, and New Labour enacted before them.
You're right that wealth inequality increased under Labour. Wealth inequality has been increasing for the past 30 years since the beginning of the Thatcher/Reagan era. This is a global phenomenon.
It is now the case that 50% of the world's wealth is owned by only 5% of the population. It's obscene. I'm highlighting how Tory policies are further impoverishing people and making wealth inequality even more extreme.
When you say silly things like 'Labours Financial Crisis', you demean yourself and lose any credibility you had. You just look either incredibly ignorant, or so blindly partisan that you're unwilling to face reality in any form.
The financial crisis wasn't caused by Labour's spending. It was caused by casino Capitalism, and it was global in nature. I shouldn't have to explain this to you, except that I'm pretty sure you know this but are willing to pimp yourself for money and say anything.
Labour's contribution to the financial crisis was deregulation of the financial sector. Both the Tory scum and Labour have legislated or lobbied intensively for this to happen since the 1980s, since the UKs productive economy has been destroyed and so much tax revenue comes from City finance. Unfortunately, this was a trick. And you can only create so much money out of thin air before the Ponzi scheme collapses.
The Tory scum receive 50% of party funding from the City of London. They are the last group of people whom we can trust to reform the City.
None of the mainstream parties are up to the job. Right now we have yet another bubble-based recovery, with banks again being let loose to gamble recklessly. We are headed for yet another Capitalist crisis within a few years.
What we need is change. Not more of the same psychopaths in government.
ttsoca….my posts over a few weeks are getting tiresome, what do you think it’s like reading your failed, class warrior, bitter left wing hatred of the 1970’s, that constantly waging war on businesses (and the Conservatives) failed this country back then?
Citizen ‘Wolfie’ Smith of The Tooting Popular Front was funny back then, as a destructive, failed ideology. It’s tedious now – inequality with the rich controlling a large portion of the overall wealth has existed for centuries, in the industrial revolution times it’s money built northern cities, nowadays its wealth is often left in huge foundations, it ain’t going to change so get over it.
As to the political ‘blame game’, Thatcher has been blamed for the damage done to our industrial for the decade BEFORE she came power to this day, the difference is with Brown as the financial crash is, that BROWN ‘OWNS’ the extent of damage to the UK banks and economy, as the damage was a DIRECT result of Brown’s policies
UK mortgage lending throughout the 1990’s was relatively flat, from 1998 it shot up 5-fold from around £21 billion to £100 billion plus in 2004, dipped, then hit a high of £115 billion in September 2007, then feel off a (graph) cliff to £12 billion by 2010. That lending to private and commercial property that drove up prices was not ‘casino capitalism’, it was the direct result of Labour’s policies to deregulate banks, make savings less attractive, open door migration housing demand, AND not build enough homes – where was the Conservative blame in any of those DIRECT policies of Brown’s
Brown surrounded himself with ex City advisors from 1997, Blair took in huge donations from the City via Lord Levy – NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CONSERVATIVES – do you want the Labour list of City advisors to Downing Street as well as the donors to Labour e.g. Private Equity Funds (see link below) he dropped Capital Gains Tax for????????????
Brown and the Financial Services Authority that was newly formed by Brown in 1997, in an unwieldy regulatory tripartite, have both admitted their part in the financial crash (see links below), that became an biggest economic recession since the 1930’s – so as these were direct Brown’s policies, ONCE AGAIN, HOW ARE THE CONSERVATIVES to blame????
Therefore this WAS Brown’s financial crisis/recession to own, as he’s policies to BOOST a bank lending boom (and the resulting consumer debt rather than savings ratio in 1997), meant that once the crash came, consumer debts, recor low interest rates to savers and our banks were in a worse shape than others – as why else did the UK have to nationalise some of our largest banks, when other countries never had to – and therefore in a worse position to fund any economic recovery.
In conclusion, unless you can dispute the facts above, the fools within the likes of The Tooting Popular Front have to acknowledge that the continual blame passing onto the Conservatives for Labour’s administrations policies, is not only wrong again, but past a joke
Isn't the Coalition spending more on benefits than Labour did? I'm pretty sure I read that they are, and also that borrowing has increased. No surprise really, given that unemployment costs money, homelessness costs money etc. Even if you don't buy into the argument that it's morally wrong to make people unemployed/homeless/mentally ill as a result of stress, it doesn't make economic sense to pursue policies that will result in those things.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.