I never post in here in case I get into a long drawn-out argument with Sandro... but this has truly made me feel sick. Iain Duncan Smith is probably the most inhumane pubic figure living in this country. Taken from the "The last person to enter Parliament with honest intentions was Guy Fawkes" Facebook page (which you should all like btw):

 

I always try and inject a little humour into most of my posts to try and lighten the weight of hardship that so many people are experiencing in their lives in these trying times, HOWEVER there was nothing funny about yesterdays debate in the Commons over the rising use of food banks and the grinding poverty that is now taking effect through out the country and in so many WORKING families.

 

I have watched an awful lot of debates over the years and i am ashamed to admit i have even taped a few when i have been at work and unable to view them live, but yesterdays broke new ground for me in the appalling manner in which the Tories laughed and mocked their way through real stories about real people and real families in real communities through out the country that are now suffering real hardships.

 

A government should represent ALL the people and listen and serve the interests of everyone, even those that they know will never vote for them because their wages and expenses are still paid for by even the lowest paid of workers, Yesterday clearly showed that Tory MPs have no interest what so ever in the people of who a majority work full time and are who are struggling to feed their families, they literally laughed in their faces.

 

Fiona MacTaggart on several occasions had to stop speaking because she was being drowned out by laughing and jeering Tory MPs as she tried to explain the desperation of some parents in trying to feed their children, it was truly shocking in its contempt and sickeningly vulgar in how they just dismissed it, even a Tory supporter with just a little heart must have felt a twinge of shame watching these multi millionaires mock the poor in such an un bashful and unashamed way.

 

Iain Duncan Smith, a man that you think can not be any more of an ignorant pig ( No offence to pigs ) than he already is, has once again proved us all wrong, not only did he mock the loudest and encouraged those around him to join in while he sat there giggling like some mentally unstable village idiot, but as the Minister who is paid a large amount of money by the public purse to at least have the good manners to listen and engage in discussion about these concerns simply REFUSED point blank to answer any questions himself or even to address the debate, he just sat their knowingly smugly smiling.

 

What we did get was his flunky and that towering beacon of intellect and compassion Esther McVey answering for Duncan Smith and she started her speech by saying that she thought it was good that people were using food banks !! and by the time the daft bint had got to the end of her speech it had prompted Sir Gerald Kaufman to described that speech as the nastiest he had heard in all of his 43 years as an MP, and i could not argue with that because every word was spiked with an absolute contempt for the people unfortunate enough to find themselves in need of these food banks.

 

Iain Duncan Smith was not quite yet finished though, he had one last clear message for the working families now living on charitable tinned food, and he sent that message to them in the most cold hearted way and with an arrogance that made some Labour MPs look at each other with open mouths, he simply got up and walked out mid debate.

As Mr Duncan Smith and his colleagues left, the speaker of the house John Bercow said he had no power to stop them, but said that the view that it was a disgrace there was no minister there ”may be widely shared".

 

Iain Duncan Smith claims to be a very religious man, i think we can also mock him for that claim as well,I do not know what has happened in Duncan Smiths life that has turned him into to such a hate filled monster because that is what he has surely become, the coldness and uncaring nature of this so called man is something now to behold, his stupidness has never been in question, but the cruelness and unkindness that dwells deep with in him now, seems to have eaten away at the very traits of what it is to be a normal caring human being and now all that is left is a husk of wickedness and misplaced arrogance that i can promise him will some day come back to haunt him,because i have found that Karma can be the most cruelest of mistresses and one day she will surely seek him out and knock upon his door and show him that cruelty and wickedness and devastation and loss can also flow uphill as well as down..

Will reply properly in a while as have plenty to say on the subject but have to prepare for a meeting first

 

But

 

http://orderorder.files.wordpress.com/2013...w=480&h=280

^

female Labour MP

That isn't really my point - although that is shocking if that's what it is, this isn't a "are Labour or Tories more humane" debate.

Edited December 19, 201311 yr by ★ G R I F F ★

Iain Duncan Smith has always come across to me as a bit of a sanctimonious twat, especially with that perma-smug expression on his face.

 

Walking out of debate is childish and quite frankly pathetic. He should apologise.

 

Anyway the wider issue here in our society is all about debt and sense of entitlement; I want that new iPhone, I've got to get that expensive games console for Timmy this Christmas even if it bankrupts us (morally and monetarily) - these are the values that Thatcher have left us with... the UK has the highest per household proportionally by far in Europe- but don't worry just keep spending to fuel an economic recovery based entirely on debt. Really don't worry about tomorrow, but it on credit to pay back at 15%APR over 12,000 years. What? 2007? No, that definitely won't happen again.

Duncan Smith famously claimed that he could live on £71 per week Jobseeker's Allowance. Of course, as he was given a home worth over a million pounds by his in-laws, he doesn't have to worry too much about keeping a roof over his head. I have no doubt that he could live on £71 for a single week. Whether he could keep that up for six months or more (even allowing for his aero housing costs) is more debatable.

 

When he was Tory leader he claimed to have been shocked by the living standards of some people in places like Glasgow. However, by then he had been in parliament for ten years on both the government and opposition benches. In that time there must have been hundreds of speeches by MPs about poverty in their constituency. Therefore, he either stayed away from the Commons for such speeches - or walked out as soon as one was started - or he simply chose not to believe them.

 

This is a man who has been criticised by the independent Office for National Statistics on a number of occasions for misusing statistics or simply making them up. Quite how this contemptible human being remains a minister is utterly baffling.

My personal opinion on foodbanks is that they should all be closed down

 

What started out as i am sure a very noble and well meaning idea has been hijacked by the left and left leaning charities as a stick to beat the government with

 

The very rare cases of someone genuinely needing food should be handled by charities or the church supplying some supermarket vouchers to the person to get some food, especially elderly or disabled people

 

If people were more responsible with money or managed money better there would be no need for them to be given free food, it is unfair to expect to be bailed out with free food if you have a smartphone, Sky TV, plasma tv, games console, any alcohol or cigarettes in the house or gamble, free food just acts as a crutch to bail out the weak minded and irresponsible, which imho makes up the majority of cases of the 500k grabbing free food.

 

Plus with these 500k where are their family? where are their friends? they should be helping them out

 

Also going by the twitter debate lots of people who use food banks are under JSA sanction, again why should people who refuse to look for a job or turn down a job or leave a job voluntarily or walk out on the work programme or not bother turning up on time to sign on or for an interview be given free food almost as a reward for their misconduct? wrong on so many levels

 

So long as people know there is free food out there they will not take responsibility for their lifestyles be it not wasting money on alcohol/cigarettes/sky/betting, be it applying for jobs and not refusing work, be it buying the wrong foods or whatever

 

With actions have to come consequences and people have to learn this

 

Time the foodbanks were closed down and replaced with food vouchers for means tested extreme cases and the homeless.

 

 

You do realise Sandro that all of this irresponsible spending is what is fueling your so-called "economic recovery" (aka ticking debt time bomb)?

 

And closing down food banks? Are you mad? Just because a few people are using them irresponsibly we have to punish those that genuinely need them to survive because your arse of a government has done absolutely sweet FA to lower the cost of living? Yes that seems like a sensible suggestion.

 

'Join us again on let's make no f**king sense, when I will be WAXING AN OWL.'

I can't believe anyone would think that food banks should be shut down :manson:

You do realise Sandro that all of this irresponsible spending is what is fueling your so-called "economic recovery" (aka ticking debt time bomb)?

 

And closing down food banks? Are you mad? Just because a few people are using them irresponsibly we have to punish those that genuinely need them to survive because your arse of a government has done absolutely sweet FA to lower the cost of living? Yes that seems like a sensible suggestion.

 

'Join us again on let's make no f**king sense, when I will be WAXING AN OWL.'

 

If the food banks were closed down, those extreme cases that need free food (about 1% imho) could still get it, i suggested supplying food coupons to them for use at the local supermarket, the extreme cases would not starve

 

But imho the other 99% of foodbank users would not need foodbanks if they lived within their means, budgeted properly, played ball with their jobseekers agreement, took advantage of supermarket deals, made more of their own meals etc, how are they going to sort their lives out if they are just going to get free food? where is the incentive

 

The gap between rich and poor was higher under Maggie than now yet there was no food banks under Maggie and i certainly didn't see starved dead bodies in the street or any reports of them in even left wing papers, people managed, food banks are a modern phenomenon, people can manage without them in 99% of cases

If the food banks were closed down, those extreme cases that need free food (about 1% imho) could still get it, i suggested supplying food coupons to them for use at the local supermarket, the extreme cases would not starve

 

But imho the other 99% of foodbank users would not need foodbanks if they lived within their means, budgeted properly, played ball with their jobseekers agreement, took advantage of supermarket deals, made more of their own meals etc, how are they going to sort their lives out if they are just going to get free food? where is the incentive

 

The gap between rich and poor was higher under Maggie than now yet there was no food banks under Maggie and i certainly didn't see starved dead bodies in the street or any reports of them in even left wing papers, people managed, food banks are a modern phenomenon, people can manage without them in 99% of cases

 

1%, 99% - are these figures just being plucked from thin air?

 

Anyway despite our clear political differences, I do partly agree with you over your suggestion that as a society we should be focussing on properly budgeting our income/out-goings and not spending on luxuries that are beyond affordability. But that is only ever going to be a part of the solution, there are always going to be those that just cannot afford to heat their homes pay council tax, water bills, AND live their day-to-day lives as well as pay for food etc. We can't shut those people out because of a few who want to supplement their income with some free food.. I feel quite strongly over that. A bit like how a small minority of people are clinically/morbidly obese people, and are to blame for their own heart problems/diabetes which cost the NHS a lot of money, but I don't mind funding the NHS for them if it also mainly helps those that can't afford to pay for operations that could be life saving. (Which is why I just don't understand the US health industry AT ALL).

1%, 99% - are these figures just being plucked from thin air?

 

Anyway despite our clear political differences, I do partly agree with you over your suggestion that as a society we should be focussing on properly budgeting our income/out-goings and not spending on luxuries that are beyond affordability. But that is only ever going to be a part of the solution, there are always going to be those that just cannot afford to heat their homes pay council tax, water bills, AND live their day-to-day lives as well as pay for food etc. We can't shut those people out because of a few who want to supplement their income with some free food.. I feel quite strongly over that. A bit like how a small minority of people are clinically/morbidly obese people, and are to blame for their own heart problems/diabetes which cost the NHS a lot of money, but I don't mind funding the NHS for them if it also mainly helps those that can't afford to pay for operations that could be life saving. (Which is why I just don't understand the US health industry AT ALL).

 

I think 99% could afford at least 2 meals a day if they budgeted accordingly yes, it may not be 'Taste The Difference' or gourmet food but it would be enough to put food on the table at least twice a day

 

How much is a loaf of bread? about a pound for about 20 slices or so, some eggs, some cheese strips, some beans, again dirt cheap

 

Tins of soup

 

Vegetables are not very expensive and there is plenty of BOGOF deals if shop around, can make a lot of dishes out of vegetables

 

Sainsburys are doing 4 curries and 2 side dishes for a tenner atm, thats 6 meals each averaging out at about £1.66

 

Pot noodle, tinned casseroles, sausage and beans, tinned curry, again each of those lot arrn't even a pound each

 

I would be surprised if more than 1% of the country that use food banks are so destitute they cant afford £1 per meal

 

https://twitter.com/barneyprouse/status/413389664867729408 << this guy too, he manages on next to nothing as he makes things himself

 

So much people can do if they take personal responsibility for their lives

 

You're preaching to the converted here Craig - many a day in the past I lived off ASDA Super Noodles (9p RRP - with a 10% discount taking it down to just 8 pence). Totally disgusting and full of fat and salt of course.

 

Your best bet to save money is to go veggie as meat is comparatively very expensive.

Edited December 19, 201311 yr by Doctor Blind

If the food banks were closed down, those extreme cases that need free food (about 1% imho) could still get it, i suggested supplying food coupons to them for use at the local supermarket, the extreme cases would not starve

 

But imho the other 99% of foodbank users would not need foodbanks if they lived within their means, budgeted properly, played ball with their jobseekers agreement, took advantage of supermarket deals, made more of their own meals etc, how are they going to sort their lives out if they are just going to get free food? where is the incentive

 

The gap between rich and poor was higher under Maggie than now yet there was no food banks under Maggie and i certainly didn't see starved dead bodies in the street or any reports of them in even left wing papers, people managed, food banks are a modern phenomenon, people can manage without them in 99% of cases

No it wasn't. The gap has been rising ever since that woman seized power. The rate at which the gap grew declined under the last government but the gap continued to grow. If you can't even get the most basic facts right, why should I bother reading anything you say?

No it wasn't. The gap has been rising ever since that woman seized power. The rate at which the gap grew declined under the last government but the gap continued to grow. If you can't even get the most basic facts right, why should I bother reading anything you say?

 

There was over 3 million unemployed at the peak under Maggie, currently there are about 2.3m unemployed so surely more people would have been 'struggling' under Maggie compared with now, because so many more were out of work then

 

 

I think 99% could afford at least 2 meals a day if they budgeted accordingly yes, it may not be 'Taste The Difference' or gourmet food but it would be enough to put food on the table at least twice a day

 

How much is a loaf of bread? about a pound for about 20 slices or so, some eggs, some cheese strips, some beans, again dirt cheap

 

Tins of soup

 

Vegetables are not very expensive and there is plenty of BOGOF deals if shop around, can make a lot of dishes out of vegetables

 

Sainsburys are doing 4 curries and 2 side dishes for a tenner atm, thats 6 meals each averaging out at about £1.66

 

Pot noodle, tinned casseroles, sausage and beans, tinned curry, again each of those lot arrn't even a pound each

 

I would be surprised if more than 1% of the country that use food banks are so destitute they cant afford £1 per meal

 

https://twitter.com/barneyprouse/status/413389664867729408 << this guy too, he manages on next to nothing as he makes things himself

 

So much people can do if they take personal responsibility for their lives

 

Yes, because food is the only thing that people on benefits need to buy. They don't have clothes they need, they don't need to pay gas and electricity bills, none of them need to pay for kids' uniforms and other school-related costs. No, absolutely not, as long as they can buy a few tins of beans, they're just greedy if they feel they need to buy anything else.

 

It might sound like a juvenile response, but I really think people are only qualified to comment on whether £70 a week is enough to live on until they've actually TRIED it.

 

There was over 3 million unemployed at the peak under Maggie, currently there are about 2.3m unemployed so surely more people would have been 'struggling' under Maggie compared with now, because so many more were out of work then

 

a) The rich are far more obscenely rich than they were under Thatcher (and generally feel far more entitled and feel less obligation to pay their taxes)

b ) Atleast in Thatcher's day, those who were unemployed often had relatives who'd built up some savings to rely on from the days when they actually could get work. Thatcher's biggest legacy is that there's now generations of poverty, meaning most poor people now don't have any support network financially to draw on atall, which the Labour government did not do anywhere enough to reverse and the few baby-steps they did make have been wiped out by the current government.

Yes, because food is the only thing that people on benefits need to buy. They don't have clothes they need, they don't need to pay gas and electricity bills, none of them need to pay for kids' uniforms and other school-related costs. No, absolutely not, as long as they can buy a few tins of beans, they're just greedy if they feel they need to buy anything else.

 

It might sound like a juvenile response, but I really think people are only qualified to comment on whether £70 a week is enough to live on until they've actually TRIED it.

 

But you don't have to do all that on £70 a week

 

If they have kids they will get child benefit, tax credits, other benefits related to the kid, plus any money the partner brings in etc

 

The priority before anything should be putting food on the table

If the food banks were closed down, those extreme cases that need free food (about 1% imho) could still get it, i suggested supplying food coupons to them for use at the local supermarket, the extreme cases would not starve

 

But imho the other 99% of foodbank users would not need foodbanks if they lived within their means, budgeted properly, played ball with their jobseekers agreement, took advantage of supermarket deals, made more of their own meals etc, how are they going to sort their lives out if they are just going to get free food? where is the incentive

 

The gap between rich and poor was higher under Maggie than now yet there was no food banks under Maggie and i certainly didn't see starved dead bodies in the street or any reports of them in even left wing papers, people managed, food banks are a modern phenomenon, people can manage without them in 99% of cases

I am SHOCKED to the core that you got a Maggie fact wrong Sandro! The gap between rich and poor has continually widened since the 80s and Labour only accelerated this division (one of their main crimes considering what the party has always maintained is one of their principles) Anywhoo congrats I always thought I was right wing (economically speaking only) but after reading your comments I see I am a centrist- who'd a thunk :lol:

 

I live alone and am not a man of excess by any means and I can't get my weekly bill under £40.00 no matter how I try and I'm always on the look out for bargains when I'm in the supermarkets. To suggest that anyone is purposefully using foodbanks to fuel a life of living beyond their means is crazy. You start from the basis that IF someone can rely on handouts then that will be the first choice, most people would actually prefer to stand on their own two feet- what you are talking about is maybe 1,000 people nationally who I don't think anyone whatever their political persuasion would object to seriously tackling. I don't think I've ever seen anyone express their options in a worse way- I start to think maybe that's on purpose!

 

There was over 3 million unemployed at the peak under Maggie, currently there are about 2.3m unemployed so surely more people would have been 'struggling' under Maggie compared with now, because so many more were out of work then

This is only a tiny part of the 'gap between rich and poor': income inequality.

 

http://www.progressorcollapse.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/gini-index-uk.jpg

 

(I believe this graph is after tax, which is why there are more fluctuations rather than a gradual rise. It also makes short-term tax policies more evident)

You're preaching to the converted here Craig - many a day in the past I lived off ASDA Super Noodles (9p RRP - with a 10% discount taking it down to just 8 pence). Totally disgusting and full of fat and salt of course.

 

Your best bet to save money is to go veggie as meat is comparatively very expensive.

 

I'm veggie and my weekly shop (ignoring lazy shop-bought sandwiches) is about £30 for food at most. Go to Tesco at 8pm and there are dozens of fresh veg options going for about 8p and about to expire meals for 50p. Bananas 10p, healthy option, energy, nutrition. Plenty of cheap options. Now whether or not families are desperately freezing trying to keep warm and running out of money is another matter entirely, but thats down to other costs and food comes first or you die, you don't die (unless you are elderly, and don't get me going on that one) from cutting down on heating if you are young and healthy. Again, old git that I am, we didn't have central heating when I grew up, we had gas meters or coal. If you ran out of cash, you went without and used blankets to stay warm. These days there are efficient heat-retaining cheap clothes available too. I'm not saying it's desirable to live like that (far from it) but no-one on benefits should be starving, if that were the case there would be rioting in the streets.

 

So if the unlikely story has any element of truth in it, I'd guess that other (not-mentioned) factors are causing the problem. Drugs and alcohol perhaps....