Well you would have to try to shut lots of charities down, because their all saying the same kind of things, and they are the people on the frontline not some minister who just does like what he hears. Would look well trying to silence age uk,
They are not the free thinking arbiters of morality you think they are. Often those who make these calls have vested interest in upscaling what is a small problem, often paid enormous salaries from the charitable contribution pot.
If we did end up with lots of deaths of poor people through malnutrition and starvation, it would just be considered a "cost saving" to the taxpayer and the just thing to do to cleanse lots of poor people from the UK.
I suspect Iain Duncan Smith wants the end of foodbanks, but not in the way most of us do through creating jobs, better quality of life and a living wage.
It was a rhetorical question sorry. Of course the UK is not on the verge of famine. Just making the point that food banks are unnecessary and politically motivated.
It was a rhetorical question sorry. Of course the UK is not on the verge of famine. Just making the point that food banks are unnecessary and politically motivated.
How can you say that food banks are not necessary? Maybe not for you, but there are plenty of people out there who do need them.
They are not the free thinking arbiters of morality you think they are. Often those who make these calls have vested interest in upscaling what is a small problem, often paid enormous salaries from the charitable contribution pot.
Yes of course they do, pointing out when their is problems is not making a mountain out of a mole hill but one of the best things people and charities can do is use the FOI act and it does show when there is problems. Or don't you believe that the government should answer to the general public, and should be more like a dictatorship
It was a rhetorical question sorry. Of course the UK is not on the verge of famine. Just making the point that food banks are unnecessary and politically motivated.
Because you and IDS say that food banks are not necessary, does not mean they are not needed or are politically motivated
They are not the free thinking arbiters of morality you think they are. Often those who make these calls have vested interest in upscaling what is a small problem, often paid enormous salaries from the charitable contribution pot.
Exactly. That's how charities, NGOs and other pressure groups operate. Their funding, public support and whole raison d'etre would collapse immediately if they ever said "Actually, everything is fine". It's in their interests to make every situation sound as bad as possible.
Should we bankroll such people and incentivise them to reproduce? Or should we allow them their naturally selective fete?
If we go down that road, we might as well just stop all public services now. Don't rescue people from fires as they were stupid and caused the fire. Don't take them to hospital after that traffic accident because they should have learned to drive properly. You can apply blame to the victim in almost any circumstance or you can just get on with helping people when they need it.
The Trussell Trust is, of course, correct in asking for a meeting with Duncan Smith as this is an escalating crisis that is already affecting huge and increasing numbers of people. Of course, Duncan Smith is wrong both in his latest rant and his refusal to meet the Trussell Trust to try and actually stop this crisis.
There are of course many reasons for this crisis. Some people who are now forced to use food banks will only have themselves to blame (many will not) due to poor money management or overspending, but does that mean that they do not need our compassion and support? Of course not (at least that is what any decent person will think).
Obviously this compassion and support should consist not only of immediate support via the food parcels, but practical help re cooking and budgeting skills (I have never understood why these things are not taught as compulsory subjects in schools).
Duncan Smith has shown on numerous occasions that he lacks both the compassion and competence to deal with this problem. His continuing refusal to acknowledge that his welfare cuts are part of the cause of this issue flies in the face of what the people at the sharp end are saying. Job sanctions and delays in paying benefits are commonly highlighted as being a significant part of the problem. Citizens Advice Chief Executive, Gillian Guy was spot on when she said:
Foodbanks have no place in modern Britain. Millions of families are facing a perfect storm of pressures on their budgets. The combined impact of welfare upheaval, cuts to public spending, low wages and the high cost of living are putting unbearable pressure on many households, forcing them to seek emergency help putting food on the table.
Duncan Smith needs to pull his head out of the sand and actually try to do something constructive. Sadly food banks will always be needed but things will continue to get worse if nothing is done to address the problem.
The Trussell Trust is all part of the same corporate movement that want to privatise social security. They include the Shaftsbury partnership and unum/atos as well. Starting back in 1985 as I posted an article and information about not long ago.
The Shaftesbury Partnership
The Shaftesbury Partnership is a social business whose mission is to create and inspire trailblazing social reforms that empower communities by tackling disadvantage and generating opportunity. We do this through our values: bold ideas, excellent people, exemplary execution, and rapid scaling. The sectors that we work in are defined by entrenched disadvantage that is caused by market failures, systemic flaws and a prevalent risk aversion that prevents innovation or widespread adoption. In order to tackle these market failures our operational models bring together stakeholders from every sector, linking delivery rooted in local communities with national partnerships that ensure effective scaling.
We are a social business intermediary and incubator, bringing together transformative ideas and entrepreneurial, high calibre individuals to create new social enterprises. These are designed using rigorous business analysis and sound financial models to ensure the highest levels of execution and maximum scale. We believe that scaling is essential in achieving the greatest possible social impact, and we are experts on social franchising and replication.
The Shaftesbury Partnership has launched a number of social enterprises in areas including employment, healthcare, reducing reoffending, faith communities and multiple and complex needs. We currently have a number of social ventures which are being scaled up or piloted, including FranchisingWorks, Nurse First, Social Business Partnership, and Retirement Transitions Initiative. We have also partnered up with UnLtd and ClearlySo to deliver the next three years of Big Venture Challenge. In addition, we have a pipeline of exciting new ventures and we are always very keen to explore new partnerships and opportunities.
History
The Shaftesbury Partnership was founded by Nat Wei in 2006, taking as inspiration the work and legacy of the great 19th Century Social Reformer, the 7th Earl of Shaftesbury. The proposition was simple – the only way to have lasting social impact is to build large organisations (social ventures) which understand the issues at system level and design their products, services and programmes accordingly.
Unum
The Unum "non-medical" approach, if given credence by Governments, can be easily sold to employers, who face similar challenges to those of Governments.
Unum is wary to undertake the "non-medical" assessments for Governments directly. Unum prefers companies like Atos, a software company relatively new to disability assessments, to undertake the assessments and take the criticism.
Unum prefers to sell to employers who bundle their Unum disability insurance including the "non-medical" assessment as another "benefit" to employees. UK contracts of employment are usually confidential. An employee loses benefits after changing employer. Most disabilities arise years after premiums have been paid and little attention is paid when the insurance is written that a "non-medical" assessment will decide eligibility for payment and that the assessment is wholly dependent on Unum policy at the time. In the UK, the widespread criticism of "Atos" assessments is beneficial to Unum as it undermines confidence in the state provision of disability benefits. Loss of confidence makes it easier to sell to employers.
The history of the work capability assessment provides some answers. In 1994, the Tory government hired John LoCascio, second vice-president of giant US disability insurance company, Unum, to advise on reducing the numbers successfully claiming IB. He joined the "medical evaluation group". Another key figure in the group was Mansel Aylward. They devised a stringent "all work test". Approved doctors were trained in Unum's approach to claims management. The rise in IB claimants came to a halt. However, it did not reduce the rising numbers of claimants with mental health problems. The gateway to benefit needed tightening up even more.
Don't be fooled in to thinking the charities set up are purely to help the poor and vulnerable in society, they are all part of the corporate replacement for social care. Just as care homes went private, as hospitals become more and more involved with private interests, as job seeking/training has been farmed out to private individuals so the rest will be in due course. Why do you think they started 'workplace pensions'? Is that any different a concept to National Insurance? It's private, that's the important bit and paves the way to drop the state pension in the fullness of time. Tory Governments treat the country as a cash cow for themselves, their chums and donors. New labour carried it on as well, the only hope is that the next party to govern will stop the corporate largess or they will bleed the country and it's population dry.
Smith is only concerned with not getting the blame:
Duncan Smith began his reply by criticising the "political messaging of your organisation", which "despite claiming to be nonpartisan" had "repeatedly sought to link the growth in your network to welfare reform". He said his department's record in processing benefit claims had improved and should do so further with the introduction of universal credit.
He rejected any suggestion that the government was to blame. "I strongly refute this claim and would politely ask you to stop scaremongering in this way. I understand that a feature of your business model must require you to continuously achieve publicity, but I'm concerned that you are now seeking to do this by making your political opposition to welfare reform overtly clear."
I'm beginning to think he was specifically chosen to be the fall guy and his arrogance and lack of concern for the less fortunate does exactly what the Tory party wanted. I suspect he thinks he got the gig through merit, I suspect they were glad he wanted the job. hence him remaining there after all that has gone on with the DWP. A rather unintelligent bully doing what was required who can be safely blamed for all the fallout. The problem is, by the time they are gone, the damage will have been done. Scorched earth policy on welfare, classy...and intentional!
The Trussell Trust is all part of the same corporate movement that want to privatise social security. They include the Shaftsbury partnership and unum/atos as well. Starting back in 1985 as I posted an article and information about not long ago.
The Shaftesbury Partnership
History
The Shaftesbury Partnership was founded by Nat Wei in 2006, taking as inspiration the work and legacy of the great 19th Century Social Reformer, the 7th Earl of Shaftesbury. The proposition was simple – the only way to have lasting social impact is to build large organisations (social ventures) which understand the issues at system level and design their products, services and programmes accordingly.
Unum
The Unum "non-medical" approach, if given credence by Governments, can be easily sold to employers, who face similar challenges to those of Governments.
Unum is wary to undertake the "non-medical" assessments for Governments directly. Unum prefers companies like Atos, a software company relatively new to disability assessments, to undertake the assessments and take the criticism.
Unum prefers to sell to employers who bundle their Unum disability insurance including the "non-medical" assessment as another "benefit" to employees. UK contracts of employment are usually confidential. An employee loses benefits after changing employer. Most disabilities arise years after premiums have been paid and little attention is paid when the insurance is written that a "non-medical" assessment will decide eligibility for payment and that the assessment is wholly dependent on Unum policy at the time. In the UK, the widespread criticism of "Atos" assessments is beneficial to Unum as it undermines confidence in the state provision of disability benefits. Loss of confidence makes it easier to sell to employers.
The history of the work capability assessment provides some answers. In 1994, the Tory government hired John LoCascio, second vice-president of giant US disability insurance company, Unum, to advise on reducing the numbers successfully claiming IB. He joined the "medical evaluation group". Another key figure in the group was Mansel Aylward. They devised a stringent "all work test". Approved doctors were trained in Unum's approach to claims management. The rise in IB claimants came to a halt. However, it did not reduce the rising numbers of claimants with mental health problems. The gateway to benefit needed tightening up even more.
Don't be fooled in to thinking the charities set up are purely to help the poor and vulnerable in society, they are all part of the corporate replacement for social care. Just as care homes went private, as hospitals become more and more involved with private interests, as job seeking/training has been farmed out to private individuals so the rest will be in due course. Why do you think they started 'workplace pensions'? Is that any different a concept to National Insurance? It's private, that's the important bit and paves the way to drop the state pension in the fullness of time. Tory Governments treat the country as a cash cow for themselves, their chums and donors. New labour carried it on as well, the only hope is that the next party to govern will stop the corporate largess or they will bleed the country and it's population dry.
Great post. Unemployment and poverty have become " commodities" to be exploited by the corporates
I think this is where a lot of people have a problem with the Tories. A lot of people believe that cuts have to be made, but it's the lack of acknowledgement, denial, of the existence of struggling people that gets many.
The Trussell Trust is all part of the same corporate movement that want to privatise social security. They include the Shaftsbury partnership and unum/atos as well. Starting back in 1985 as I posted an article and information about not long ago.
The Shaftesbury Partnership
History
The Shaftesbury Partnership was founded by Nat Wei in 2006, taking as inspiration the work and legacy of the great 19th Century Social Reformer, the 7th Earl of Shaftesbury. The proposition was simple – the only way to have lasting social impact is to build large organisations (social ventures) which understand the issues at system level and design their products, services and programmes accordingly.
Unum
The Unum "non-medical" approach, if given credence by Governments, can be easily sold to employers, who face similar challenges to those of Governments.
Unum is wary to undertake the "non-medical" assessments for Governments directly. Unum prefers companies like Atos, a software company relatively new to disability assessments, to undertake the assessments and take the criticism.
Unum prefers to sell to employers who bundle their Unum disability insurance including the "non-medical" assessment as another "benefit" to employees. UK contracts of employment are usually confidential. An employee loses benefits after changing employer. Most disabilities arise years after premiums have been paid and little attention is paid when the insurance is written that a "non-medical" assessment will decide eligibility for payment and that the assessment is wholly dependent on Unum policy at the time. In the UK, the widespread criticism of "Atos" assessments is beneficial to Unum as it undermines confidence in the state provision of disability benefits. Loss of confidence makes it easier to sell to employers.
The history of the work capability assessment provides some answers. In 1994, the Tory government hired John LoCascio, second vice-president of giant US disability insurance company, Unum, to advise on reducing the numbers successfully claiming IB. He joined the "medical evaluation group". Another key figure in the group was Mansel Aylward. They devised a stringent "all work test". Approved doctors were trained in Unum's approach to claims management. The rise in IB claimants came to a halt. However, it did not reduce the rising numbers of claimants with mental health problems. The gateway to benefit needed tightening up even more.
Don't be fooled in to thinking the charities set up are purely to help the poor and vulnerable in society, they are all part of the corporate replacement for social care. Just as care homes went private, as hospitals become more and more involved with private interests, as job seeking/training has been farmed out to private individuals so the rest will be in due course. Why do you think they started 'workplace pensions'? Is that any different a concept to National Insurance? It's private, that's the important bit and paves the way to drop the state pension in the fullness of time. Tory Governments treat the country as a cash cow for themselves, their chums and donors. New labour carried it on as well, the only hope is that the next party to govern will stop the corporate largess or they will bleed the country and it's population dry.
Disgusting.
I knew nothing of the background of this group, but always felt that we were drifting toward a way of their apparent beliefs listed there.
It shows political acumen to not blunder into a cynical political trap so again he has done well.a charity will of course lose its registered charity status if it becomes politically involved.
If we didnt have these foodbanks would there be a famine in the uk?
Err, the whole thing is political, the need for these things are created by Smith's own crass political policies. How on earth can it not be political when the cause is wholly political.
You're just desperately trying to make excuses, feeble ones at that, for this widely detested oik, aren't you?
The Trussell Trust is all part of the same corporate movement that want to privatise social security. They include the Shaftsbury partnership and unum/atos as well. Starting back in 1985 as I posted an article and information about not long ago.
Hang on... I really cannot keep up with your conspiracy theories. So you are saying that the body that is helping to feed thousands and which is backed by the Church and Unions is actually a front for a body which wants to privatise social security?
If that's the case and they are such an evil body then surely IDS was right to refuse to meet them. Yet people here are complaining that he "snubbed" them.
Unless, of course, you believe IDS wants to privatise social security himself in which case you would have thought that he'd be eager to meet them.
Hang on... I really cannot keep up with your conspiracy theories. So you are saying that the body that is helping to feed thousands and which is backed by the Church and Unions is actually a front for a body which wants to privatise social security?
If that's the case and they are such an evil body then surely IDS was right to refuse to meet them. Yet people here are complaining that he "snubbed" them.
Unless, of course, you believe IDS wants to privatise social security himself in which case you would have thought that he'd be eager to meet them.
Financial cost to church Churches are expected to make a donation (currently £1500) towards Trussell Trust expenses supporting your project and a small annual donation towards the ongoing costs of the network support. Local project costs vary depending on the need to pay staff (P/T) and rent warehouse, cafe area. Estimated annual costs range from £10k to £18k including the donation above.
Non-Financial Requirements for church
Small office with IT and telephone
Food-store/warehouse – year 1 size of single garage
Cafe area – enough for 3 tables with 4 chairs, and small kitchen/coffee making area.
Initial team of about 12 volunteers, some with particular skills like fundraising, admin, coordination etc
As a community project we envisage this being provided by partnering with other local churches so Christians are seen to be working together and no one church has to bear the burden.
Seems expensive for churches to get involved with donated food and volunteers...
It's no conspiracy theory and I have no idea who wanted to see smith and why exactly. I suspect smith didn't want to accept any blame and would be implicated if he met them. They also might want funding towards it, but then they already receive funding by donations from local government. There was thread outlining it a while ago on here. Councils are donating their social support funds to the Trussell Trust as they are now seen to be the agents to go to rather than the council, who will just direct you to them anyway.
From OP link:
"To them, it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense to me either. We are deeply disappointed, but we are as open as ever to meet ministers in the hope that perhaps the new year will bring a fresh approach to what could so easily have been a fruitful dialogue." Mould also told Duncan Smith he is not opposed, for political reasons, to welfare reform.
Comments
They are not the free thinking arbiters of morality you think they are. Often those who make these calls have vested interest in upscaling what is a small problem, often paid enormous salaries from the charitable contribution pot.
It was a rhetorical question sorry. Of course the UK is not on the verge of famine. Just making the point that food banks are unnecessary and politically motivated.
Yes of course they do, pointing out when their is problems is not making a mountain out of a mole hill but one of the best things people and charities can do is use the FOI act and it does show when there is problems. Or don't you believe that the government should answer to the general public, and should be more like a dictatorship
Because you and IDS say that food banks are not necessary, does not mean they are not needed or are politically motivated
Good God - how often does it have to be explained to you that obesity is a sign of poverty?
Exactly. That's how charities, NGOs and other pressure groups operate. Their funding, public support and whole raison d'etre would collapse immediately if they ever said "Actually, everything is fine". It's in their interests to make every situation sound as bad as possible.
I think that was the point being made.
That lack of food is not a problem for those in "poverty".
If we go down that road, we might as well just stop all public services now. Don't rescue people from fires as they were stupid and caused the fire. Don't take them to hospital after that traffic accident because they should have learned to drive properly. You can apply blame to the victim in almost any circumstance or you can just get on with helping people when they need it.
I'm confused... so why are these people who are supposedly in "poverty" having to use food banks if it isn't due to "lack of food"?
Obesity is more prevalent in poor areas.
Why do you think that is?
There are of course many reasons for this crisis. Some people who are now forced to use food banks will only have themselves to blame (many will not) due to poor money management or overspending, but does that mean that they do not need our compassion and support? Of course not (at least that is what any decent person will think).
Obviously this compassion and support should consist not only of immediate support via the food parcels, but practical help re cooking and budgeting skills (I have never understood why these things are not taught as compulsory subjects in schools).
Duncan Smith has shown on numerous occasions that he lacks both the compassion and competence to deal with this problem. His continuing refusal to acknowledge that his welfare cuts are part of the cause of this issue flies in the face of what the people at the sharp end are saying. Job sanctions and delays in paying benefits are commonly highlighted as being a significant part of the problem. Citizens Advice Chief Executive, Gillian Guy was spot on when she said:
Duncan Smith needs to pull his head out of the sand and actually try to do something constructive. Sadly food banks will always be needed but things will continue to get worse if nothing is done to address the problem.
The level of smoking is also more prevalent in poor areas.
Why do you think that is?
People don't smoke because they are poor.
Because it's free.
There is not any evidence to prove this, because people cannot just turn up and get food.
The Shaftesbury Partnership
History
The Shaftesbury Partnership was founded by Nat Wei in 2006, taking as inspiration the work and legacy of the great 19th Century Social Reformer, the 7th Earl of Shaftesbury. The proposition was simple – the only way to have lasting social impact is to build large organisations (social ventures) which understand the issues at system level and design their products, services and programmes accordingly.
http://www.shaftesburypartnership.org/
That would be the Conservative Lord Nat Wei then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat_Wei,_Baron_Wei
Unum
The Unum "non-medical" approach, if given credence by Governments, can be easily sold to employers, who face similar challenges to those of Governments.
Unum is wary to undertake the "non-medical" assessments for Governments directly. Unum prefers companies like Atos, a software company relatively new to disability assessments, to undertake the assessments and take the criticism.
Unum prefers to sell to employers who bundle their Unum disability insurance including the "non-medical" assessment as another "benefit" to employees. UK contracts of employment are usually confidential. An employee loses benefits after changing employer. Most disabilities arise years after premiums have been paid and little attention is paid when the insurance is written that a "non-medical" assessment will decide eligibility for payment and that the assessment is wholly dependent on Unum policy at the time. In the UK, the widespread criticism of "Atos" assessments is beneficial to Unum as it undermines confidence in the state provision of disability benefits. Loss of confidence makes it easier to sell to employers.
http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatosbusinessunum.html
The history of the work capability assessment provides some answers. In 1994, the Tory government hired John LoCascio, second vice-president of giant US disability insurance company, Unum, to advise on reducing the numbers successfully claiming IB. He joined the "medical evaluation group". Another key figure in the group was Mansel Aylward. They devised a stringent "all work test". Approved doctors were trained in Unum's approach to claims management. The rise in IB claimants came to a halt. However, it did not reduce the rising numbers of claimants with mental health problems. The gateway to benefit needed tightening up even more.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/mar/17/epluribusunum
The well-trousered philanthropists: Tory party chums and food parcels for the poor
http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/mel-kelly/well-trousered-philanthropists-tory-party-chums-and-food-parcels-for-poor
Don't be fooled in to thinking the charities set up are purely to help the poor and vulnerable in society, they are all part of the corporate replacement for social care. Just as care homes went private, as hospitals become more and more involved with private interests, as job seeking/training has been farmed out to private individuals so the rest will be in due course. Why do you think they started 'workplace pensions'? Is that any different a concept to National Insurance? It's private, that's the important bit and paves the way to drop the state pension in the fullness of time. Tory Governments treat the country as a cash cow for themselves, their chums and donors. New labour carried it on as well, the only hope is that the next party to govern will stop the corporate largess or they will bleed the country and it's population dry.
Smith is only concerned with not getting the blame:
Duncan Smith began his reply by criticising the "political messaging of your organisation", which "despite claiming to be nonpartisan" had "repeatedly sought to link the growth in your network to welfare reform". He said his department's record in processing benefit claims had improved and should do so further with the introduction of universal credit.
He rejected any suggestion that the government was to blame. "I strongly refute this claim and would politely ask you to stop scaremongering in this way. I understand that a feature of your business model must require you to continuously achieve publicity, but I'm concerned that you are now seeking to do this by making your political opposition to welfare reform overtly clear."
I'm beginning to think he was specifically chosen to be the fall guy and his arrogance and lack of concern for the less fortunate does exactly what the Tory party wanted. I suspect he thinks he got the gig through merit, I suspect they were glad he wanted the job. hence him remaining there after all that has gone on with the DWP. A rather unintelligent bully doing what was required who can be safely blamed for all the fallout. The problem is, by the time they are gone, the damage will have been done. Scorched earth policy on welfare, classy...and intentional!
Great post. Unemployment and poverty have become " commodities" to be exploited by the corporates
Disgusting.
I knew nothing of the background of this group, but always felt that we were drifting toward a way of their apparent beliefs listed there.
Err, the whole thing is political, the need for these things are created by Smith's own crass political policies. How on earth can it not be political when the cause is wholly political.
You're just desperately trying to make excuses, feeble ones at that, for this widely detested oik, aren't you?
Hang on... I really cannot keep up with your conspiracy theories. So you are saying that the body that is helping to feed thousands and which is backed by the Church and Unions is actually a front for a body which wants to privatise social security?
If that's the case and they are such an evil body then surely IDS was right to refuse to meet them. Yet people here are complaining that he "snubbed" them.
Unless, of course, you believe IDS wants to privatise social security himself in which case you would have thought that he'd be eager to meet them.
Financial cost to church
Churches are expected to make a donation (currently £1500) towards Trussell Trust expenses supporting your project and a small annual donation towards the ongoing costs of the network support. Local project costs vary depending on the need to pay staff (P/T) and rent warehouse, cafe area. Estimated annual costs range from £10k to £18k including the donation above.
Non-Financial Requirements for church
Small office with IT and telephone
Food-store/warehouse – year 1 size of single garage
Cafe area – enough for 3 tables with 4 chairs, and small kitchen/coffee making area.
Initial team of about 12 volunteers, some with particular skills like fundraising, admin, coordination etc
As a community project we envisage this being provided by partnering with other local churches so Christians are seen to be working together and no one church has to bear the burden.
http://www.cuf.org.uk/resources-projects/ready-to-go/foodbanks
Seems expensive for churches to get involved with donated food and volunteers...
It's no conspiracy theory and I have no idea who wanted to see smith and why exactly. I suspect smith didn't want to accept any blame and would be implicated if he met them. They also might want funding towards it, but then they already receive funding by donations from local government. There was thread outlining it a while ago on here. Councils are donating their social support funds to the Trussell Trust as they are now seen to be the agents to go to rather than the council, who will just direct you to them anyway.
From OP link:
"To them, it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense to me either. We are deeply disappointed, but we are as open as ever to meet ministers in the hope that perhaps the new year will bring a fresh approach to what could so easily have been a fruitful dialogue." Mould also told Duncan Smith he is not opposed, for political reasons, to welfare reform.
So what does he want out of it then?
So why are so many churches joining? If they really want to help local people why don't they just setup their own food bank?
You tell me why the Trussell Trust has managed to corner the market in food banks? Maybe they had contacts in the right places to enable it...