The Left's way forward

If cuts are needed, then they should happen.The Greeks elected the Socialist Party because they didn't want 'austerity' and look where it got them.I know we are not Greece, but all the austerity deniers out there need to think what could have happened here had Labour got back into power five years ago, and also this year.If the country does well in the next five years, then there will be more money for those who really need it.I think a lot of Labour MP's know that the top heavy welfare budget had to be cut, it was unsustainable, just growing and growing.When Brown was PM there was some talk of reigning it in, but the country was making a lot of money so it was shelved, and they were worried about doing it anyway.This way, they can get it done, but at the same time say " hey, it wasn't us, it was the other lot wot did it".
I don't think there is too much choice, there will be cuts all across the board because there has to be.
None of us on here is a top economist to say what should or should not happen, it is all just our own opinions. the electorate did not trust Labour with the economy for a very good reason.
labour should now learn from this for the future.

'I' didn't say it; Stefan Selke wrote it. Did you read the report Ana? Strikes me as the politics of humiliation .

This doesn't make it any better whitewave but GO has asked for two sets of plans from the various departments, one for 25% cuts and one for 40%. Those are huge cuts either way.

So you're saying that the Trussell Trust has actually introduced a backwards-looking policy that sees the solution to social problems in local neighbourhoods, and replaces structural attacks on the causes of poverty with the symbolic relief of its consequences?

I give up...

tegan correct. This government is morally bankrupt.

Because other countries have them doesn't make it right though, does it? Quote;'the foodbank movement is in fact a backwards-looking policy that sees the solution to social problems in local neighbourhoods, and replaces structural attacks on the causes of poverty with the symbolic relief of its consequences'.

Hmm how has that worked in the past? At the moment I am feeling very cross having listened and been appalled by a further 40% cuts, and don't anyone dare say wait until it happens

I heard a Labour MP on the radio today saying that abstaining was the right thing to do because they agree with some parts of the Bill and they will be able to make improvements to the other parts during the committee stage.
Does anyone know if that is likely to be successful?

I wouldn't dream of asking you how much you donate to charity - no more than I would suggest that only those who support conservative policies should donate 20% of their income to charity.

As I said in reply to Tegan's post, other countries richer than this one have food banks in operation. It's not just a problem limited to the UK and attempting to put all the blame on 'this government' is being blinkered.

If the left doesn't get it's act together soon in order to fight this dreadful government we will find the UK totally unrecognisable. How will we be able to face the poor and vulnerable and say we did our best?
The worse case scenario is that people will turn towards the far right to try to make sense of what is happening to them, if the left doesn't offer something soon.

You have no idea how much I donate to charity, Ana, and before you ask, I'm not going to tell you.
Like Tegan says, we are a rich country so there should be no need for foodbanks. I do collect sometimes for the local foodbank, which goes against the grain, too.

The past two decades have seen a massive rise in the number of foodbanks in Germany, often linked to the country’s welfare reforms. But what are the consequences of foodbanks, beyond simply helping those in need? Stefan Selke argues that the foodbank movement is in fact a backwards-looking policy that sees the solution to social problems in local neighbourhoods, and replaces structural attacks on the causes of poverty with the symbolic relief of its consequences.

In 1993 the first foodbank (“Tafel”) was founded in Berlin. In the past 20 years, the number of foodbanks in Germany has grown to more than 1,000, as shown in Figure 1 below. Now, over 50,000 volunteers across Germany are involved with the collection of wasted food from supermarkets, which is then offered to the poor by local organisations. In the past 20 years foodbanks in Germany have been able to extend the range of their users considerably, and now provide more than 1.5 million people (from children to senior citizens) with food.

Figure 1 – Growth in number of foodbanks in Germany, 1993 – 2013

Source: www.tafel.de/die-tafeln/zahlen-fakten.html

The main growth of foodbanks in Germany began 2005, when Chancellor Gerhard Schröder’s government introduced the “Agenda 2010” of tax cuts, and cuts to pension and unemployment benefits. Around the same time, a new form of unemployment insurance (“Hartz IV”) was introduced, reducing previous benefit levels and the duration for which they can be received. In recent decades hardly any other phenomenon has become more prominent in the public consciousness, with the foodbank movement being seen largely uncritically and usually celebrated as a success. However, the first research projects (e.g. the “Tafel-Monitor” at the Furtwangen University, managed by Stefan Selke) into Germany’s foodbanks present paradoxes, discrepancies and consequential costs for those affected and for society as a whole.

The current situation

Despite their large number, one can observe regional disparities between the distribution and the accessibility of foodbanks (the supply side) and the distribution of poverty (the demand side). Until now, there has been no independent data set about the structure of foodbanks, the socio-demography of the users and (often overlooked!) about those who refuse to use foodbanks.

By now, the practice of foodbanks has been examined in qualitative research projects. We know that those that use foodbanks are being placed into a vulnerable situation with both physical and psychological stress factors. The physical causes of stress include queuing in public and long waiting times. In interviews the psychological stress factors named repeatedly were fear (of being seen by others), embarrassment, restrictions (no choice, no right to complain) and duties (statements of gratitude, rituals of submission). However, the main stress factor is shame. There is a fundamental conflict in that. Voluntary involvement is seen, on the one hand, as socially desirable while, at the same time many emotionally stressful experiences of shame and denial are accepted and socially permitted by foodbank volunteers.

The system of foodbanks is centred on questions of the legal form of foodbanks, the standards of food distribution and the rules concerning access and use. Users of foodbanks often perceive those rules as restrictive, discriminating and stigmatising. The distribution of donations of food by private persons within a volatile system (i.e. without guarantees, and dependent on numerous factors such as the amounts of food, personal feelings etc.) is diametrically opposite to the German constitution’s criterion of unconditional help in the context of an institutionalised system of solidarity in a welfare state.

A old Russian tailor with celebrates the day at the food bank as an event. At this food banks the “guests” are separated from the volunteers by a counter. Credit: Stefan Selke
Food bank in the form of a supermarket – the clients can serve themselves. Prices range from 10 to 30 per cent of the original supermarket price. Credit: Stefan Selke

Queuing at the cash box. The empty racks show that this food bank is not a normal supermarket. Credit: Stefan SelkeSocial contexts

Foodbanks are a controversial issue in Germany. They make conflicts of social policy visible, that have continued to be latent for the last 20 years. The mobilising and activation of civic participation means a shift from state guarantees to merely voluntary or honorary activities. As seen by many critics, this makes the foodbank movement a prototype for a backwards-looking policy about poverty and society, that sees the solution to social problems in local neighbourhoods and replaces structural attacks on the causes of poverty with symbolic relief of its consequences.

Moreover, the modification of the foodbanks’ basic legitimacy within a great alliance of “food saviours” is striking. Foodbanks have moved beyond being simply a social strategy (help for the homeless and poor) and are increasingly adopting an ecological strategy within which they stylise themselves as an environmental movement. However, foodbanks are neither social nor sustainable, at least, when sufficiently refined definitions of social sustainability are used, not taken from companies’ internal Corporate Social Responsibility ‘guidelines’. The causes of poverty cannot be fought with donations of food. Reducing the over-supply of food does not lead to a reduction in the amount of poverty.

Poverty as a commodity

Meanwhile, foodbanks in Germany have become a brand. They profit from their positive connotations by with an enhanced image, which they pass on to industry partners and sponsors. Foodbank users however, consider them to be a symbol of their own social exclusion and unrealised participation in the majority of society. Foodbanks have become established as a firm system that deals with social matters using economic criteria (expansion, market share, growth, efficiency, synergies etc.); 20 years of foodbanks are the irrefutable evidence for that. They indicate the failure of politics, that firstly produces “poverty made in Germany” and then exports it into a private volunteer system. Here, it is less and less a matter of fighting poverty sustainably, because it is profitable to too many who recognise poverty as a commodity and draw benefit from it. Foodbanks are a part of such a market in which symbolic and economic profits can be achieved from poverty. For example, businesses increasingly use Corporate Social Responsibility actions as a substitute for taking on real social responsibility. They replace payments of tax, minimum wages and other compulsory actions.

Emergency solution instead of long-term solution

It is becoming simpler and more normal in Germany to receive public approval for voluntary relief of poverty than political legitimacy for combating the roots of poverty. The offerings of foodbanks are only the short-term alleviation and management of poverty. The danger behind this is an indirect (and unintended) stabilisation of poverty because the tasks of the state are more and more being delegated to supported employers, subsidised agencies and private players.

A society should be judged by how it deals with its weakest members. Foodbanks still have their reason for existence as an emergency solution for those in need, but not as an institutionalised long-term solution. This assertion marks both the fundamental boundary shift of the past 20 years and the task of a new orientation. It would be regrettable if foodbanks were to lead only to socially well arranged needs for many. The question is therefore not whether voluntary commitment makes sense, but where and how it is appropriate.

Please read our comments policy before commenting.

Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of EUROPP – European Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics.

Shortened URL for this post: http://bit

blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2013/07/11/germany-foodbanks
this link won't work [computer still not working]but it's a damning report by the LSE.

Check out the number of food banks in Germany, and the number of people using them, compared with the UK.

No one's saying it's right, but it's not a problem limited to this country and the causes can't be laid at the door of 'this government'. There were food banks operating during Labour's reign.

Most European countries have food banks, as does the US, which is certainly a richer country than the UK.

But we're 'supposed' to be a rich country so there should be no need for food banks. If there is then there's surely somethings wrong with the distribution of wealth. Or am I missing something here?

I know what you said. So you are not prepared to donate to food banks purely to spite the government? Not very altruistic of you, dj.

I said those who think the government is doing the right thing. I most certainly do not. I really do not want to help get this government out of the hole it is rapidly digging for itself.

To answer your question, Gracesgran, the young woman in question would have to be on a salary of around £35,000 - quite a bit higher than the average UK income.

durhamjen, perhaps everyone should give 20% of their income to charity - why just conservative policy supporters? It would have to be a specific charity to benefit only food banks though.

That's the point that I was [clumsily] trying to make ie the difficulty of helping those that need help but at the same time not encouraging people to depend on/expect a welfare state. Lower paid work these days isn't factory work which at least had unions and a sense of community but working in MacDonalds etc. Everyone must have the opportunity to better themselves through education and apprenticeships etc; that is absolutley vital. Saving money doesn't save money in the long term in a lot of cases. People should be responsible for their health,but at the same time when help is needed it should be there in every way possible.It all has to balance. I wish I understood economics more.

£500 a week is the maximum at the moment, Gracesgran. It will go down to less than £400 a week when it gets cut to £20,000.

I hope those who think the government is doing the right thing will give 20% of their income to charity because the food banks are going to be in even more demand from then on.

I have never understood tax credits, and neither do many people who have to work them out. Universal credit is a mess, because it works in arrears so anyone on benefits now and moved to universal credit will have to take out a loan for a couple of weeks. if they have no savings.

When the benefit cap is cut, the difference will be taken from the housing benefit, so I have read. Look out for many more homeless families.

I do find any "I'm alright Jack" attitudes the ones that makes me ashamed of my fellow man Eloethan but I do think we have to have changes. However, we should not be making the children suffer.

There was a young women on a news programme this morning commenting on how her income would drop; I can't remember what it was by but it was quite a sizable proportion of her income. Her income - all from benefits - was over £500 per week. She had three children and of course they shouldn't suffer but how much would you have to earn to have that income? I still feel we should not be cutting the child tax credit for over two children we should be cutting them for all children but the money saved should provide total wrap around care. This way no parent could say they cannot work. As I keep saying this is bad for the mother who will probably remain in poverty all her life and in retirement and bad for the children who see benefits as "income". Perhaps if the people who can live on benefits currently were in work they would join unions and ensure there really was a Living Wage.

These are very difficult choices but I do not think tax credits work. I do think we must support the poorest and care for children however.

The SNP had a point of order after the vote to ask if the seating arrangements could be changed so they could be the official opposition.

So you told fibs, did you, roses, when you said "I see some good in all parties"?

That's a bit like the Tories did. That's what Frank Field said.
"The Tories rightly gained plaudits for their commitment to advance and protect the interests of Britain's strivers. Yet in his first post-election budget the chancellor has decided to knock this group for six. He has torn up the contract they signed when they took it upon themselves to find a job."

He was Cameron's anti-poverty tsar. He knows they lied to the electorate.

I, too, don't understand what's happening .

I wonder how many of the people who are applauding conservative plans which include further impoverishing low paid workers, many of whom will have children to support, are affected by the cuts or have close family who are.

I find the whole thing sickening - especially the behaviour of many of the Labour MPs.