Well, Miliband got to speak in the Commons today. Just over a month ago, the BBC was feverishly pushing the idea that he would now be PM, hooked up to the SNP, and delivering the leftist policies so central to the BBC outlook. Sadly for them, it didn’t work out so all we get is this very sympathetic piece from the Comrades to their fallen Comrade.
THE INEQUALITY OF LOSING…..
Bookmark the permalink.
From the BBC report in the link:
—… Milliband questioned whether Cameron’s rhetoric was compatible with plans for £12bn of welfare cuts and a country where “a million people go to food banks”.—
But a million people do NOT go to food banks. About a million meals are provided in a year and distributed among thousands. Not the same at all!
But the BBC know that, anyway. Tell a lie often enough.
..
It is entirely possible for a million people to go to food banks.You havent provided any evidence that that isnt the case.
What are we,the sixth richest nation in the world and we have food banks.Thats something worth talking about.
@manon
Do you agree with ANYTHING that’s said here?
So far you’ve agreed with NOTHING.
Are you here just to derail threads as part of a political crusade?
..
Do I have to agree with idiot claims. I thought this site was about objectivel determining bias.
Except that the Trussel Trust, (who run the food banks) don’t agree with you.
“Trussell Trust statistics are collected using an online data collection system into which foodbanks enter the data from each foodbank voucher. The system records the number of adults and children given three days’ emergency food. Trussell Trust figures have always been reported in this way. We cannot measure unique users on a national scale, but recent detailed evidence collected from a range of foodbanks indicates that on average 49 percent of foodbank users only needed one foodbank voucher in a year, and that only 15 percent needed help more than three times in a year. On average, people needed two foodbank vouchers in a year.
Trussell Trust data collection seeks to comply with ONS guidance. The Trussell Trust receives technical advice from a former senior government statistician.
The Trussell trust publishes figures on use of their foodbanks annually and half-yearly, as part of a regular publication scheme.”
According to them nearly 30% of meals are distributed as a result of delays in receiving benefits, i.e. in theory this is need that is being met by the state.
Here is the link to the Trussell Trust figures: http://www.trusselltrust.org/foodbank-figures-top-900000
The Trussell Trust are twisting the figures!
“913,138 people received three days’ emergency food from Trussell Trust food banks in 2013-14 compared to 346,992 in 2012-13”
And in the next paragraph: “Over 900,000 adults and children have received three days’ emergency food and support from Trussell Trust foodbanks in the last 12 months…”
The “three days’ emergency food” is basically 1 food voucher. This is where the numbers don’t add up; the average voucher-take per person is 2, therefore we can HALVE the figure of 913,138!
It’s the way they word it that makes it legal.
It’s the type of maths (Labour party voters call it “sums”) that bamboozles the very people who are trying to use it to prove a point.
Not at all successfully.
Looking at the Trussell Trust link the commentary reports benefit sanctions being a major driver of increased demand, yet graphically there are only benefit delays and changes mentioned.
I believe I am correct in adding that the DWP can now refer directly which was not the case until relatively recently.
Essentially the point is the foodbanks are not feeding millions weekly, rather they are an emergency / very short term gap filler.
Still waiting for the evidence boys and girls.
Clap trap.
Free food! no wonder there are loads of food banks, I must find my nearest to save on my shopping bill.
Soup kitchens are the way to go.
Think of the savings.
Interestingly Waldorf repeats the myth about the SNP and Labour. But in doing so admits the inherent conservative bias in the BBC.
Actually this is quite good news really.
The Trussel Trust say that the average client uses their services twice each year, so that is one million meals divided by two, equates to 500, 000 clients, somewhat less than one percent of the population and they only needed help twice in a year! Hardly a crisis.
And isn’t it good that their fellow citizens were willing to give a helping hand? Even more good news!
Just suppose that all the clients were full time users, say 250 meals each per year. That would give a grand total of 4,000 hard poverty cases, or 0.008% of the population. Even less of a crisis.
Lots of little numbers still makes a small proportion of huge numbers. Remember when saving 6 watts per household was going to ‘save the planet’?
The left have always been better at sloganeering than engaging in real argument. The food bank “crisis” is a case in point. By simply shouting (and they always seem to shout), “a million people using food banks”, the implication is that a million people are dependant on food banks ever day of the year. But why let a considered examination of the facts get in the way of a good slogan.
Nope that isnt the implication. Sadly like many here you enter this web site full of bias and bigotry. In doing so you immediately discout yourself from objectively determining bias.
Why is it so hard for you to comprehend that 450,000 people using food banks ONCE per year is not the same as million people dependent on food banks? Why is the myth of the latter so important to you? Surely you should be happy that this “crisis” is vastly overblown, yet you seem upset? It’s almost as if the Left wishes poverty on people.
Sadly for them, it didn’t work out so all we get is this very sympathetic piece from the Comrades to their fallen Comrade. It’s what they do.
Perhaps MOTCO you would like to explain what the implication is, because without that implication you don’t have much of an argument. No one wants to see people in financial straits, but any close examination of the facts would reveal that this is far from a being crisis. It’s also much more complex and multi-faceted than simplistic anti-austerity propaganda. But the only response from the left is to shout “food banks”, as if that was in itself an argument in the same way that they shout “fascist” or “racist” or “bigot” at anyone who challenges them. Not much objectivity there.
As to this site, it represents a variety of viewpoints. I certainly don’t subscribe to all the views expressed here. I would doubt that anyone here does.