So let me see if i can parse that very economical worstall tsk.
The Human Rights watch report accuses HMG of breaching her subjects’ treaty bound human right to food because it froze benefits and CPI has gone up.
CPI includes 10% food and non alcoholic drinks, but also fags and restaurants and alcohol and culture you know everyday stuff that hasn’t been found in international treaties since it was necessary to enforce Chinese subjects right to high grade Indian opium in the 19th Century.) plus of course utilities and others so a mixed bag.
So in using CPI Human RIghts Watch ignore that the cost of food went down in 2016 when benefits were frozen and went between negative and been very low since.
There’s still a case to be made that those families should have the money (about 600 700 quid a year per family they tell us) for all the stuff in the CPI basket but indeed somewhere between naughty and outrageous to link it to a breach of fundamental human rights, without actually measuring the cost of that thing that they have a right to.
So if food has stayed the same then these families will be still be able to afford their food as previous years. They still may buy less if they chose to substitute for the other things in the CPI that have definitely gone up though and all the more so if they’re getting food they don’t need to buy from private charitable food banks.
john 77
There are worse lies in the Report – picture of couple with their two small children leaving foodbank claiming that the benefit cap (set at the median household income) means that they cannot afford both food and rent. Well: how do the 49.99% of the population with lower incomes who do not use food banks manage to afford both food and rent?
Hallowed Be
J77
yes,. No reflection on the couple who would have felt obliged to say something to the person with a clipboard,,,it could even be a typo, either way it shouldn’t have made it in the report.
john 77
@ Hallowed Be
Yeah, the lie definitely came from the reporter/editor who must have known what the benefit cap was while the couple only knew what they had been told..
So let me see if i can parse that very economical worstall tsk.
The Human Rights watch report accuses HMG of breaching her subjects’ treaty bound human right to food because it froze benefits and CPI has gone up.
CPI includes 10% food and non alcoholic drinks, but also fags and restaurants and alcohol and culture you know everyday stuff that hasn’t been found in international treaties since it was necessary to enforce Chinese subjects right to high grade Indian opium in the 19th Century.) plus of course utilities and others so a mixed bag.
So in using CPI Human RIghts Watch ignore that the cost of food went down in 2016 when benefits were frozen and went between negative and been very low since.
There’s still a case to be made that those families should have the money (about 600 700 quid a year per family they tell us) for all the stuff in the CPI basket but indeed somewhere between naughty and outrageous to link it to a breach of fundamental human rights, without actually measuring the cost of that thing that they have a right to.
So if food has stayed the same then these families will be still be able to afford their food as previous years. They still may buy less if they chose to substitute for the other things in the CPI that have definitely gone up though and all the more so if they’re getting food they don’t need to buy from private charitable food banks.
There are worse lies in the Report – picture of couple with their two small children leaving foodbank claiming that the benefit cap (set at the median household income) means that they cannot afford both food and rent. Well: how do the 49.99% of the population with lower incomes who do not use food banks manage to afford both food and rent?
J77
yes,. No reflection on the couple who would have felt obliged to say something to the person with a clipboard,,,it could even be a typo, either way it shouldn’t have made it in the report.
@ Hallowed Be
Yeah, the lie definitely came from the reporter/editor who must have known what the benefit cap was while the couple only knew what they had been told..