Thursday 26 July 2012

Oblivious To The Obvious...

A supposedly heart-rending article on food banks in the 'Guardian' is clearly meant to inflame passions against the dreaded 'Tory benefit cuts' but a closer look shows you just why such cuts are necessary:
Paul, 33, hasn't had a job since a car accident three years ago damaged his knee and made it hard for him to stand for long stretches; he has now mostly recovered and is looking to return to warehouse work, although he hasn't managed to find any, partly, he thinks, because of the recession and partly because his experience is now a bit out of date. Late last year, he was put on the government's new Work Programme, allocated a slot with the provider Sencia. "They are supposed to be helping me find work; all they are doing is having me come in and look for jobs on the internet. I could be doing that at home myself. They weren't sending me on any courses," he says.
So...you've got Internet access at home? But you're struggling to feed your family?

Sorry, your growing family:
...they have nothing to feed their twin six-year-old sons and their eight-year-old daughter. Sarah is five months pregnant.
/facepalm
Paul doesn't say much, but comments as they wait for the food bank officials to decide whether they are eligible for a fourth, discretionary package that the sanctions system has been very hard for the family. "It cripples you. If it wasn't for the food banks, I don't know how I'd get it, other than steal it. They don't understand what it's going to be like when they take your money away from you, when you've got kids. It's impossible."
It's not your money, is it, Paul?

Further on, there's a telling remark from the foodbank staff about their attitude to this 'life-saving service':
There's an eclectic mix of food, some of it of fairly low quality and cheap. Today among the array of goods on offer there is Asda Smart Price chicken-flavour noodles; Tesco Everyday Value chilli con carne; green mung beans in a bag; Sainsbury's Basics chocolate desert mix; a butterscotch supreme desert powder, packed with diglycerides of fatty acids and tetrasodium diphosphate. Staff have a rule that they won't distribute food they wouldn't eat themselves. "It is a bit annoying when people are clearing out the cupboards and we get rusty tins, something that went out of date in 2011." Bunting says. "We try to be sensitive. We get donations of Weetabix, but the problem with that is that it soaks up a lot of milk. If people give us cream crackers, we wouldn't give them out, because it's insulting if [the recipients] can't afford to buy cheese to eat with it."
I... What?

I thought this was meant to be keeping body & soul together? What next, a refusal to give them anything because there are no after-dinner mints?

They aren't entirely naive, though, clearly:
Volunteers say they try not to be critical of the people who come in, but incidental comments show they clearly struggle not to categorise recipients into deserving and undeserving; there is a hint of moralising that might be less pronounced in a state service. There's some uncharitable speculation about why the food bank is less busy in the morning, which goes along the lines of "these people don't get up early". At the Hope Centre there is discussion about how deserving the Romanian families are. "We try not to be judgmental but if you can't stand close because of the alcohol fumes, you think if you had a couple of bottles less of whisky then maybe you'd be able to buy some food," one of the volunteers says, before catching himself, and adding: "But alcoholism is an addiction. Some people are very grateful and others think it is their right to get food."
Yes. So we can see.

Oh, how the Guardianistas must be gnashing their teeth at this service being provided not by the impersonal arm of the state, but by people with eyes and ears and noses who are drawing unwelcome (to Guardianstas, anyway) conclusions....
Joseph Anderson, 44, is phlegmatic about the whole process. "The reason I am here? The dole decided I missed an appointment so they suspended my money." He missed the appointment because he didn't have the £3.60 for the bus fare and didn't feel up to the nine-mile walk to the Jobcentre. He hasn't worked since 2010 when he lost his job with ParcelForce, and is anxious to advertise his willingness to do so through the Guardian, hoping there may be readers ready to employ him.
Heh! Good luck with that. In my experience, these articles are meant yo do one thing, and one thing only; justify the Guardianistas' attempts to put their hands deeper in everyone else's pocket, not their own...

28 comments:

Sue Marsh said...

I'm not sure what you're actually saying. I think it's that the people who attend the foodbank should be more responsible, not have as many children, try harder to get a job and have absolutely no communication systems or entertainment of any kind.

As an argument, it's alluring.

The conclusions is a limit on the number of children you can have if your income is below a certain amount, dry crackers and weetabix to eat and no internet to help you get a job (remember, all the libraries are closing too so no-one can go there.)

Tough love

But. (and it's a big but) these policies can't be retrospective If that is the society you want to see in the future, going forward, that is an argument. I hate it, think you are soulless and dangerous, but it is valid.

It is based on the very worst assumptions of human nature, cynicism and judgement, but you can only do it going forward. Starving children to pay for the parent's sins is ridiculous. However feckless you think they might be, it is as it is and they need feeding.

You can "nudge" society to be this way in the future, but trying to do it retrospectively is just eugenics.

Bucko said...

""among the array of goods on offer there is Asda Smart Price chicken-flavour noodles; Tesco Everyday Value chilli con carne; green mung beans in a bag; Sainsbury's Basics chocolate desert mix; a butterscotch supreme desert powder, packed with diglycerides of fatty acids and tetrasodium diphosphate""

Sounds like my disaster rations in the attic

Bucko said...

Sue - The person in this story is claiming to have no money at all to feed his children.
Bringing up his internet connection is correct. What is more important, food or the web?

This attitude that 'starving kids' shouldn't pay for their parents errors actually helps to breed the feckless.
If they know they can blow the money they have on entertainment while the taxpayer will pick up the bill for thier kids food then they will do it.
And all the libraries are not closing. Some, maybe.
And yes you should not have more kids than you can afford if you are on a low income. That is just common sense.

Anonymous said...

My wife has a vacancy for one f/t and one p/t job basic work but pays, not one single applicant those she does have buggered of tuesday and weds to go to the beach. many only want p/t because with tax credits its a liveable wage.

Anonymous said...

Sue,

'All the libraries are closing'? Where exactly are all the libraries closing? What you are forgetting is that reducing the number of children people had, was exactly what happened in the Industrial Revolution because it improved people's standards of living. We are going through again what our forebearers went through.

I would tend to agree that Julia is dangerous to certain parts of society, that is why we keep bladed implements away from her, however Julia has a soul. I personally think that you are propogating the problem, ie lack of personal responsiblility and a society that not only provides a safety net, which I am all for, but one that provides a viable standard of living for those who will not support themselves.

Also no-one is suggesting eugenics here, what is being suggested is, if you breed make sure you can feed your off spring. Which is what every other mammal on the planet does, with the exception of people from certain parts of Western Europe.

Bunny

The Marches Bitcher said...

I know someone in my town who gets stuff from food banks and he is a lazy bastard, been playing the Mental Health card for about 10 years. Doesn't stop him travelling round the country to see mates, sexual partners and other stuff though. Knows all the dodges like not carrying a bag to the health assessment and always carrying the walking stick that he really doesn't need to use.

The ironic thing is that any mental problems he started out with would have been improved by purposeful activity such as work. As it is he expends a large amount of effort gaming the benefit system and trying to get people like shrinks to keep him on the suck (which maddeningly is succeeding)

Tatty said...

Re-open workhouses and mental institutions, run them for at least a year and we'll see how many "mentally ill" and "starving" we have left over.

Noggin the Nog said...

In the wonderful world of Sue Marsh the dreadful social problems we see today were caused during Thatcher's reign of terror, 1979-2010.

Parents that do not feed their children should have them taken away from them, obviously. I notice there are no actual figures given in the article, so it is impossible to know the exact situation, but as others have pointed out, his Internet connection won't feed the kids.

I'd be willing to bet that his total benefits amount to more than minimum wage, which both shows how low the min wage is and how high benefits are.

Talking of benefit scroungers, MP's get £400 per month food allowance and very heavily subsidized, high quality meals in plush restaurants in the HoP, so any moralizing from them on matters such as these is about as palatable as a cup of cold sick.

Anonymous said...

So life really is fluffy bunnies and flowers. Oh no it's not.

FFS! People allegedly are starving in this country. Yet they continue to breed and have money for the luxuries of life. If their children really are starving and they spend money on the likes of internet access then they should be locked up. Forever. That is one of the most insidious forms of child abuse known.

BTW sometimes you make me despair Julia, if only because you highlight the likes of that Gruaniad (sic) article which mistakes malevolent stupidity for caring.

Please keep up the good work.

David Gillies said...

Something even strident libertarian minarchocapitalists like me can agree on is that in a civilised world we don't let people, even the grotesquely feckless, starve to death. But every attempt to divert the forces of nature from asserting themselves carries with it perverse incentives, without exception. The question is where to strike the balance. Grauniad readers and I differ on the answer.

The Marches Bitcher said...

Tatty, one of the great tragedies of latter 20th Century British History was the closing down of the asylums.

Not everyone who is afflicted by mental illness needs to be hospitalised but care in the community shouldn't be the default setting and it's appalling that CIC is the default.

Despite the propaganda that's put out about CIC, it hasn't been beneficial to many customers of the mental health system nor the communities on whom have been dumped the disturbed.

Disenfranchised of Buckingham said...

Sue, you're wrong. Tatty is right, we need workhouses now.

If you are down and out my moral duty is to keep the kids alive and healthy. Feckless families should be in a workhouse where we will know the kids are fed.

microdave said...

"So...you've got Internet access at home? But you're struggling to feed your family?"

I'll bet there is Sky TV as well...

Anonymous said...

Dole bludgers make me so bleeding wild. It's one thing to have a humane system of helping those who have fallen on hard times but it seems that those on benefits KNOW that their rent is going to be paid and KNOW that there will be x amount of money given to them. Every day I wake up and think 'will I get enough work today / this week to get by'.

Doleys dont' have such worries. I wouldn't want the life that the doley's have though, I couldn't live with the lack of self respect.

I have been ill in the past and the shame of being a burden gave me the kick up the arse to try to sort it out. Do some of the doleys and fake illness merchants have any such sense of shame? Probably not.

Anonymous said...

I always appreciate a great article or piece of writing. Thanks for the contribution.

Sue Marsh said...

Well, not one of you answers the point I made.

You can implement these policies from today, if you must. You will be creating a society broadly similar to 1930s Germany, but it will be policy if you choose that route.

But it can't be retrospective. If it is retrospective, you are saying that a proportion of society must starve. Die.

This is all about eugenics. How can you deny it? Be honest about what you propose - if you are proud of it, if you believe it, why be ashamed to call it what it is?

You are proposing a society created in line with your judgements, you are proposing that families only have so many children, you are suggesting that they must live on any wage offered. Any terms.

You are proposing that the weak and the incapable suffer or die, because they are not as strong or as fortunate as you. You judge their conditions as doctor and jury.

You know best - you experts on the human condition.

So if you want this perfect society, you accept those who fall by the wayside. You support workhouses and as Julia said earlier, shooting anyone who can't comply.

That is eugenics in it's simplest form. Retrospective penalties are a from of eugenics. Reducing support for those with disabilities or long term illnesses as proposed is eugenics.

It is not tough love, it is not "pull yourselves up by the bootstraps" - because I support that as Julia well knows.

It is survival of the fittest, survival of the most smug. Those not yet disabled, or sick or alone or poor or uneducated or abused.

Good for you, enjoy your perfect world.

Disenfranchised of Buckingham said...

Sue, how the hell is a workhouse eugenics? And who promised anyone a work free life forever?

What a workhouse can do is make sure the children are fed, irrespective of their dissolute parents behaviour. Of course the parents get fed as well.

And no, we are not smug. We are penalised for working hard and are just plain angry.

David Gillies said...

Sue, it's not eugenics to expect people to limit their childbearing to that which they can afford. You sound shocked that there should be any financial constraint put on family size. By definition, therefore, you are stating that if someone wants to have a child, and they can't afford to, then someone else should pay for it. Why? I don't have any children. Why should I pay for other people's? I will contribute to the exchequer such sums as will stop those children from actively starving, but I am not responsible for them in any way whatsoever. It's sad, but there is no alternative. And if I am subsidising you, then damn right I get some say in how you behave. Obviously there can't be some abrupt rewriting of the rules, but a gradual move away from throwing money at the feckless is essential. Incentives matter. People change their behaviour in response to stimuli. I am not arguing for the State preventing you from having children if your income is too low. I am advocating the State letting you have a bloody miserable time of it as a consequence.

I've said it in this forum before, but I think it bears repeating: virtually all of the ills of modern society, be it crime, poverty, anti-social behaviour, the looming bankruptcy of nation states, you name it, can be blamed on the divorce of actions from consequences.

Noggin the Nog said...

Outlandish hyperbole and hysterical wailings about eugenics and retrospective penalties are exactly what they initially appear to be - total rot founded in some strange form of self righteousness that apparently accompanies a welfare cheque.

The strong should protect the weak. The hard-working should not be forced to fund the lazy.

Sue, you need to check the definition of the word 'retrospective'. It does not mean 'from some point in the future'.

JuliaM said...

"I'm not sure what you're actually saying."

Ah, Sue, you do indeed know exactly what I'm saying. And I haven't even got around to the story you Tweeted the other day yet!

And since when was 'judgement' one of the worst assumptions of human behaviour? It's what keeps us alive, keeps us safe.

"This attitude that 'starving kids' shouldn't pay for their parents errors actually helps to breed the feckless.

If they know they can blow the money they have on entertainment while the taxpayer will pick up the bill for thier kids food then they will do it."


Precisely. We don't negotiate with people holding a knife to a kids throat, do we? Not unless we want more of the same.

"My wife has a vacancy for one f/t and one p/t job basic work but pays, not one single applicant.."

Indeed. The mantra 'there are no jobs' is a lie. Or rather, a half-truth. It should be 'there are no jobs that pay as much as we think we deserve'.

"'All the libraries are closing'? Where exactly are all the libraries closing?"

Indeed. Several small branch libraries have closed or are closing where I live. But bigger ones are opening, in more central locations, with more facilities.

JuliaM said...

"As it is he expends a large amount of effort gaming the benefit system and trying to get people like shrinks to keep him on the suck (which maddeningly is succeeding)"

That's the annoying thing, isn't it? They do it, because it works....

"In the wonderful world of Sue Marsh the dreadful social problems we see today were caused during Thatcher's reign of terror, 1979-2010."

Straight out of the pages of the 'Guardian'! ;)

"Something even strident libertarian minarchocapitalists like me can agree on is that in a civilised world we don't let people, even the grotesquely feckless, starve to death."

Well, quite. And the number of people starving to death in this country stands at one.

"Well, not one of you answers the point I made."

Oh, Sue. They all did. If the best you can do in reply is Godwin the thread...

JuliaM said...

"And no, we are not smug. We are penalised for working hard and are just plain angry."

And yet, in the pages of the 'Guardian' and in the social media campaigns of the pressure groups, it's Sue's fellow activists who are always described as 'angry'..!

"...virtually all of the ills of modern society, be it crime, poverty, anti-social behaviour, the looming bankruptcy of nation states, you name it, can be blamed on the divorce of actions from consequences."

Spot on!

Furor Teutonicus said...

XX Sue Marsh said...

You will be creating a society broadly similar to 1930s Germany,

26 July 2012 21:12 XX

The only trouble with the society of 1930s Germany is, they threw the baby out with the bath water in 1945.

Anonymous said...

Sue,

You compare what we want with 1930's Germany, however none of us want a large over reaching state, which is what 1930's Germany was. Also it is the Socialist governments that have a liking for eugenics and post natal eugenics is murder so don't try to cover up with euphemisms.

Secondly without an underclass people like you cannot feel better about themselves, because you care. I personally want an independent working class who don't have to survive on charity and handouts, so people like you can become obselete. It was nearly done once, and once people like you got involved in the movement it turned into a profession.

Sue you are part of the problem and not the solution, you are a big state solutions NAZI even though you like to decry us as that.

Bunny

Furor Teutonicus said...

Bunny,

At present, if you post as "anonymous" do NOT expect anything to get read.

I only found that you were not selling all singing, all dancing Mexican child slaves from Canada, each with a free pack of valium, because I accidentaly pressed "open" instead of "FUCK OFF!", when I was trying to throw you into my "spam" file.

Anonymous said...

Apologies Mr Furor I will get a proper identity

Johnm said...

So he had the internet, and that's wrong.
Currently, I can get an 18 month contract for landline and broadband for 6 quid a month (calls extra).
Also, if you attend a jobcentre you will be informed that you either need an internet account or access to an internet connection, since most jobs are advertised on same.
You will also need to send your cv, good luck with posting same via snail-mail since a reply you will not get. Especially for a min-wage employer.
Ok on the workhouse. We could have it run by priests, then the kids will get both "f"'s, fed and .....

Furor Teutonicus said...

XX Also, if you attend a jobcentre you will be informed that you either need an internet account or access to an internet connection,XX

Tell them to go and fuck themselves sideways, unless they are going to pay for/supply it. Same goes for a telephone. I refuse to have one.