Active discussions

Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Politics
Original poster

Government Recommends a further 2.69million English Families to be sent to food banks

37 replies

BeingAMumIsFun · 30/04/2012 11:57

Reports on Friday stated an increasing number of British families going to Trussell Trust Foodbanks (they don't tell us the increase is because the Goverment is forcing job centre staff to hand out Trussell Trust food vouchers if benefit payments are late or people are refused a crisis loan)

But what mothers of England also are not being told is the government plans to abolish the DWP crisis loans

2.69 million English families got crisis loans in 2010 from the DWP (DWP official figure) in a time of crisis (the average loan was £83 which was all paid back)

The government is abolishing crisis loans and recommends English Councils send people to the Trussell Trust for a food parcel instead

www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/social-fund-localisation-call-for-evidence.pdf

So the shocking figure of 130,000 getting food parcels from the Trusell Trust, reported on Friday, will from next year rise to 2.96 million families (that means about 10 million men women and children to be fed from food parcels in England alone as a deliberate government policy change and recommendation

Crisis loans are for working families, not just those on benefit e.g. your child is in hospital, your home is flooded - any unexpected crisis -

Crisis loans cost the nation nothing - they are paid back

So why are the Liberals and Tories abolishing them and recommending councils can keep the money (to be transferred from the DWP) and send people to the Trussell Trust for food parcels instead

These crisis loans are used by many families to top up their pre pay gas and electricity metres in winter -as benefit and low pay just does not stretch to the high cost of power in winter.

Surely every mum has a right to know - before they cast their vote in council elections what each candidate plans

Will your councillors be sending mothers to foodbanks in a crisis - or will your councillor ensure a small short term crisis loan is still available to allow mothers to buy fresh milk, fresh bread, fresh vegetables and fresh meat locally (there is no fresh food in a food parcel and the food bank could be miles away)

Every mother in England needs to ask their council candidates what their plans are - food banks or the current short term small loan which is paid back to allow famiilies to keep their dignity and decide for themselves what they get to eat from local shops

These crisis loans cost us nothing - food banks - humiliating and degrading - every mother should have the ability to buy fresh food for her children when a short term crisis uses the family budget.

The government gets 25% of British earnings every single week (12% from the employee and 13% from the employer) - this is hundreds of billions

So why should working people - who the government asked to pay an extra 1% in National Insurance be denied the only benefit they may need to call on in a crisis - when 2.69 million English families use this every year this proves there is a vital need for this small loan system which works extremely well for everyone - including the tax payer

OP posts:
Original poster
BeingAMumIsFun · 01/05/2012 09:23

@flatpackhamster

But the service is local - it is in the DWP office - which everyone has access to

The average crisis loan is £83 - and this is paid back allowing people to keep their dignity and control of what they eat and pay for unexpectedly high fuel bills in winter.

The crisis could be a child gets cancer and there is unexpected extra transport costs etc to visit your child

Your home gets flooded

Is the taxpayer lending a family £83 in a crisis (which they pay back) not the very best of society

And it is quite odd the details the newspapers don't tell us about the Trussell Trust.

Chris Mould the Director of The Trussell Trust also works in the Shaftesbury partnership and has worked alongside Tory Party Policy Writers in this company set up to Reform 21st Century Society!

The Shaftesbury Partnership was set up by Nat Wei (David Cameron's big society policy tzar)

And the Chairman of the Trussell Trust is a Tory Mayor -

So Chris Mould works with Tory Party Policy Writers, a Tory Mayor and the man David Cameron gave a life peerage and made his big society policy tsar to reform our society into one where, in a crisis, he decides what people get to eat and if they get to eat rather than the families themselves.

Lots and lots of Tories here determined they want to remove control from people's lives and take control themselves - over what people eat!

So should 2.69 million English families, in this 21st century reformed society go to the Tory party for a food parcel - or should people be able to borrow £83 form the DWP - taxpayers in a crisis and actually buy their children fresh food locally (as there is no fresh food in the food parcels and many are located in the next town)

My preference is the DWP (to whom I pay national insurance) decides what benefits I require - not politicians and people who work in organisations with Tory party policy writers to reform society "their way"

OP posts:
flatpackhamster · 30/04/2012 19:39

@CharminglyOdd

The two aren't separate. The idea that we can separate the location of government services from their efficacy and cost is wrong. The closer those services are to the people who need them and (more importantly) the people who pay for them the better those services will be. While you might not like that fact, it's important for the people whose money is being spent to recognise the value of that expenditure. If they don't they'll do stuff like avoid tax because they don't feel that they've got any kind of link with the system they live in.

I don't think that the mobility argument holds water. The main reason I don't is that the least mobile people in society are likely to be these families. They can't easily move because they're tied to council housing. Further, the phrase 'postcode lottery' is a ghastly Stalinesque construct which demands that everything be the same everywhere all the time. Why should services be identical in Dover and York? The people are different, the needs are different. Only in the minds of the most crazed evangelists for central planning could it be considered a bad thing that the services are different.

I don't know why we need a central repository of information on 'people in need'. Yes, it makes statisticians happy, and it gives the Guardian/BBC something to wail about, but what really matters is the service and not the metric by which it's measured.

minimathsmouse · 30/04/2012 18:20

I wonder what would happen if the charity sector wasn't offering food parcels, would this ever have happened?

carernotasaint · 30/04/2012 17:00

So how is sending someone to the food bank going to help with paying their gas or electricity bill?

CharminglyOdd · 30/04/2012 14:44

I think that depends, flatpack, on whether you think the primary issue here is an ideological problem of where to put government services (local/central) or the problem is how best to solve the needs of those who require crisis help.

I would argue, particularly in the mobile society we have today, that a centralised crisis loan system works for the best. The money will not be ringfenced, councils will decide what services to offer (e.g. food banks, rent help, emergency repairs help, or nothing) turning it into a postcode lottery. Far better to have a centralised fund that you can borrow from for any emergency purpose (food, heating, shelter) with a personal annual limit.

I also suspect that devolving administration and powers will make it far harder for organisations such as the ONS to properly estimate the amount of poverty or persons in need in the UK. Usually when the government makes a move like this the end result is some kind of fudging of the statistics collection that makes them look better.

minimathsmouse · 30/04/2012 14:41

Yes flatpack but are you not concerned about the fact that so many people will have to rely on food parcels?

flatpackhamster · 30/04/2012 14:35

When you start to try to use emotional blackmail to win your argument it's a sign of desperation. And that is exactly what you've done.

Let's be clear about this proposal that OP has outlined.

What the DWP is doing is returning power from central government to local councils. The councils will get the money but they, not DWP, will be responsible for the people in their area and for managing their needs. If the council wants to run a crisis loans scheme, it can. It's up to the council, not central government.

What could be better than returning the power to councils to allow them to decide what the people in their area need?

I know that MN is chock full of Guardianistas with a soft spot for the Soviet Union, but central planning does not work and the more stuff that's done locally, by local councils, the better for all of us.

CharminglyOdd · 30/04/2012 14:34

Reading the justification for that makes me spitting mad.

The remote administration of the benefit system no longer supports the application of the high levels of discretion that are needed to assess eligibility to Community Care Grants and Crisis Loans for general living expenses.

Of course it doesn't. And that exactly what all the decision managers and JCP staff were telling their managers/the govt when they started to shut all the local decision making centres and convert them into centralised call centres. It was the government (both current and previous administration) who got themselves into that mess in the first place. They tried to 'fix' something that wasn't broken.

minimathsmouse · 30/04/2012 14:24

Ooh, do tell, where is the free housing?
I assume you are all for families with children begging for food parcels Flatpack.

flatpackhamster · 30/04/2012 14:12

Dickensian Britain with free housing, healthcare and education.

So not Dickensian Britain at all.

minimathsmouse · 30/04/2012 14:06

It's like a return to Dickensian Britain isn't it.

Original poster
BeingAMumIsFun · 30/04/2012 13:56

The government consultation document on the abolition of crisis loans and community care grants to be replaced with local council services states (words below from the government consultation document link above)

"We do not expect local authorities to recreate Community Care Grants and Crisis Loans locally."

"There will therefore be no new statutory duty requiring local authorities to deliver the service"

"the funding will not be ring-fenced"

"Set out below are a few examples of local schemes and partnership working. Clients offered immediate access to such schemes through a local authority
referral mechanism might have their needs met more effectively than under the current system.

The Trussell Trust is a charitable organisation that provides emergency food to people in crisis. There are almost 90 foodbanks in the Trussell Trust network across the UK.
Jobcentre Plus has been working with the Trussell Trust to pilot closer signposting and checking of potential entitlement for help from the Trust?s foodbank. The pilots have been running in Gloucester, Wiltshire and Swindon District since January 2011.
We believe that local authorities could provide similar services through effective partnership working with other organisations to benefit those in crisis at a local level."

So if 2.69 million families got crisis loans and the government is abolishing them with a recommendation for Trussell Trust food banks - that is 2.69 million more families possibly going to be sent to the Trussell Trust for food parcels - 10 million people to be fed from food parcels every year

So will our councils be sending us to Trussell Trust food banks ?

OP posts: