Dr Rowan Williams: Food bank users are not scroungers and this isn't a hiccup - it’s a serious crisis

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 3:08 pm

Pitching in: Dr Williams helps at a food bank in Cambridge

For the last few years I have heard stories from people I am in touch with pastorally. They are almost always the same – stories of people who have hit an unexpected bump in the road.

It may be a missed pay cheque, a family illness or a form that has gone astray – things that might not make much of a difference in more secure circumstances. But in these hard times people do not have that safety net and they fall through the gaps.

People who are using food banks are not scroungers who are cynically trying to work the system. They are drawn from the six million working poor in this country, people who are struggling to make ends meet in low paid or bitty employment.

They cannot just turn up at a food bank. They have to be properly assessed and found to need emergency help. Despite that, the number of people using food banks is doubling annually. When you think about that, you start to realise how serious the situation is.

That is why I agreed to be patron of the food banks in Cambridge. You tend to think of hunger as a problem elsewhere, but it is happening right here in our own communities.

n many ways Cambridge is a prosperous town. If the problem is so big here, and it is, that shines a spotlight on how severe it must be in other parts of the country.

The one encouraging thing is that as the need has grown, so has the response.

There are some people in public life who talk as if the natural default setting for people in this country is to be suspicious of those less well off than themselves.

That is completely contradicted by the level of generosity people have shown, locally in the form of people who volunteer at food banks and churches who support this work, and nationally in the response to the Christmas appeal by the Daily Mirror.

I would love to see more people in public positions coming to see what is happening at first hand. It is easy for them to stand at a distance and say, “Oh well, these people are working the system,” or “this is just a temporary hiccup”.

But when you actually come face to face with the anxiety people face about feeding their children, you cannot ignore what is in front of your nose.

I would urge people in decision-making positions to come and spend a couple of hours watching what goes on and listening to some of our volunteers. We hear a lot said praising the volunteer culture in this country, but it does not run on thin air and at the moment it is stretched to breaking point.

The Russian author Leo Tolstoy once observed that “food for myself is a material issue, but food for my neighbour is a spiritual issue”.

It is an issue we should all be concerned with at a time like this.

Read Trussell Trust chairman Chris Mould's view of the prevalence of food banks here

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dr-rowan-williams-food-bank-3168067#ixzz2tyAREShQ
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 3:19 pm

It is only right we give those people food.

If they aren't given food, they will struggle to buy their fags and booze.

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 3:24 pm

it is a fact that food handouts are required but some of those would sooner smoke and drink which is a problem.

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 3:30 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:It is only right we give those people food.

If they aren't given food, they will struggle to buy their fags and booze.

People can afford fags and booze, not when they have to exist on £70 a week, that would be impossible.

by Dagenham Monologues Fri Feb 21, 2014 4:20 pm

Look at white Dee she seemed fine to me indeed she never had a f@g out of her hands.
Those who live of the state all the time and who are fit and well are theives pure and simple. They care little for anyone but themselves and make the lives of workers really hard as they have to pay the benefits whilst doing without themselves.

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 4:26 pm

56kevins wrote:Look at white Dee she seemed fine to me indeed she never had a f@g out of her hands.
Those who live of the state all the time and who are fit and well are theives pure and simple. They care little for anyone but themselves and make the lives of workers really hard as they have to pay the benefits whilst doing without themselves.

That program wasn't representative of the majority of the people who have to rely of food banks, many of whom are in work, on minimum wage etc.

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 4:30 pm

lol andy knows all those personally who have used the food banks , he has obvioulsy seen them smoking and drinking alcohol, jealous arse or what, andy you should really give up your job and claim benefits you would be a lot happier the jealousy must be eating you up

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 4:32 pm

“Just think of all the proud achievements they’ve notched up in just 32 months: a six-fold increase in people relying on food banks [...] and the longest fall in living standards for nearly a century.” Owen Jones, The Independent, January 7 2013
NB: This article was updated on January 15, 2013.
Halfway through the government’s term in office, a number of papers published their report card of the Coalition’s achievements so far. Some delivered positive verdicts; others, like Owen Jones in the Independent, were less enthusiastic.
We picked two claims from Jones’ article which we felt stood out, in that they were striking and fairly specific. According to Jones, there’s been “a six-fold increase in people relying on food banks” and “the longest fall in living standards for nearly a century.” Are things really so dire? Let’s find out.
The Trussel Trust started out in 1997 as a humanitarian initiative in Bulgaria, and launched its first UK food bank in Salisbury in 2004. Last month they published areport with a round-up of their work so far.
They’re the main source for Owen Jones’ claim on food banks, which was originally raised by Ed Miliband at PMQs on December 19:

“Is the Prime Minister as concerned as I am that there has been a sixfold increase in the last three years in the number of people relying on food banks?”

Are the numbers really so staggering?
According to the Trussel Trust, their foodbanks fed 128,697 people nationwide in the 2011-12 financial year, “100 per cent more than the previous year. Numbers fed by our foodbanks have risen by 397 per cent since 2008.”
They added,

“New foodbanks are opening at the rate of three a week and the number of people fed by foodbanks has doubled to almost 130,000 in the last year alone”

Leaving aside the fact that a rise by 397 per cent signifies a five-fold increase, not a six-fold one, it’s important to note that since this increase can be traced to 2008, it is at least in part attributable to the Labour government rather than just the Coalition, as one might infer from Jones’ article.
There is also a point to be made that this increase in the number of food banks doesn’t necessarily mean demand for food banks has grown at the same rate. It could be that the demand was always there, and we can explain the growth in food banks as a drive to respond to it. Since 2004 The Trussell Trust has launched over 250 foodbanks nationwide.
Here is how the Trussel Trust illustrated their growth since the launch of their foodbank network:

Dr Rowan Williams: Food bank users are not scroungers and this isn't a hiccup - it’s a serious crisis FoodBank

In 2005/6, the Trussel Trust foodbanks fed 2,814 people. Does this mean there were only 2,814 people in need of food banks in the whole of the UK? Unlikely.
However, this is not to say the demand for food banks has not grown. In its first year, Salisbury foodbank fed 600 people. We asked the Trussel Trust how many people relied on the Salisbury bank last year. It was 4000, a 566% (more than six-fold) increase in the six years. Of course this could also mean that awareness of the foodbank has grown since then. Once again, at least 5 years of the growth were overseen by a Labour administration. This point is lost in Owen Jones’s article.
On to the second claim.
We contacted Owen Jones to ask for his source for the following claim: [we have witnessed] “the longest fall in living standards for nearly a century.” The Independent’s columnist pointed us to research published by the Resolution Foundation which in 2011 carried out an analysis on wages based on data from the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Office for National Statistics.

“After controlling for inflation (in constant 2010 prices), median wages of full-time employees were £25,570 in 2003 and will be £25,559 in 2015.”

Two years ago – eight months into the coalition’s rule – the then Bank of Engand governor Mervyn King commented on the findings saying this is “the most prolonged fall in living standards for more than 80 years.”

It’s worth pointing out that the Resolution Foundation’s findings were based on 2010 wages and inflation figures, so it’s not fair to attribute the projected outcome to two and a half years of coalition government, as opposed to the combined effect of Labour and coalition policies as well as the global financial situation.
In fact, the Resolution Foundation itself found that “official figures show that wages had already stopped growing as far back as 2003,” seven whole years before the coalition took power.
Though we can’t account for Owen Jones’ overall assessment of the coalition’s track record, there is data for the two claims we selected at the beginning of this article. Unfortunately, most of it relates to the period before the coalition government was elected. In fact, both phenomena – the growth of food bank numbers and the plunge in living standards – took hold during the Labour administration.
If you have seen any other coalition report cards claims that you’d like us to check, please get in touch.
Update: The University of Bristol and the CEPS/INSTEAD Research Institutepresented a research paper on food poverty to the EU Task Force on Material Deprivation. Using data published by the Eurostat on Income and Living Conditions, the task force was able to outline the ”inability to afford a meal with meat, chicken, fish (or vegetarian equivalent) every second day” in various European countries since 2005.
The dataset relating to the United Kingdom shows the number of families that are unable to afford certain types of food:
https://fullfact.org/factchecks/food_poverty_living_standards-28692

So it started under Labour then, again if there is more facilities for people to access them more people are going to take advantage, that does not necessarily mean more people have started to need food banks, just more people now have access. Thus to claim the benefits cuts are to blame is very much unfounded and even more to the point this crisis started under Labour

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 4:34 pm

Maine coon lover wrote:lol andy knows all those personally who have used the food banks , he has obvioulsy seen them smoking and drinking alcohol, jealous arse or what, andy you should really give up your job and claim benefits you would a lot happier the jealousy must be eating you up

Some people must be stupid if they think that £70 can stretch to paying all of your bills, and still being able to afford alcohol and cigs, that Dee was on ESA i think.

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 4:35 pm

It's wonderful that the Conservatives have rallied the charities and got them to open enough food banks!

Well done Dave, and boo to Labour, who just let them all starve!

Smile

by Dagenham Monologues Fri Feb 21, 2014 4:39 pm

Catman wrote:
56kevins wrote:Look at white Dee she seemed fine to me indeed she never had a f@g out of her hands.
Those who live of the state all the time and who are fit and well are theives pure and simple. They care little for anyone but themselves and make the lives of workers really hard as they have to pay the benefits whilst doing without themselves.

That program wasn't representative of the majority of the people who have to rely of food banks, many of whom are in work, on minimum wage etc.

Indeed and the most important words were "At work" I have nothing but sympathy for them. If they weren't taxed so much then they would have more left to spend on food. They are taxed so much because we have White Dees.

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 4:39 pm

Catman wrote:
Maine coon lover wrote:lol andy knows all those personally who have used the food banks , he has obvioulsy seen them smoking and drinking alcohol, jealous arse or what, andy you should really give up your job and claim benefits you would a lot happier the jealousy must be eating you up

Some people must be stupid if they think that £70 can stretch to paying all of your bills, and still being able to afford alcohol and cigs, that Dee was on ESA i think.

But you never explain why there is people that do manage to>
You only get £70 if you are living in a shared accommodation where someone else is also paying the bills.

Again I am not denying there are genuine people out there struggling and mainly in my view due to personal debt, for what ever reason through their own fault or unforeseen circumstances. The reality is though more people are now back in work and many people were out of work under labour in the last few years with relatively few food banks. I am sure if the same number had been in operation at the time of Labour then the numbers would be exactly the same using them and the Coalition has not decreased th minimum amounts from Labour they have only capped the maximum amounts, which is very different

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 4:43 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
Catman wrote:

Some people must be stupid if they think that £70 can stretch to paying all of your bills, and still being able to afford alcohol and cigs, that Dee was on ESA i think.

But you never explain why there is people that do manage to>
You only get £70 if you are living in a shared accommodation where someone else is also paying the bills.

Again I am not denying there are genuine people out there struggling and mainly in my view due to personal debt, for what ever reason through their own fault or unforeseen circumstances. The reality is though more people are now back in work and many people were out of work under labour in the last few years with relatively few food banks. I am sure if the same number had been in operation at the time of Labour then the numbers would be exactly the same using them and the Coalition has not decreased th minimum amounts from Labour they have only capped the maximum amounts, which is very different

That's rubbish.
You can live in a one bed flat on your own, JSA is £70 a week.
You keep on repeating the same old bullshit, but the facts tell a completely different story.

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 4:47 pm

Catman wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

But you never explain why there is people that do manage to>
You only get £70 if you are living in a shared accommodation where someone else is also paying the bills.

Again I am not denying there are genuine people out there struggling and mainly in my view due to personal debt, for what ever reason through their own fault or unforeseen circumstances. The reality is though more people are now back in work and many people were out of work under labour in the last few years with relatively few food banks. I am sure if the same number had been in operation at the time of Labour then the numbers would be exactly the same using them and the Coalition has not decreased th minimum amounts from Labour they have only capped the maximum amounts, which is very different

That's rubbish.
You can live in a one bed flat on your own, JSA is £70 a week.
You keep on repeating the same old bullshit, but the facts tell a completely different story.

Its not rubbish, people on benefits under labour on the minimum amount is the same with the coalition, something you clearly do not understand.
If you live in a one bed and claiming JSA you can also claim housing benefit if you live on your own
You though cannot prove a thing I am saying is wrong and just deny it, that is not any counter at all.
Again people were far worse off in the last years under labour, the same millions in debt still are, though more people now are back in work. The reality is like I say if there was as much access to food banks as there is now then people would have been using them

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 4:48 pm

There are few people who only get the minimum amount because one benefit leads to more benefits.

But they will only ever quote the smallest amount, to garner sympathy.

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 4:50 pm

Correct Andy it is the guilt argument neglecting the fact these people on that amount were in the exact same position under Labour

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 4:52 pm

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 4:53 pm

You still have to buy food and pay all of your bills on £70 a week.
Housing benefit just keeps a roof over your head.
The facts show that food bank use is increasing as a direct result to government policies, benefit sanctions, delays in benefit payments etc.

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 4:53 pm

Catman wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

But you never explain why there is people that do manage to>
You only get £70 if you are living in a shared accommodation where someone else is also paying the bills.

Again I am not denying there are genuine people out there struggling and mainly in my view due to personal debt, for what ever reason through their own fault or unforeseen circumstances. The reality is though more people are now back in work and many people were out of work under labour in the last few years with relatively few food banks. I am sure if the same number had been in operation at the time of Labour then the numbers would be exactly the same using them and the Coalition has not decreased th minimum amounts from Labour they have only capped the maximum amounts, which is very different

That's rubbish.
You can live in a one bed flat on your own, JSA is £70 a week.
You keep on repeating the same old bullshit, but the facts tell a completely different story.

Yes and you never explain why it is not possible to live on it.

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 4:54 pm

Catman wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Its not rubbish, people on benefits under labour on the minimum amount is the same with the coalition, something you clearly do not understand.
If you live in a one bed and claiming JSA you can also claim housing benefit if you live on your own
You though cannot prove a thing I am saying is wrong and just deny it, that is not any counter at all.
Again people were far worse off in the last years under labour, the same millions in debt still are, though more people now are back in work. The reality is like I say if there was as much access to food banks as there is now then people would have been using them

Why is it not possible to buy food and pay bills on £70?

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 4:56 pm

sphinx wrote:
Catman wrote:

That's rubbish.
You can live in a one bed flat on your own, JSA is £70 a week.
You keep on repeating the same old bullshit, but the facts tell a completely different story.

Yes and you never explain why it is not possible to live on it.

Food prices, cost of living etc.
It's just common sense.

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 4:57 pm

Catman wrote:You still have to buy food and pay all of your bills on £70 a week.
Housing benefit just keeps a roof over your head.
The facts show that food bank use is increasing as a direct result to government policies, benefit sanctions, delays in benefit payments etc.

As they did under Labour, explain how it was different under Labour if they earn the same amount then as they do now?

That means your argument is flawed unless you condemn the amount under both?

There is no evidence that it has, again there is evidence to show if access had been there under Labour as many people would have been using them, being the fact vastly more people were out of work, something you also neglect to mention.

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 4:59 pm

Catman wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Yes and you never explain why it is not possible to live on it.

Food prices, cost of living etc.
It's just common sense.

No phil it is not.

I know enough people who have lived on JSA in one bedroom flats and paid their bills, bought their food and had enough left over for the odd pint and smoke.

I see people do it and want to know why you think it cannot be done.

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:00 pm

sphinx wrote:
Catman wrote:

Food prices, cost of living etc.
It's just common sense.

No phil it is not.

I know enough people who have lived on JSA in one bedroom flats and paid their bills, bought their food and had enough left over for the odd pint and smoke.

I see people do it and want to know why you think it cannot be done.

Complete rot.

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:01 pm

That is not a counter Catman but just denial, oh well let me know when you have some answers

Thanks

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:03 pm

PhilDidge wrote:That is not a counter Catman but just denial, oh well let me know when you have some answers

Thanks

I already said, food prices, cost of living etc.

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:03 pm

I too know people who do it and live quite well.

I'm sure most people know others who are on benefits.

Some people bleeting think they are arguing with rich people who only associate with Royalty!

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:04 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:I too know people who do it and live quite well.

I'm sure most people know others who are on benefits.

Some people bleeting think they are arguing with rich people who only associate with Royalty!

Only in the imaginations of the RW.

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:07 pm

Catman wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:That is not a counter Catman but just denial, oh well let me know when you have some answers

Thanks

I already said, food prices, cost of living etc.

Really that did not answer the points raised to you, try again, you still neglect to answer why people can manage?

Also read again:

In fact, the Resolution Foundation itself found that “official figures show that wages had already stopped growing as far back as 2003,” seven whole years before the coalition took power.

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:09 pm

Catman wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:That is not a counter Catman but just denial, oh well let me know when you have some answers

Thanks

I already said, food prices, cost of living etc.

So, as didge has said - you receive the same amount (has the £70 gone up in the last 4 yrs) as you did under Labour - at what point did it become untenable?

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:17 pm

Catman wrote:
sphinx wrote:

No phil it is not.

I know enough people who have lived on JSA in one bedroom flats and paid their bills, bought their food and had enough left over for the odd pint and smoke.

I see people do it and want to know why you think it cannot be done.

Complete rot.

Phil you cannot just declare things complete rot - you have to show your workings

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:18 pm

Catman wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:That is not a counter Catman but just denial, oh well let me know when you have some answers

Thanks

I already said, food prices, cost of living etc.

WHAT food prices?

WHAT cost of living?

Give us some figures and tell us where you are getting them from.

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:20 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:
Catman wrote:

I already said, food prices, cost of living etc.

So, as didge has said - you receive the same amount (has the £70 gone up in the last 4 yrs) as you did under Labour - at what point did it become untenable?

Actually 4 years ago JSA was just over £65 - it is now just over £71.

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:20 pm

sphinx wrote:
Catman wrote:

I already said, food prices, cost of living etc.

WHAT food prices?

WHAT cost of living?

Give us some figures and tell us where you are getting them from.

Probably from the supermarket.

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:21 pm

sphinx wrote:
Catman wrote:

I already said, food prices, cost of living etc.

WHAT food prices?

WHAT cost of living?

Give us some figures and tell us where you are getting them from.

The thing is his argument just does not make any sense, those on the lower incomes now have less tax to pay, those on income support have not really changed, the only thing is there is now an upper limit on benefits, vastly more people were out of work thus vastly more people claiming JSA, thus if there was access to more food banks under Labour they would have been utilized, as many more were in this bracket

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:22 pm

sphinx wrote:
Catman wrote:

Complete rot.

Phil you cannot just declare things complete rot - you have to show your workings

You haven't shown any workings, all you've provided is assumptions. Rolling Eyes

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:26 pm

Catman wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Phil you cannot just declare things complete rot - you have to show your workings

You haven't shown any workings, all you've provided is assumptions.

Really, are you saying more people are claiming JSA now than under the last years of Labour?

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:30 pm

Oh and also to be fair unemployment benefits need to be considered as percentage of average wage - 1971 to 1976 they tended to hang around 20% then fell steadily as a percentage under both Labour and Conservative governments reaching around 10.5% in 2009 since when they have increased very slightly to just over 12%.

There are proper figures somewhere if someone wants to find them.

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:31 pm

sphinx wrote:
BigAndy9 wrote:

So, as didge has said - you receive the same amount (has the £70 gone up in the last 4 yrs) as you did under Labour - at what point did it become untenable?

Actually 4 years ago JSA was just over £65 - it is now just over £71.

Not a bad little increase.

I should think other benefits have increased too.

With the advent of Aldi and Lidl, we're all better off - even us workers who have had no increases.

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:34 pm

Catman wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

But you never explain why there is people that do manage to>
You only get £70 if you are living in a shared accommodation where someone else is also paying the bills.

Again I am not denying there are genuine people out there struggling and mainly in my view due to personal debt, for what ever reason through their own fault or unforeseen circumstances. The reality is though more people are now back in work and many people were out of work under labour in the last few years with relatively few food banks. I am sure if the same number had been in operation at the time of Labour then the numbers would be exactly the same using them and the Coalition has not decreased th minimum amounts from Labour they have only capped the maximum amounts, which is very different

That's rubbish.
You can live in a one bed flat on your own, JSA is £70 a week.
You keep on repeating the same old bullshit, but the facts tell a completely different story.

agree catman, £70 is for anyone i think over 25 to live on . I know this as my friends son is on jsa and he lives in a flat and has to pay all his bills out of that money .
I'ts impossible to live on 70 quid a week unless you go to all the relatives for food if you have any that is .

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:35 pm

What is the total income going in to your household, Mr Catman?

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:36 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Actually 4 years ago JSA was just over £65 - it is now just over £71.

Not a bad little increase.

I should think other benefits have increased too.

With the advent of Aldi and Lidl, we're all better off - even us workers who have had no increases.

minimum wage was increased form £6.19 to £6.31 an hour October 2013 :D

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:36 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:What is the total income going in to your household, Mr Catman?

what's yours ?

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:39 pm

Catman wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Phil you cannot just declare things complete rot - you have to show your workings

You haven't shown any workings, all you've provided is assumptions.

Gas Electric and water for my 3 bed house with 4 people come to £30 a week - so it would be less for a single person.

With people serving up balanced diets for an adult and 2 children for £1 a day (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2552956/Now-thats-credit-munch-Formerly-homeless-mother-s-recipes-feed-1-day-including-4p-pancakes-2p-tomato-scones.html) I think it reasonable to say £15 to £20 is enough for food.

That leaves at least £20 to £25 a week for other things.

So those are my assumptions - now will you explain yours that £70 is not enough.

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:43 pm

Maine coon lover wrote:
Catman wrote:

That's rubbish.
You can live in a one bed flat on your own, JSA is £70 a week.
You keep on repeating the same old bullshit, but the facts tell a completely different story.

agree catman, £70 is for anyone i think over 25 to live on . I know this as my friends son is on jsa and he lives in a flat and has to pay all his bills out of that money .
I'ts impossible to live on 70 quid a week unless you go to all the relatives for food if you have any that is .

Incorrect as people do live off this, a person on that alone does not require other benefits do they, if they needed other benefits they can obtain them, so why is it other people can manage on this money?

The situation has not changed under each government except a cap on the highest amounts not the lowest.

Again people think if they are only on JSA they are on there own with no support when in fact if they were they would thus be entitled to other benefits

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:54 pm

sphinx wrote:
Catman wrote:

You haven't shown any workings, all you've provided is assumptions.

Gas Electric and water for my 3 bed house with 4 people come to £30 a week - so it would be less for a single person.

With people serving up balanced diets for an adult and 2 children for £1 a day (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2552956/Now-thats-credit-munch-Formerly-homeless-mother-s-recipes-feed-1-day-including-4p-pancakes-2p-tomato-scones.html) I think it reasonable to say £15 to £20 is enough for food.

That leaves at least £20 to £25 a week for other things.

So those are my assumptions - now will you explain yours that £70 is not enough.

what about tv licence , road tax, petrol, MOT , home insurance ?

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:56 pm

Maine coon lover wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Gas Electric and water for my 3 bed house with 4 people come to £30 a week - so it would be less for a single person.

With people serving up balanced diets for an adult and 2 children for £1 a day (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2552956/Now-thats-credit-munch-Formerly-homeless-mother-s-recipes-feed-1-day-including-4p-pancakes-2p-tomato-scones.html) I think it reasonable to say £15 to £20 is enough for food.

That leaves at least £20 to £25 a week for other things.

So those are my assumptions - now will you explain yours that £70 is not enough.

what about tv licence , road tax, petrol, MOT , home insurance ?

TV licence-luxery, if you cannot afford then what should you do?

Car-Luxery if on JSA, if you cannot afford to run, what should you do?

Home insurance, has cover for when you lose your job

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 6:06 pm

Maine coon lover wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Gas Electric and water for my 3 bed house with 4 people come to £30 a week - so it would be less for a single person.

With people serving up balanced diets for an adult and 2 children for £1 a day (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2552956/Now-thats-credit-munch-Formerly-homeless-mother-s-recipes-feed-1-day-including-4p-pancakes-2p-tomato-scones.html) I think it reasonable to say £15 to £20 is enough for food.

That leaves at least £20 to £25 a week for other things.

So those are my assumptions - now will you explain yours that £70 is not enough.

what about tv licence , road tax, petrol, MOT , home insurance ?

Well on a personal level I would say sod the TV because I dont watch one and its definitely not a necessity but I accept that I am not usual in that respect - and I also understand legally you may be said to require one if you have a device that connects to the internet - so thats under £4 a week.

A car is definitely not a necessity for a single unemployed adult.A push bike is adequate enough to cover reasonable distances within reasonable times. (and no I dont give a toss where they live - the whole thing with being being a single adult is you can move)

Home insurance? Again that is not a necessity for a single unemployed adult. I mean honestly are you suggesting that someone should go without food or heating so they can insure goods that can be replaced second hand for less than a years premium?

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 6:38 pm

sphinx wrote:
Maine coon lover wrote:

what about tv licence , road tax, petrol, MOT , home insurance ?

Well on a personal level I would say sod the TV because I dont watch one and its definitely not a necessity but I accept that I am not usual in that respect - and I also understand legally you may be said to require one if you have a device that connects to the internet - so thats under £4 a week.

A car is definitely not a necessity for a single unemployed adult.A push bike is adequate enough to cover reasonable distances within reasonable times. (and no I dont give a toss where they live - the whole thing with being being a single adult is you can move)

Home insurance? Again that is not a necessity for a single unemployed adult. I mean honestly are you suggesting that someone should go without food or heating so they can insure goods that can be replaced second hand for less than a years premium?

a lot of jobs require you to drive now so keeping a car on the road is necessary for interviews and the possibilty of getting a job, home insurance is required by mortgage companies .

Internet is going to be a requirement universal credits expect those on jsa to be searching the interenet for 35 hours a week .

by Guest Fri Feb 21, 2014 6:40 pm

Maine coon lover wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Well on a personal level I would say sod the TV because I dont watch one and its definitely not a necessity but I accept that I am not usual in that respect - and I also understand legally you may be said to require one if you have a device that connects to the internet - so thats under £4 a week.

A car is definitely not a necessity for a single unemployed adult.A push bike is adequate enough to cover reasonable distances within reasonable times. (and no I dont give a toss where they live - the whole thing with being being a single adult is you can move)

Home insurance? Again that is not a necessity for a single unemployed adult. I mean honestly are you suggesting that someone should go without food or heating so they can insure goods that can be replaced second hand for less than a years premium?

a lot of jobs require you to drive now so keeping a car on the road is necessary for interviews and the possibilty of getting a job, home insurance is required by mortgage companies .

Internet is going to be a requirement universal credits expect those on jsa to be searching the interenet for 35 hours a week .

who earns £70 a week and needs to drive to get to that job, that would be £2 an hour, that is not minimum wage

Plenty of jobs local also

by Sponsored content