Bolitics The New Condem Government

[MakemineVanilla]

If you're in a job and using food banks you're probably on a piss poor wage.

Raise the minimum wage to £7.50 and make the jobs viable to British people rather than poor desperate foreigners. It will take a lot of people out of food poverty too.

Win win.

 

Quite agree.

 

The biggest indictment of the failure of capitalism and which runs entirely counter to the Tories claim that they aspire to make work worthwhile, is the existence of the working poor.

 

The excuse which New Labour used for their open-door immigration policy was that there were thousands of catering jobs unfilled in London.

 

The Tories claim that raising the minimum wage makes jobs disappear.

 

Now if both these claims are true, the unavoidable conclusion is that raising the minimum wage would lessen the need for importing cheap labour, by damping down demand, while simultaneously benefiting low-paid workers.

 

Both parties seem to be open to the charge of hypocrisy here. The Tories claim to want to control immigration and Labour claim to want to improve things for the low-paid.

 

Both governments could have raised the minimum wage and justified it as fulfilling their known political promises.

[chrisp65]

 

 

 

? Newspaper journo reports what they observe. A paper that has columnists from all political views. Play the ball, not the man.

 

Sorry, not having that.  It's as partisan a bit of writing as I've seen in a long time, with the writer going out of his way to prove he's the new Dickens reporting on workhouse conditions.  It's what political debate in this country has come to though, with everything reduced to Daily Mail or The Mirror articles, or the childish Facebook style memes that peterms is so fond of.  So, has everyone of those million food bank parcels gone to a penniless family with absolutely no alternative?  Or are people just using them because they're there?  I'd honestly like to know, but finding out anything that isn't drenched in political rhetoric from either side is impossible these days.  Not everybody on benefits is a scrounger, but not everybody using foodbanks is a penniless, starving mother of 6 living in a shoebox on the M6 either.

 

 

if you'd honestly like to know then can I suggest you find a local food bank and arrange to go along for a couple of hours / half day - most would welcome an observer there to learn

 

I tried it for a very short while but frankly couldn't handle seeing mums and dads that had to be cajoled into attending, that had really needed the supplies but saw walking through the door as a disgusting failure and an admittance of being a sponger, a beggar, a shit on society's carpet. Many would plead that somebody else attend for them and bring them supplies to the house or flat. Not through laziness or the presumption there is always somebody there to cater for you. But because they couldn't face going in there and seeing the well meaning pensioners doling out soap and tinned soup.

 

 

 

This is the sort of thing I object to.

 

This is a replay of the poverty tourism indulged in by Victorian gentlefolk, as they took the whole family, all dressed up smartly, to gawp at the poor, and enjoy feeling sorry for them and wonder at their fecklessness and their own virtues.

 

If it is so shameful and people feel so degraded, why on earth would they want someone to witness that shame?

 

 

Yeah, for clarity, I wasn't suggesting he take some popcorn to eat and throw as he sat in a deckchair.

 

I think they only do that in Windsor.

[peterms]

One of the Coventry based food banks was swamped with requests from a few families from Eastern Europe (read that in the Graun by the way, not The Fail).  I'm not even remotely a UKIP supporter, but it's worth asking the question how many more people would be in jobs in the UK if 100,000's of people from the accession states hadn't flooded over.

You really have not the first idea about how the economy works, do you? (Clue: it's not what they told you on your college course).

[snowychap]

Missed this from last week:

Security firm G4S cleared for government contract bids

Security firm G4S will be considered for government business again after it was barred from bidding for new contracts in a row about overcharging.

The company agreed to repay £109m after an audit found it charged too much for providing electronic prisoner tags.

The Serious Fraud Office is examining G4S and Serco over the contracts.

But the Cabinet Office said G4S had taken "positive steps" to change its practices and engaged "constructively" with the government.

...

The Cabinet Office said G4S had taken steps to address weakness in its operations and its "corporate renewal plan represented the right direction of travel to meet our expectations as a customer".

After an independent review, the company will be able to bid again for government work, although this will be dependent on it implementing changes in a "full and timely manner".

...

The SFO is also scrutinising two G4S facility management contracts for UK courts. The firm has agreed to pay £4.5m to the Treasury for overcharging on these deals as part of its overall settlement.

The government also reached a £70.5m settlement with Serco this year over claims of overcharging on tagging contracts.

... more on link

So: overcharge government to the tune of more than a hundred million pounds, make an apology, pay it back, come up with something called a 'corporate renewal plan' and it's all fine and dandy to bid for many more contracts - the ones where, apparently, G4S believe themselves to have 'proven expertise' (the company's words according to that article).

The only 'proven expertise' on show would appear to be the consistent ability to screw money out of the government.

Remarkable - or, perhaps more worryingly, not so remarkable.

[peterms]

So: overcharge government to the tune of more than a hundred million pounds, make an apology, pay it back, come up with something called a 'corporate renewal plan' and it's all fine and dandy to bid for many more contracts - the ones where, apparently, G4S believe themselves to have 'proven expertise' (the company's words according to that article).The only 'proven expertise' on show would appear to be the consistent ability to screw money out of the government.Remarkable - or, perhaps more worryingly, not so remarkable.

Of course the Ministers and civil servants concerned wouldn't dream of re-employing a firm which had cheated them personally. Neither would a firm cheated by a contractor use them again. Why then do they apply different and far lower standards when making decisions on our behalf?

The law provides that local councillors making recklessly irresponsible decisions can be made personally liable for financial loss incurred. It doesn't extend to national politicians. Perhaps it should.

[blandy]

One of the Coventry based food banks was swamped with requests from a few families from Eastern Europe (read that in the Graun by the way, not The Fail).  I'm not even remotely a UKIP supporter, but it's worth asking the question how many more people would be in jobs in the UK if 100,000's of people from the accession states hadn't flooded over.

You really have not the first idea about how the economy works, do you? (Clue: it's not what they told you on your college course).

not your best post, that one, really, Peter. Regardless of the dubious logical leap made by Risso, his question is one loads of people ask, or imply as a point. Surely it's better to explain your view on how the economy works and why immigration from Europe hasn't taken jobs from people in the UK?

I don't know how the economy works, but I suspect that most immigrants from e.europe are young, that our ageing population, that high numbers going to uni, that the cost of living, unscrupulous employers, the willingness of poles to share accommodation. Manufacturing decline, the north south divide, regional black spots and so on are the reasons that more UK people aren't in jobs

[thetrees]

One of the Coventry based food banks was swamped with requests from a few families from Eastern Europe (read that in the Graun by the way, not The Fail).  I'm not even remotely a UKIP supporter, but it's worth asking the question how many more people would be in jobs in the UK if 100,000's of people from the accession states hadn't flooded over.

You really have not the first idea about how the economy works, do you? (Clue: it's not what they told you on your college course).

not your best post, that one, really, Peter. Regardless of the dubious logical leap made by Risso, his question is one loads of people ask, or imply as a point. Surely it's better to explain your view on how the economy works and why immigration from Europe hasn't taken jobs from people in the UK?

I don't know how the economy works, but I suspect that most immigrants from e.europe are young, that our ageing population, that high numbers going to uni, that the cost of living, unscrupulous employers, the willingness of poles to share accommodation. Manufacturing decline, the north south divide, regional black spots and so on are the reasons that more UK people aren't in jobs

I do quite some business with Poland.

Average factory worker (in my industry) wage there is around EUR3 per hour. Our new minimum wage is around EUR10.20 per hour, so the attraction is clear.

More worryingly, during a recent meeting about setting up a venture with some Poles in the UK, it was suggested that minimum wage could be 'got around' by hiring a team of workers in Poland, on enhanced Polish rates, and shipping them to the UK to do the work. I did not enquire about the legality of this, because it would not get past my own code of morality.

That is because, while some on VT visualise me as a nasty, Tory voting, presumably baby eating, capitalist, I have always found that by putting the welfare of those who work for you first, it tends to contribute towards your ultimate success.

[Risso]

 

One of the Coventry based food banks was swamped with requests from a few families from Eastern Europe (read that in the Graun by the way, not The Fail).  I'm not even remotely a UKIP supporter, but it's worth asking the question how many more people would be in jobs in the UK if 100,000's of people from the accession states hadn't flooded over.

You really have not the first idea about how the economy works, do you? (Clue: it's not what they told you on your college course).

 

 

Sitting at home all day reading left wing blogs and posting Facebook memes doesn't make you an expert on anything I'm afraid.

[drat01]

Even jellyfish hate cameron :-)

[MakemineVanilla]

Even jellyfish hate cameron :-)

 

So the soulless is attacked by the spineless - nothing new there then. 

[mockingbird_franklin]

Seems the Tory Party, unable to deny the increase in food bank use, unwilling to do research into the increase to dispute the findings of those who have, unwilling to accept their culpability and guilt, have resorted to their favoured tactics, borderline lies, mis-information and smears, with the usual presstitutes seemingly more than willing to help them

 

this article full of lies, untruths and propaganda one of the latest in the increasing concerted attack on food banks and those who both use and administer them seemingly in a bid to discredit the trust that runs them and the information about food poverty they are willing to share. Once again rather then tackle a problem, this government uses propaganda and lies to discredit those revealing the problem. I'd hate to be a messenger of bad news to this government,

 

how to take screenshots

 

I'm not an expert on food banks, probably because I don't sit at home all day reading left wing blogs and posting facebook memes, but I know someone who is more of an expert than the politicains behind this latest propoganda, as they volunteer for one, and their response to this article isn't repeatable, needless to say they are in firm disagreement,

[mockingbird_franklin]

Even jellyfish hate cameron :-)

probably just trying to breed with Cameron, understandable mistake to make by the Jellyfish

[dont_do_it_doug.]

Even jellyfish hate cameron :-)

probably just trying to breed with Cameron, understandable mistake to make by the Jellyfish

As long as they don't pass on their immortality.

[MakemineVanilla]

Seems the Tory Party, unable to deny the increase in food bank use, unwilling to do research into the increase to dispute the findings of those who have, unwilling to accept their culpability and guilt, have resorted to their favoured tactics, borderline lies, mis-information and smears, with the usual presstitutes seemingly more than willing to help them

 

this article full of lies, untruths and propaganda one of the latest in the increasing concerted attack on food banks and those who both use and administer them seemingly in a bid to discredit the trust that runs them and the information about food poverty they are willing to share. Once again rather then tackle a problem, this government uses propaganda and lies to discredit those revealing the problem. I'd hate to be a messenger of bad news to this government,

 

how to take screenshots

 

I'm not an expert on food banks, probably because I don't sit at home all day reading left wing blogs and posting facebook memes, but I know someone who is more of an expert than the politicains behind this latest propoganda, as they volunteer for one, and their response to this article isn't repeatable, needless to say they are in firm disagreement,

 

But taken at face value doesn't it just say that food banks are a good thing?

 

It only works as a piece of invidious propaganda if the reader subscribes to the bitter and misanthropic Tory values, implicit in the article.

 

Surely, if people who subscribe to such views are the only ones likely to be put off using food banks, where's the loss?

[mockingbird_franklin]

 

Seems the Tory Party, unable to deny the increase in food bank use, unwilling to do research into the increase to dispute the findings of those who have, unwilling to accept their culpability and guilt, have resorted to their favoured tactics, borderline lies, mis-information and smears, with the usual presstitutes seemingly more than willing to help them

 

this article full of lies, untruths and propaganda one of the latest in the increasing concerted attack on food banks and those who both use and administer them seemingly in a bid to discredit the trust that runs them and the information about food poverty they are willing to share. Once again rather then tackle a problem, this government uses propaganda and lies to discredit those revealing the problem. I'd hate to be a messenger of bad news to this government,

 

how to take screenshots

 

I'm not an expert on food banks, probably because I don't sit at home all day reading left wing blogs and posting facebook memes, but I know someone who is more of an expert than the politicains behind this latest propoganda, as they volunteer for one, and their response to this article isn't repeatable, needless to say they are in firm disagreement,

 

But taken at face value doesn't it just say that food banks are a good thing?

 

It only works as a piece of invidious propaganda if the reader subscribes to the bitter and misanthropic Tory values, implicit in the article.

 

Surely, if people who subscribe to such views are the only ones likely to be put off using food banks, where's the loss?

 

I think you totally miss the point of the article, It's not trying to say if food banks are a good thing or not, It's not trying to get people to use them or discourage them either.

 

But actually it doesn't present food banks as a good thing, it presents them as a place for feckless scroungers to receive a free ride so then can spend their food money on fags etc, this is untrue, they do not operate how they are presented to in this article, They don't allow people free access, they don't routinely give out vouchers for restaurants, however, they are presented exactly how lord fraud, esther Mcvile and Iain dunkin doughnuts amongst others have supposed them to operate. coincidence do you think? it's about discrediting the correct view that in the majority of cases food banks are used by people suffering from the punitive welfare reforms and sanction culture now imposed on claiments by the DWP which has left them unable to afford to buy food.

 

so how does it work on those who have no real opinion already on food banks, does it allow them to make an informed decision as to why they exist, why their use is increasing, or does it feed them what a third party (the tory Government) would like them to think allowing that third party to aviod awkward questions about their welfare policies

 

Oh from some simple research it appears the woman in the article is an American living with a partner and 4 children.

This article is not designed to put people off using food banks, but rather counter the evidence that it is the welfare reforms that are the casue for the increase in their use.

 

Edited April 18, 2014 by mockingbird_franklin

[mockingbird_franklin]

Even the jellyfish hates cameron :-)

I'm sure IDS has no such feeling to the leader of his party

[snowychap]

Average factory worker (in my industry) wage there is around EUR3 per hour. Our new minimum wage is around EUR10.20 per hour, so the attraction is clear.

Do they still get to reside, eat, drink, travel and so on in Poland?

Edit: I don't know how the wrong data got in to the 'quote' details first time around.

Edited April 18, 2014 by snowychap

[thetrees]

Average factory worker (in my industry) wage there is around EUR3 per hour. Our new minimum wage is around EUR10.20 per hour, so the attraction is clear.

Do they still get to reside, eat, drink, travel and so on in Poland?Edit: I don't know how the wrong data got in to the 'quote' details first time around.

On the EUR3 an hour, yes.

Our minimum wage is based upon them being in the UK.

The 'proposal' that was mentioned to me was based upon them being in the UK on Polish contracts, so earning more than in Poland, but much less than minimum wage here.

The scary thing is that this isn't something that the guy dreamed up, clearly it is already going on here.

[snowychap]

Average factory worker (in my industry) wage there is around EUR3 per hour. Our new minimum wage is around EUR10.20 per hour, so the attraction is clear.

Do they still get to reside, eat, drink, travel and so on in Poland?Edit: I don't know how the wrong data got in to the 'quote' details first time around.

On the EUR3 an hour, yes.

Our minimum wage is based upon them being in the UK.

The 'proposal' that was mentioned to me was based upon them being in the UK on Polish contracts, so earning more than in Poland, but much less than minimum wage here.

The scary thing is that this isn't something that the guy dreamed up, clearly it is already going on here.

You missed my point (which may have been too facetiously put) which was a criticism of the comparison between the two wage levels without the requisite comparison in the cost of living.

[MakemineVanilla]

 

 

Seems the Tory Party, unable to deny the increase in food bank use, unwilling to do research into the increase to dispute the findings of those who have, unwilling to accept their culpability and guilt, have resorted to their favoured tactics, borderline lies, mis-information and smears, with the usual presstitutes seemingly more than willing to help them

 

this article full of lies, untruths and propaganda one of the latest in the increasing concerted attack on food banks and those who both use and administer them seemingly in a bid to discredit the trust that runs them and the information about food poverty they are willing to share. Once again rather then tackle a problem, this government uses propaganda and lies to discredit those revealing the problem. I'd hate to be a messenger of bad news to this government,

 

how to take screenshots

 

I'm not an expert on food banks, probably because I don't sit at home all day reading left wing blogs and posting facebook memes, but I know someone who is more of an expert than the politicains behind this latest propoganda, as they volunteer for one, and their response to this article isn't repeatable, needless to say they are in firm disagreement,

 

But taken at face value doesn't it just say that food banks are a good thing?

 

It only works as a piece of invidious propaganda if the reader subscribes to the bitter and misanthropic Tory values, implicit in the article.

 

Surely, if people who subscribe to such views are the only ones likely to be put off using food banks, where's the loss?

 

I think you totally miss the point of the article, It's not trying to say if food banks are a good thing or not, It's not trying to get people to use them or discourage them either.

 

But actually it doesn't present food banks as a good thing, it presents them as a place for feckless scroungers to receive a free ride so then can spend their food money on fags etc, this is untrue, they do not operate how they are presented to in this article, They don't allow people free access, they don't routinely give out vouchers for restaurants, however, they are presented exactly how lord fraud, esther Mcvile and Iain dunkin doughnuts amongst others have supposed them to operate. coincidence do you think? it's about discrediting the correct view that in the majority of cases food banks are used by people suffering from the punitive welfare reforms and sanction culture now imposed on claiments by the DWP which has left them unable to afford to buy food.

 

so how does it work on those who have no real opinion already on food banks, does it allow them to make an informed decision as to why they exist, why their use is increasing, or does it feed them what a third party (the tory Government) would like them to think allowing that third party to aviod awkward questions about their welfare policies

 

Oh from some simple research it appears the woman in the article is an American living with a partner and 4 children.

This article is not designed to put people off using food banks, but rather counter the evidence that it is the welfare reforms that are the casue for the increase in their use.

 

 

I don't miss the point at all, I know exactly what it is trying to achieve.

 

But you have to subscribe to the values that it suggests the woman violates to get the message.

 

If you change the context it can mean the opposite.

 

A headline of: Woman Defies Tory Attack On Her Family By Using Food Banks, would change the meaning entirely.

 

And that is the sort of thing which the Left should be doing, which would empower the poor, rather than just portray them as helpless victims.

 

The Left are not doing much to support the victims of Tory policies except use them for political gain.

 

What we need are stories and headlines congratulating the churches for protecting the poor from the Tories attempt to starve them into lousy jobs by running food banks.

 

I am not sure the Left, these days, have the courage to actually portray people on benefits as class heroes defying the system, but there was a time when they would have.