'Food banks are a disgrace in C21st UK'

I've been told that the use of foodbanks in the UK in 2017 is an absolute disgrace, reflects very badly on the Tories and points to a failing nation.

The Trussell Trust - which derrives its income and food donations for its foodbanks from members of the public, says that 1.2m people took a three-day food package from a foodbank last year.

Personally I'm glad that the Labour-backed Trussell Trust is doing this good work and helping out people in need. And that generous people are donating food to people who happen to need some help from time-to-time.

This help is usually required when the system breaks down and people find themselves outside of the welfare system for a few days. That is regrettable of course but the reasons why they are outside the system are many and varied. There are currently about 1.6m people unemployed in the UK and net immigration last year was 273,000 (ONS).

So when one puts this into some kind of perspective, the 1.2m people using foodbanks in a year does not mean that 1.2m people rely on foodbanks for all of the food they eat. Which, I think, many lefties seem to want to be the case so they can kick the Tories.

It's 1.2m people, out of our 65m population, our 1.6m unemployed and 273,000 immigrants, who had one three-day food parcel from a foodbank during the last year.

So one in about 60 of us had help from a foodbank which covered three out of 365 days of our food requirement. Or to put these figures in percentage terms; 1.8% of the population required help with 0.82% of their meals in the last year. That is hardly a nation in chaos or crisis.

Particularly since the combination of Labour's open border (not just open but 'go and find them') legacy and our EU 'free movement' requirement has seen more than 3m more people (net) arrive here in the past ten years.

Against that background, the fact that the figures for people using foodbanks is so low is testament to the fact that the system is working pretty well.

The other point to make, obviously, is that if you offer people free stuff, they tend to take it. And that's fine, good luck to them and if it means they have a few quid over for themselves because of the generosity of others then that's a good thing isn't it? So why use this as an argument with which to beat the Tories, whose supporters are likely to be donating the lions share of the food that the foodbanks distribute in the first place?

Maybe the Tories should close down all the food banks and ban their operation - so as to avoid this nonsensical criticism. I'm sure Mr Blair would have considered this course of action. Would that make you happier lefties? That there would then be no foodbanks for you to point to as a sign of Tory failure, but some people would be going hungry occasionally?

Of course it won't happen because the Tories tend to do what's right for the population, not just what fits the spin. Unlike Blair, Brown & Corbyn's Labour party.

Thanks for reading.

If we had a proper opposition Theresa wouldn't be able to make a massive mistake like houses for care

That's it really.

What are you looking here for? I've told you what I think.

Just kidding; but it's true. If Theresa didn't have such a lead, if Mr Corbyn and Labour weren't so inept, she would not feel able to make such stupid, anti-Tory manifesto pledges. It's a simple as that.

This 'using your home to pay for your care until you die' is just so stupid and anti Tory.

And the response from Labour, that rich people should continue to get the Winter Fuel Allowance and that rich people should not have to pay, with their homes, for social services care in old age, just turns everything on its head in terms of party principles.

Who knows where we are now? Are Labour the party of the wealthy? Why are the Tories attacking the rich in this way?

Frankly this is as stupid as the bedroom tax. But at least that had the virtue of being correct in principle but not in terms of it ever being fair in terms of application.

Allow me, briefly, to explain what I mean. (You've got this far, not much more to go).

Alan and Jane at number 26 have worked all their lives. They strove and saved and didn't go on holiday all that often if they couldn't afford it; didn't drink or smoke, brought up their kids and incidentally, fed them breakfast and lunch at school as well as dinner in the evenings. (That's 'Tea' to you in the North).

They did the right thing and paid off their mortgage. But they're now getting on a bit and the route to the hospital, sadly, is one they now know quite well.  But at least they have their home to pass on to the kids to give them a financial boost when Alan and Jane shuffle off. It's a thing that is never talked about, but it is also something that has motivated the couple all their working lives. After all, their parents, growing up after the war years, were not ever in a position to do the same thing for them.

But they've paid into the system. They're coming up to retirement and hopefully they can enjoy the fruits of their labour for some time to come. They live in the south, so their home is worth £300,000 now, although they originally bought it for £25,000. They are not particularly wealthy in cash terms but the house is worth a bit. They receive the Winter Fuel Allowance and a free bus pass.

Alan is a school governor and umpires the cricket in the village of a Sunday. Jane is on the PCT and has coffee mornings to raise money for the Brownies.

And now Theresa (May) wants the house - or at least 2/3rds of it to pay for their care should they need it in old age. And the NHS has the brief to keep people alive for as long as possible - an aim we probably all share, but, not necessarily when we are so ill that there's no real quality of life and it's just 'existing' in a care home, rather than truly 'being alive'. The £100,000 they will be left with after their care is paid for, might just pay off (kids) David and Anne's student loans, but not much more.

Their Winter Fuel Allowance which is a nice bonus and makes the family Christmas easier to pay for, will be taken away because they have a few quid, having saved all their lives. They vote Tory. Always have.

Across the street are Bruce and Barbara. Same house but they don't own it. They had a different philosophy. They took holidays they couldn't afford, smoked and drank and have no savings. They paid into the system sometimes but mostly were recipients of benefits. On account of Bruce being unlucky, on account of him being a lazy bastard. They vote Labour. Always have.

I have nothing against lazy bastards, I myself have been known to be a lazy bastard, but bear with me.

Bruce goes to the pub and watches the cricket sometimes. Barbara goes to the Bingo. Their kids Kylie and Jason are minor drug dealers and still live at home. Both are on benefits and both smoke and drink.

Jason's Corsa is currently rotting away on the front lawn. Next to Bruce's old Capri and Kylie's daughter Jasmine's old pram.

Bruce and Barbara will not have to pay anything at all for their care in old age. They will continue to receive the Winter Fuel Allowance and free bus pass. They will pass on fuck all to their kids, but what on earth would be the point anyway?

Now I know that what Theresa is pledging means that what people can hand on to their kids out of the value of their home, is actually going up from £23k to £100k under this policy. But that still does not make it a Tory policy.

Yes this may have been going on for years, discretely, in the background, under the radar, but now putting it front and centre of your manifesto has exposed what an awful solution it is:- to have individual families suffering financially if they are unlucky enough to have a member who needs long-term care. When this is a national problem - just like the rest of the Healthcare system and should, therefore, be solved (paid for) on a national - not individual - basis. That would be the Tory way. Using it as an effective inheritance tax is simply not a fair way of solving the problem.

It is an unfair sticking plaster rather than an actual sustainable solution. Theresa is correct to look at the issue - it's about time someone did look at our changing demographics and our failing social care system - 'failing' because of the massively increasing pressures upon it - but this solution is grossly unfair in my opinion and should be reconsidered.

This current Tory manifesto is not a Tory manifesto. It's a manifesto, designed to wipe out the Labour party by stealing its policies and position on the board. But if, in doing this, you lose your core vote Theresa, you'll have been an utter fool.

Thanks for reading.