Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Bend over............LOL.

and as usual you do not actually contradict 39856 in any way - which is not surprising, not least because i gmerely ave an alternative and perfectly legit way of viewing those numbers

Sorry Hays your theory is flawed given that a family are only allowed 3 tokens (visits) per year to a trustel foodbank, more and more new familys are turning up at each outlet. In other words 6,000 visits per year as per your theory BUT we all know from press coverage the number of food parcels as Multiplied many times over. .......................

Haystack - 23 Apr 2014 10:53 - 39850 of 39864

cynic
I have looked at the Trussel's own figures on their web site and it is clear that the average number o people served is 2,000 per outlet and has been that way since not long after they started

both of the above comments clearly need further investigation + supporting evidence if the one is to gainsay the other

sticky - do you fundamentally disagree with what i wrote in 39848?

Cynic said........cynic S - 23 Apr 2014 10:44 - 39848 of 39866

while trussell are indeed a respected organisation and do an excellent job, the implication of the above table is that the number of people needing foodbank subsidy has risen ~2.5x between 2012 and 2013

of course that is something of a distortion, for though the number may well have grown, it does not show like/like but merely that there was a hidden need before more foodbanks were opened................ ends

NO wrong Cyners, you are forgetting benefit sanctions and the bed room tax only came into being about 18 months ago.

Your obviously not up to speed why some people on benefits are turning to a food bank rather than the Welfare State as the last and only safety net they can rely on.

But fear not IDS in his 'Final Solution' will progress onto the modern day WORKHOUSE so as to cut savings even further and fool the gullible public into believing the Fraudulent employment figures are reality and can be relied upon LOL LOL LOL LOL

MAM need to do something about their Bugs thread, it's knocking my keyboard on the head with that silly video ad.

DB.

Alter you volume control to mute.

But, if you are using Chrome download Adblocker plus and install it.

Runs easily.

When you start moneyam up, click the Adblocker icon top right corner and finger the video advert. Follow the instruction.

It works perfectly for me on a Windows 7 !

Thank you Fred, will give it a go. I'm on Windows Vista - not to be recommended!

I think Blair is a self deceiving liar who will do anything for money.

If you put him in a sack of rats he would be the first to get out.

The UK has had some rubbish PMs. in recent years.

sticky - i admit ignorance, but why does "NO wrong Cyners, you are forgetting benefit sanctions and the bed room tax only came into being about 18 months ago" have a specific let alone significant influence on the use of foodbanks?

btw, you last para was just typically silly

Even the Trussel Trust admits that there are people turning up nine times or even more.

If self-employment is largely the result of people not being able to find direct employment then it seems to me that you would expect to find higher levels of self-employment in the regions of the UK with the highest proportions of long-term unemployment. Infact there is a general pattern revealing that self-employment is higher in those UK that have lower long-term unemployment.

Last week the TUC published research which they said showed that “while some choose to be self-employed, many people are forced into it because there is no alternative work”. In fact, that “some” who choose to be self-employed turned out to be no less than 72% of all self-employed people when the Resolution Foundation released the findings of their survey a couple of days later. This accords very closely with the RSA’s own survey (full results to be published soon) which found that 76% of people in self-employment or running their own micro-business were happy with their work situation.

Hays yep but they dont get served. They get re-directed to the LocalAuthority emergency unit which I posted about earlier today and is sitting on 70 million of unused funds because they dont have the staff to manage the scheme.

*And Manuel if you cant work the coorelation between an increase in benefit sanctions and the increase in the use of Food Banks........wells theirs just no hope for you...............let me S P E L L it out for you..........................

Someone gets benefits stopped.............many a time for admin reasons and not their fault (92% is the figure) this is usualy for 3 months but can be up to 6 months.

they have no contact with parents or relatives no freinds etc etc, so what do they do...........they starve to death and die in the road.

But the alternative is to get a token from thier local vicar and take it to the food bank for food.

They then return to thier cardboard box to live their life of luxury.

Get it now???????????? comprende???????

Hays I see you havent mentioned the DSS try to talk them into self employment and instead of recieving JSA they get a working tax credit.

Of course it wont be long before the HMRC catch up with them and then issue them with a back dated tax bill and instructions they no longer are considered to be self employed.

IR35 etc etc.

Dying Stephen Sutton has more than hit his Bucket List's 'Raising £1m for Charity' target.

:-)

What an inspiration to us all! What a massive thing to have done in your life!

As I type, it's at £1,354,000 and flying along to get even higher.

How utterly brilliant!

https://www.justgiving.com/Stephen-Sutton-TCT

Jess on Say’s Law and the Tory Denial that Increase in Food Banks Represents Genuine Demand

Jess, one of the commenters on this blog has posted a detailed critique of the economic law behind the Tories’ refusal to admit that the rise in food banks is due to a massive increase in poverty. The Tories cannot admit that there is mass starvation in this country due to their austerity campaign. They therefore claim instead that food banks are increasing simply because there are more food banks, and their mere existence attracts more customers.

In her comment to Mike’s post on Vox Political, ‘Food bank blow is new low for the Mail on Sunday’, Jess attacks this assertion, and shows that it is based on Say’s Law, an economic doctrine that has now been comprehensively refuted in the form it has been adopted under Lord Freud to justify the attacks food banks. She states

“Another claim – that “volunteers revealed that increased awareness of food banks is driving a rise in their use” is unsubstantiated, and is clearly an attempt to support the government’s claim that this is the case. But it is silly. Of course starving people will go to a food bank after they have been told it exists; that doesn’t mean they aren’t starving.”

The DWP appear to be pushing this line rather hard, as their response to the public’s growing awareness of the scandal of food banks. Their argument, based on Say’s Law, is utterly fallacious, and they must know it is.

Say’s Law, roughly formulated, is “”Supply creates its own demand”[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_creates_its_own_demand].
In the present context it seems to have been first invoked by Lord Freud, and then taken up by his department. EDITOR GF (and our own poster here on this thread HAYS)

It will be familiar to most people through its mention by Keynes in his ‘General Theory’;
“From the time of Say and Ricardo the classical economists have taught that supply creates its own demand; meaning by this in some significant, but not clearly defined, sense that the whole of the costs of production must necessarily be spent in the aggregate, directly or indirectly, on purchasing the product.” [http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/general-theory/ch02.htm]

But even the free marketeers regard Freud’s interpretation of Say as ridiculous;
“W. H. Hutt once referred to Say’s Law as the most fundamental ‘economic law’ in all economic theory. In its crude and colloquial form, Say’s Law is frequently understood as supply creates its own demand, as if the simple act of supplying some good or service on the market was sufficient to call forth demand for that product. It is certainly true that producers can undertake expenses, such as advertising, to persuade people to purchase a good they have already chosen to supply, but that is not the same thing as saying that an act of supply necessarily creates demand for the good in question. This understanding of the law is obviously nonsensical as numerous business and product failures can attest to. If Say’s Law were true in this colloquial sense, then we could all get very rich just by producing whatever we wanted.” [http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/understanding-says-law-of-markets]

How then, did this silly ‘aphorism’ creep into the language of the DWP?

One route may have been through the IEA and it’s then Director David G Green.. He wrote a couple of pamphlets in the late ’90′s advocating the demolition of Social Security, and a return to the Friendly Societies of Victorian England [Benefit dependency : how welfare undermines dependency.1998; An end to welfare rights : the rediscovery of independence 1999]

Most people, at the time, thought Green was ‘off his trolley’, It is tragic that Say, and Green is being used to attack food banks. The last refuge of the destitute.

This last paragraph, where she mentions IEA and its director, David G Green, is also important. I remember back in the 1990s the Daily Mail criticising the establishment of the modern welfare state for the way it sidelined the Friendly Societies. The Daily Mail had clearly been influenced by Green’s bonkers views, and it shows just how extreme and reactionary the Mail is.

that would not explain "significant" i think, though it may explain a spike
strange as it may seem and unlike you, i have no silly political axe to grind, but merely try to wade through at least some of the garbage to retrieve a sensible explanation - but that may well be beyond your comprehension

=============

as an aside, there was a very interesting piece on long-term unemployed going through a very short army course followed by short work placement
i admit i didn't pay huge attention, but a non-uk chap was offered some full time employment, which he grabbed, whereas the english bloke decided he really didn't fancy that particular job so opted to stay on benefits
says a lot

"and short army course followed by short work placement"??????????

Bailiffs or Bouncers at the local Cons Clubs!