Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Food Banks not necessary says Cameron

Ids against all the evidence genuinly belives he's helping.:(
The fucking people about and cuts might be defendable if we were living in the 60s when you could walk into a decent paid job but we arnt and expecting people to magically find well paying jobs is fucking evil.

Universal benefit is great in theory but lots of things are great in theory.
 
No he actually think he is helping like blair and iraq but just because someone genuinely belives they are right doesnt make them good:(
Just even more dangerous:mad:
Fucking people over because your a cunt you might be able to reason with the said cunt. A true beliver no chance:(
 
friendofdorothy said:
I though foodbanks were the natural result of the Big fucking Society idea that charities should fill the gaps left by low paying employers and shrinking benefits. Cameron is making food banks necessary.
Click to expand...

"The Big Society" is just an evolution of "new" Labour's turn toward "the third sector" as a provider of services. The original idea wasn't altogether appalling - charities being funded to provide services in their own particular fields of competence is good sense - but as with any programme in a time of funding squeezes, without the money, the programme falls on its' arse. Given that one of Osbnoxious's primary intentions was to start chopping public funding, the charities involved in sectoral provision really shouldn't have been surprised that many of them lost almost their entire funding while still being expected to fulfill their contractual obligations to govt and clients.

As ever, charitable concerns like foodbanks are a manifestation of the working class looking after the working class. Charitable and official administration of foodbanks merely allows the govt and the charities to take credit for something that they have little to do with, and which they contribute very little to.
 
ViolentPanda said:
the charities involved in sectoral provision really shouldn't have been surprised that many of them lost almost their entire funding while still being expected to fulfill their contractual obligations to govt and clients.
Click to expand...
how does this work? surely their contractual obligations would be dependent on funding continuing?
 
treelover said:
Btw, the weird thing is the public are really getting behind these food banks, I'm really not sure that is ultimately a good thing though
Click to expand...

Find any decent social history of the working class in the 19th and 20th centuries, and you'll find manifestations of "the public" supporting "the public". It's natural sympathy and empathy based on an appreciation that "there but for the grace of G-d go I", with a good bit of working class solidarism thrown in.
It's all well and good to explore the political and social implications of the use of foodbanks, but let's not forget that the main purpose the foodbanks are serving is to prevent people becoming malnourished. Yes, they serve a purpose for the state too, in that they keep a population on the knife-edge of dissent from falling of that edge and onto the state's throat, and sure, I'd like to see our neoliberal pseudo-democratic system of government strangled with its own entrails, but not at the price of someone becoming malnourished and/or physically-damaged by hunger.
 
killer b said:
how does this work? surely their contractual obligations would be dependent on funding continuing?
Click to expand...

From what I've been able to make out*, most of the charities maintained their own "core obligations", but were stupid enough to become more dependant than they should have been on state funding, and got a bit slack in parlaying their own private funding. This meant that when state funding was withdrawn, even those with reserves got dragged down the drain because they'd not maintained a focus on garnering private funding - why would you if your expensive chairman thinks the "business" is onto a good thing with the government?
So, while they've been able to shed most of those functions/obligations that weren't core to the charity's "mission statement" (hawk, spit!), they're being sucked under by attempting to fulfill their core obligations on a drastically-attenuated budget, and meanwhile the private sponsors they used to rely on have taken their money elsewhere.

*I'm only basing this on a handful of charities I know about, but it does seem to represent a trend.
 
Frances Lengel said:
It isn't.
Click to expand...

Of course it isn't.
That's to say that I don't believe that official foodbanks are a good thing. I'd far rather see non-aligned community foodbanks, where foodbanks are needed, so that there's no element of charity to it, just working class solidarity of the type that got people through in previous tough times. We know this stuff is feasible, too. We only need look as far back as the mid-'80s and what was managed during the miners' strike to see that.
 
ViolentPanda said:
From what I've been able to make out*, most of the charities maintained their own "core obligations", but were stupid enough to become more dependant than they should have been on state funding, and got a bit slack in parlaying their own private funding. This meant that when state funding was withdrawn, even those with reserves got dragged down the drain because they'd not maintained a focus on garnering private funding - why would you if your expensive chairman thinks the "business" is onto a good thing with the government?
So, while they've been able to shed most of those functions/obligations that weren't core to the charity's "mission statement" (hawk, spit!), they're being sucked under by attempting to fulfill their core obligations on a drastically-attenuated budget, and meanwhile the private sponsors they used to rely on have taken their money elsewhere.

*I'm only basing this on a handful of charities I know about, but it does seem to represent a trend.
Click to expand...
ah, ok - so their obligations as a charity rather than obligations to individual contracts?
 
Orang Utan said:
The Tories are trolling the shit out of us cos they know they are gonna lose. But Labour seem as equally invested in the race to the bottom. :(
Click to expand...

It's not just a seeming, it's a fact. However much "Red Ed" dresses up Labour policy, Labour have swallowed the same neoliberal pill as the Tories, and are bound to follow the same prescriptions. They may take a slightly different route to the Tories or the Lib-Dems, but all our mainstream parties are leading us to the same destination - a fully neoliberal state where we (the people) exist entirely on our own devices, and the corporates are the ones who receive "benefits".
 
There was a broadcast news story earlier(seems to not been repeated) that over one million pensioners are malnourished, not just poverty , but lack of support, cooking,etc, you can add another million disabled people I suspect.
 
Orang Utan said:
The Tories are trolling the shit out of us cos they know they are gonna lose. But Labour seem as equally invested in the race to the bottom. :(
Click to expand...

There's also a whiff of a scorched earth policy. If the Tories lose the next election the universal benefit "reforms" will take a lot of time, effort and resources to reverse and return to the status quo ante (and probably even more of all three to introduce in an even better, fairer, system).

So in all probability the next non-Tory Government will be stuck with them - at least for the foreseeable future.

If the Tories win the next election - it's job done on the welfare front as they're concerned. It may even give them the green light to be even more ruthless.

Head they win, tails the desperate lose.
 
Orang Utan said:
But Labour seem as equally invested in the race to the bottom. :(
Click to expand...

Maria Eagle made an impressive speech at the food bank debate, and there are some other powerful women putting a lot of pressure on the Tories behind the scenes. Sheila Gilmore is constantly scrutinising IDS and McVey over DWP statistics, along with Debbie Abrahams.

These women and Anne Begg, perhaps shove Gerald Kaufman in there too, should be fronting the Labour party.
 
They will never return.

Where we are now is as good as it's going to get without something seriously radical coming into play.
 
1471984_10153691586170372_888237094_n.jpg

This came up on my facebook ... pretty good I thought.
 
They believe in their delusion:

they don't think poverty is desirable, per se, but that those in poverty have only themselves to blame.

They also think that the more bitter the medicine, the more effective the cure. All the 'british people' have to do is 'stay the course' 'hold their nerve' and everything will, in short order, be golden.

That they believe this bullshit makes them more dangerous than someone who just wants to see the poor starve.
 
Maybe they believe it's a good idea to make life hell for a significant part of the population by way of encouraging the others to accept worse pay and conditions?

Here's a telling quote from a senior Thatcher/Major era Tory economic advisor.



They did, however, see that it would be a very, very good way to raise unemployment, and raising unemployment was an extremely desirable way of reducing the strength of the working classes -- if you like, that what was engineered there in Marxist terms was a crisis of capitalism which re-created a reserve army of labour and has allowed the capitalists to make high profits ever since.
Click to expand...
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/03/thatcher-economic-budd-dispatches
 
Bernie Gunther said:
Maybe they believe it's a good idea to make life hell for a significant part of the population by way of encouraging the others to accept worse pay and conditions?

Here's a telling quote from a senior Thatcher/Major era Tory economic advisor.



http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/03/thatcher-economic-budd-dispatches
Click to expand...


You missed off the bit of the sound bit where he said "I'm not sure I believe that story " thus stripping a bloke of his even handedness.

You are talking about the era when tooling became increasingly automated, the difference between a 35k morgan and a 9k micra isn't just down to the materials
 
gosub said:
You missed off the bit of the sound bit where he said "I'm not sure I believe that story " thus stripping a bloke of his even handedness.

<snip>
Click to expand...

I provided both the link and the video quoting him in full.

Are you accusing me of deliberately misrepresenting him?

If so I think you are full of shit.
 
Granted you provided the video, you left it out of the text which is the bit most people will deal with and it does change the context.


eta Even Curtis felt obliged to keep it in, in what was a a very good almost essay
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Humberto
David Cameron is a walking disaster. And war criminal.
Replies
12
Views
691
Mation
Mation
Puddy_Tat
Local Elections (not that London) 2024
10 11 12 13 14
Replies
396
Views
12K
Pickman's model
Pickman's model
Pickman's model
david cameron's time is up again
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
190
Views
9K
brogdale
brogdale
Boris Sprinkler
Why are people not rioting in the streets already?
Replies
18
Views
962
DaveCinzano
DaveCinzano
Cloo
Three quarters of rape victims say police response damaged mental health
Replies
7
Views
781
equationgirl
equationgirl
Back
Top Bottom