Food banks

As I understand it food banks are there to help people who cannot afford to feed themselves? So they're a good thing then?

It's sad that they're needed in our modern society but they fulfil a function. We simply cannot have people starving on the streets of a modern, first world economy like Britain. So they're a good thing then? So why is the left using their existence as a stick with which to beat the government?

And they're paid for by whom? Obviously even in our 'printed money' times someone has to pay for them?

Well it's a mixture of charities The Trussell Trust being the biggest provider and local authority funding (£3 million of public money to date) and they are designed to help people who have their benefits stopped unfairly or are otherwise in crisis. And that's a good, possibly a great thing if it is helping to feed people who would otherwise go hungry.

I'm proud that our modern society takes care of people who are worse off. It's what we should be doing as a society.

But why is their existence (the food banks) such a big political football? 'That they're needed is a disgrace' cite the left.

Trussell Trust Charity chairman Chris Mould said: "That 900,000 people have received three days' food from a food bank, close to triple the numbers helped last year, is shocking in 21st century Britain.

"But perhaps most worrying of all this figure is just the tip of the iceberg of UK food poverty, it doesn't include those helped by other emergency food providers, those living in towns where there is no food bank, people who are too ashamed to seek help or the large number of people who are only just coping by eating less and buying cheap food.

"In the last year we've seen things get worse, rather than better, for many people on low-incomes. It's been extremely tough for a lot of people, with parents not eating properly in order to feed their children and more people than ever experiencing seemingly unfair and harsh benefits sanctions.

"Unless there is determined policy action to ensure that the benefits of national economic recovery reach people on low-incomes we won't see life get better for the poorest anytime soon."

(International Business Times April 16th 2014)

But this does beg a couple of questions about who is using these food banks: There may always be some people who fall through the safety net of benefits - which may or may not be their own fault and may or may not be fair. This additional safety net (food banks) is therefore a welcome thing if it allows people to survive in the short term and then to claim the benefits that they need or, outrageous as it may sound, get a job.

As I say it's sad that they are needed in our C21st Britain and, like the growth of food banks across Europe and the US in recent years it is clearly connected to the economic downturn. But 900,000 feels like a very high number of people to have fallen through our existing arrangements which, I would contend, are generous.

The fact is that living on benefits is not poverty. It's simply not starvation rations as Mr Mould suggests.

As was much lauded last year, benefits means £53 a week for food. After one has had one's housing, heating, water, council tax and other general living expenses paid by the taxpayer. That's generous. That's easily livable. One can feed, healthily, a family of three people for £53 a week (and then have £106 left over for other things - 3 people). They do not have to starve themselves to feed their kids or buy 'cheap' (=crap) food. So why do we need food banks?  Who is using them?

If it's not people on benefits, perhaps it's people in low-paid jobs? But people in low-paid jobs also get a top-up of benefits these days - more here. So it can't be them either.

Maybe it's immigrants who have nowhere else to turn? If so, it's good that we provide food for them. I may want us to have more control over our borders and perhaps to see fewer economic migrants coming to the UK, but I don't blame them for wanting to come and nor would I want them to starve on Britain's streets. But 900,000 last year?

You don't think it might be people who are in receipt of benefits but who squander their money on (let's just call them) non-essentials and then expect the state/charities to bail them out do you? I hope, sincerely, that this is not the case, but it sometimes feels a bit like it might be.

In any case, making use of others' generosity and a process that is helping people in genuine need, as a stick with which to beat the current government is demeaning to Labour and its supporters. Labour had been in office for 11 years in 2008 when the global financial crisis that has caused so much hardship here and around the world struck. And in their purview was the City Of London's financial markets which, along with New York, are the biggest financial powerhouses in the world and were undoubtedly the root cause of the problem we have all been facing ever since.

They are essentially why we need food banks and for Labour now to criticise their existence beggars belief.

Thanks for reading