Hungry Britain

Eloethan, agree entirely with your comment regarding lashing out at the wrong people. Yes, we all know people who manipulate and fiddle the system, and yes it is hard to understand how someone can smoke and then ask for help with feeding their children, but why should the children go hungry? I am not a bleeding heart ( whatever that may be) and do understand the frustration felt by people working hard and struggling while they see others who seem to be able to get by without working, but it is still an absolute disgrace that people have to ask for help to feed their families. I think more attention should be focused on businesses and celebrities who avoid paying the taxes that they should, I have mentioned it before on another thread, but my small business pays more corporation tax than The Ritz, work that one out!

It's amusing to be told that those of us who don't want welfare support to be further reduced must be living in cloud cuckoo land. I wish I had someone to shout that through the door to me whilst sitting in benefit appeals, comforting frightened children during a bailiff's removal of a family's possessions when on a home visit (later proved to be illegal but too late by then), and staying late with a homeless young person on Christmas Eve whilst we sorted out a lonely B and B for him etc etc. These situations can only increase under this punishing regime as the safety net develops bigger holes.

During the war there was a nutritionally balanced diet dictated by rationing. I wonder what adhering to those limits would cost today. Would a family on benefits be able to feed themselves within those constraints?

I understand that we have now overtaken the US in terms of child obesity - the US has food stamps and they have to be spent on food essentials, not wants. Something doesn't quite add up.

J52 'it's time someone in the Government 'got real'? About breakfast? I'm sorry but how much do you expect any Government to do for you - surely personal responsibility features somewhere? A pan of porridge does not cost a fortune and provides a nutritionally sound breakfast.

Eloethan I may have chosen an extreme example but I did qualify it by saying I personally know lots of undeserving poor. I been asked why they should work when they can get more for staying at home.

If you haven't met or worked with this type of scrounger then I understand where you're coming from. But I really do know that there would be more money in the benefit pot for those poor souls who cannot work or find work and who really want to.

I'm not lashing out at those at the bottom, I'm lashing out at those who take, take, take from the genuinely poor and hard up.

jingle I can't see how you can say you agree with Jesus and then agree with posters who say or imply that some people who are in difficulties don't deserve help.

Aka Choosing Mike Phillpott as a an example of people on benefits is like choosing Jimmy Savile as an example of DJs. And who decides whether it is someone's own "fault" that they are in difficulties? Will they have to fill in a questionnaire asking whether they have a TV, smoke, drink, buy new clothes, etc. etc.?

We have a very unequal society and I find it astonishing that people are so much more willing to lash out at the people at the bottom than those at the top. But that's the way those at the top like it - they must think it's hilarious as they watch working people blaming each other and fighting amongst themselves.

Woman's hour today; Carmel McConnell talking about how she started her charity for breakfast in schools, so that hungry children could be fed!!
How can we let this state continue??
These are not necessarily parents who are not working. It is time someone in the government 'got real'! All parties are responsible! X

Yes. I agree with Aka. Very much.

Mind you, if we all sat back and "considered the lillies of the field", we wouldn't get far.

Agree Aka

"the behaviours and attitudes of those in poverty basically mirror those of mainstream western societies." Exactly! Should it? Surely if you hit a rough patch you should pull your horns in. No, not give away the tv and the kids' toys. Noone would advocate that. But surely do without the mobile phone contract, the Sky box and the fags.

And there is a certain type of person who own several huge dogs which must be expensive to feed. They shouldn't have got them in the first place!

And you would have to be a lot more than "reasonably solvent" to spend all of your twenties in a drug induced coma and your thirties in a drunken stupor. Those celebs have a lot more money than that!

I do, however, agree with Jesus.

Yes, I'll willingly give an example of the undeserving poor ...Mike Philpott.
I could name others I have known personally but their names would mean nothing to you, but those of us who have worked as teachers, social workers, prison warders, etc will come across them time and time again.

The deserving poor, those who through no fault of their own are suffering hardship.

Those who think there are no undeserving poor are living in cloud cuckoo land. I fully support benefits for those who are struggling and deplore the fact that the system cannot stretch to help them as much as they need due to it being manipulated and drained by professional scroungers. Do all these bleeding hearts not realise that genuine poor people and ther children are suffering at the hands if those who milk the system because they do not want to work?

cactus it's because so many people DO care that we're having this discussion. The government is there to do our bidding, not take our money and fritter it away. How can IDS and his supporters justify taking away support for so many people, how can you accuse struggling families of frittering away their benefits because some smoke and have a drink? If you look around at how poorer people manage to acquire tobacco and cheap alcohol you'll find they aren't buying packs of 200 B and Hs in the supermarket. There's a local supplier for roll-ups and we all know that you can buy alcohol cheaper than bottled water. It's hypocritical to tell the impoverished to manage better - there's only so much you can do when costs are leaving families with a pittance to manage on and it's another week with no sign of a job, yet there's little sign of 'them that have' cutting back, sharing a bit more of their wealth, or paying their taxes honestly.

Thankyou ga and GillT57 for summing up what is important here. Poverty in the UK is increasing and we have to protect the vulnerable people who, for whatever reason, can't help themselves and those able people who are temporarily in need of a safety net. Citing the few who try to milk the system is detracting from the majority who don't want to be reliant on food banks and charity.

Yes Gill, the charity, which is used by those who have been homeless and are given a home by the council, told me that the people who are looking for furniture only want new or modern stuff. That is what I found unbelievable. I have as Ive said before been on benefits and know how hard it is and I have been quite happy to take anything as long as it serves its purpose.
With regards to earlier remarks that some people have made about judging those less fortunate, I simply mean that if they stopped smoking/drink etc then its obvious they would have more cash left. Can no-one see that view. I also feel that as long as there is a safety net either the state or foodbanks then some people will just fritter their money away. I think that many people have lost a sense of responsibility and there is a "someone else will sort it out" attitude. We need as a nation to take responsibility for our own actions and not leave it to the state to pick up the bill. After all go back to times before the welfare state and you had to work or starve and people would go selling rags or firewood just to make a few bob. Im not implying we should go back to that but where is our spirit of enterprise and also where is our neighbourliness. My granny used to take food to anyone who was poor, myself I used to bake for the old guy next door until recently. nowadays no-one cares.

I agree. Thoughtful and well considered, restoring the discussion of a difficult subject to the level at which it deserves to be.

GA, thank you. That was always my favourite passage in the New Testament. Although I don't believe in a supernatural being, the Christian ethic holds good for me. As for deserving/undeserving poor - how can children possibly be undeserving? They go hungry if their parents' benefits are cut, whatever the reasons.

GrannyA and GillT57 I agree entirely with both your posts.

They were a pleasure to read in fact! Heartening!

GrannyA Well said. that is spot on.

What has gone wrong is Government benefit cuts in a time of a recession and not enough jobs to be had.

AKA so can you explain who you consider to be the undeserving poor ?

This reminds me of Mrs. Cecil Alexander's Hymn "All things bright and Beautiful."

Perhaps the attitudes expressed in the (now ommitted) verse 3 are still around in the current government of Posh Boys.

"The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
God made them high and lowly,
And ordered their estate."

I have read through this whole thread again, and I have to say I am shocked at the level of judgement and intolerance shown by some posters. We dont know why some people fall into the position where they need food banks, the reasons are probably as many as the candidates, the important thing is that there is help for people when they need it. As to Norway, I lived and worked there for 2 years, fantastic country with great people, and they do have state nurseries and yes they dont have many single parents on benefits, BUT they pay huge amounts of income tax because as a socialist country that is how they work. They are fortunate that the oil industry has been a good income stream, and they are spending it wisely. I dont think the posters on this thread who would like a return to the so called good old days would like to pay even more tax. Cactus60, did your local charity shop honestly say that 'people on benefits only want new or fashionable furniture' really?? Charity shops by law are not allowed to sell anything that doesn't have the correct fire certification label, we found that when we tried to donate a sofa that had been re-upholstered ( label had been taken off). So, do we think then that as soon as someone loses their job they should give their dog away, sell their tv, sell the kids toys, and only then go cap in hand to the food bank? I appreciate that there are a feckless few, as there are in the working population, but we shouldn't be demonizing the many because of the few.

I suppose you could count us amongst the feckless, whenim, as we were on benefits for 4 months. And they seemed to be the very minimum they had to pay. However, always managed to feed the children (and us come to that). Thankfully, DH got another job although we had to move to another area. Extremely reluctantly I might add.

Just to say that there is a difference between HP and buying on credit cards; my DP and we have bought things on HP, if you couldn't keep up the payments they could come and take the goods away. No suite to sit on, no washing machine, no tv etc etc. Disastrous and very inconvenient but not life-changing.

With a credit card goods are purchased at a very high rate of interest, if you only pay the minimum payment you will never pay it off. The debt accumulates if you can't pay, gets passed on to debt collectors, ending up with disaster for years, or bankruptcy.

Interest free credit was good, I know you paid for it by paying more for goods in the long run but we found it a good way to buy things we couldn't afford to pay for in one go.

Why is it pernicious to suggest there are deserving poor and undeserving poor?

Thank you, ga - the point you make about responding to need is important. People must have food and shelter, whether others consider them deserving or not. Immediate need calls for immediate action, and only after that can the underlying issues be addressed.

This thread seems to me to have raised the pernicious notion of the 'deserving' vs 'undeserving' poor. Research has consistently found that the behaviours and attitudes of those in poverty basically mirror those of mainstream western societies. Likewise, a vast majority of those in poverty have worked extensively and will do so again if the chance arises. Poverty is ultimately a result of failings at economic and political levels rather than individual shortcomings.
I accept that poor people are not perfect, and some of them do engage in destructive behaviors, but then economically privileged people can indulge in countless bad behaviours and make any number of rash decisions without serious consequences. If you’re reasonably solvent you could spend your twenties hoovering up quantities of cocaine, then go through your thirties as a hopeless drunk — and yet still manage to hold down a mortgage and a job and NOT be regarded as feckless. (Just check out the celebrity gossip.) On the other hand a poor person who exhibited similar behaviours might well end up homeless, in prison, or worse. You don’t become poor because you’re a terrible person or a defective human being. People are poor because of the way our economy and our society is arranged.
I think Jesus got it right when he applauded those who responded to need without checking out whether the recipient was 'deserving' or not:
'I was hungry and you fed me,
I was thirsty and you gave me a drink,
I was homeless and you gave me a room,
I was shivering and you gave me clothes,
I was sick and you stopped to visit,
I was in prison and you came to me.’

Before the 60s, I remember we had loan sharks and pawn shops, or local money lenders who made a private arrangement to lend money at an interest rate of their choosing. Then there was the workhouse in earlier decades. Thank goodness we don't live in those times, but there's still that air of people deciding that their their fellow humans are not all entitled to fair and equal treatment. If a struggling individual is assessed as being legally entitled to receive benefits, who has the right to tell them they should manage better, cook from scratch, don't smoke or drink, don't have a TV, don't have children, don't give your children toys or clothes that might make them feel they are on a social footing with the other children they know, don't buy anything new, don't be a drain on the NHS - in other words, don't be visible because we don't want to know.

It's a good job so many live in high rise flats - they'd be wanting flood compensation when they haven't insured themselves! Oh, wait a moment - no, thst's the uninsured rich living on the banks of the Thames. They were told flooding was a risk, but did they listen? Feckless!