Marcus Rashford - School Meals Vouchers Campaign
Discussion
Ian Geary said:
OldAndTired said:
The left thinks the state should be responsible for almost everything. The right believes in personal responsibility.
It’s easy to be on the left, because without any critical thinking all left wing policies appear “nice” but they are superficially “nice”. They cause unintended consequences which in the long run cause far bigger problems.
For example your statement “How can anyone not want to feed kiddies?” No one can argue with that. But that’s not a solution. It’s simply stating the “bleeding obvious”.
No one on the left or right wants to see kiddies go hungry. If you honestly think politically right minded people don’t care then that says far more about your own prejudices.
Parents should be responsible for feeding their children. And the current system is already in place to remove children from parents that neglect their basic responsibilities.
If you hand the responsibility of feeding children over to the state you simply create more demand for that “free” service and create a bigger problem.
We now have an online delivery service provided by supermarkets that wasn’t available 15 years ago. Instead of handing out all benefits in cash why not use a proportion to deliver set meal plans with the necessary ingredients to families in need and give them the tools to learn to cook?
Of course some families are so dysfunctional that will never work but that’s where social services step in and remove the kids.
I would like to see children at the end of their secondary school education being taught how to cook ten basic meals. They should not be able to leave school without passing this course.
Just throwing more tax payers money at a problem and shouting “tories are scum,they want children to starve” is childish and a refusal to entertain better long term, sustainable solutions.
There's a lot in there I would agree with, but as someone else pointed out: the care system really isn't a good place for kids to be. There's tonnes of data showing how poor their outcomes are. The idea social services can just appear like a fairy god mother and make everything ok is not how it is.It’s easy to be on the left, because without any critical thinking all left wing policies appear “nice” but they are superficially “nice”. They cause unintended consequences which in the long run cause far bigger problems.
For example your statement “How can anyone not want to feed kiddies?” No one can argue with that. But that’s not a solution. It’s simply stating the “bleeding obvious”.
No one on the left or right wants to see kiddies go hungry. If you honestly think politically right minded people don’t care then that says far more about your own prejudices.
Parents should be responsible for feeding their children. And the current system is already in place to remove children from parents that neglect their basic responsibilities.
If you hand the responsibility of feeding children over to the state you simply create more demand for that “free” service and create a bigger problem.
We now have an online delivery service provided by supermarkets that wasn’t available 15 years ago. Instead of handing out all benefits in cash why not use a proportion to deliver set meal plans with the necessary ingredients to families in need and give them the tools to learn to cook?
Of course some families are so dysfunctional that will never work but that’s where social services step in and remove the kids.
I would like to see children at the end of their secondary school education being taught how to cook ten basic meals. They should not be able to leave school without passing this course.
Just throwing more tax payers money at a problem and shouting “tories are scum,they want children to starve” is childish and a refusal to entertain better long term, sustainable solutions.
Frankly, people don't "care" enough. There's a huge shortage of foster carers, and often I think the emotional damage to the children is already too deep for foster carers to really address. Stopping it getting worse is often the best they can hope for.
And it's incredibly expensive! One "chaotic" family on a street could easily consume the entire streets' worth of council tax.
So really it has to be a joint approach of fixing the problem "now" via state intervention, and working with kids (ie parents to be) to get future generations on a stable footing.
My cousin has fostered several kids and adopted three. I’m incredibly close to him and all but one of he kids and I help out when I can.
From the post above you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and should stop embarrassing yourself. Those that need the care aren’t left or right. They are just in need,
They really don't do irony or self-awareness do they 
Tory MP who said Marcus Rashford should focus on his day job has a second job
Tory MP who said Marcus Rashford should focus on his day job has a second job
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: They really don't do irony or self-awareness do they
Tory MP who said Marcus Rashford should focus on his day job has a second job
Do you think she would feel any guilt if it was also pointed out to her that his work was for the benefit of others and not for £86 an hour like hers.Tory MP who said Marcus Rashford should focus on his day job has a second job
Say what you like about Boris, he's managed to make sleaze, corruption and hypocrisy almost a non-issue.
Countdown said:
Do you think she would feel any guilt if it was also pointed out to her that his work was for the benefit of others and not for £86 an hour like hers.
Say what you like about Boris, he's managed to make sleaze, corruption and hypocrisy almost a non-issue.
Honestly I doubt the self-awareness is even there.Say what you like about Boris, he's managed to make sleaze, corruption and hypocrisy almost a non-issue.
I suspect it's as simple as the lad did something to shame the Government so he must be criticised for it.
Not far off what you see on here.
heisthegaffer said:
Magic to see such a good contribution and a true role model.
Shame on the nay sayers and MPs who vote against providing against those in poverty.
He's come across as a decent bloke.Shame on the nay sayers and MPs who vote against providing against those in poverty.
Nevertheless, where are the parents in all this? Feeding their kids is primarily their responsibility, nobody else's.
Biggy Stardust said:
He's come across as a decent bloke.
Nevertheless, where are the parents in all this? Feeding their kids is primarily their responsibility, nobody else's.
So, given that some parents are feckless wastes of oxygen, what should we do if they don't carry out their responsibilities? Do we let the kids starve?Nevertheless, where are the parents in all this? Feeding their kids is primarily their responsibility, nobody else's.
Not sure if i said this earlier so apologies if repetition - making sure that kids aren't hungry at school is good for two reasons
1. It means they're not hungry
2. it means they learn more --> get (better) qualifications --> get (better) jobs --> don't need benefits --> are able to provide for their own kids
In short it helps to break the hereditary poverty cycle which is also linked to crime.
Countdown said:
Biggy Stardust said:
He's come across as a decent bloke.
Nevertheless, where are the parents in all this? Feeding their kids is primarily their responsibility, nobody else's.
So, given that some parents are feckless wastes of oxygen, what should we do if they don't carry out their responsibilities? Do we let the kids starve?Nevertheless, where are the parents in all this? Feeding their kids is primarily their responsibility, nobody else's.
Not sure if i said this earlier so apologies if repetition - making sure that kids aren't hungry at school is good for two reasons
1. It means they're not hungry
2. it means they learn more --> get (better) qualifications --> get (better) jobs --> don't need benefits --> are able to provide for their own kids
In short it helps to break the hereditary poverty cycle which is also linked to crime.
Surely the woke crowd will join the hangers-&-floggers in wanting such parents put in the stocks or pilloried? We could get cross-tribal support for public flogging or more minor punishments.
Biggy Stardust said:
Accepting all that you've said, why do we tolerate the parents being feckless wastes of oxygen?
Surely the woke crowd will join the hangers-&-floggers in wanting such parents put in the stocks or pilloried? We could get cross-tribal support for public flogging or more minor punishments.
Because the outcomes from children in the car system is really, really poor. So in many cases a broken home is a better place than a care home. Not always, but it's a difficult line between abuse, neglect and poverty.Surely the woke crowd will join the hangers-&-floggers in wanting such parents put in the stocks or pilloried? We could get cross-tribal support for public flogging or more minor punishments.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: What I don't get is if people object to the cost of a bit of food what on earth will they say when they see the tax bill to put children in care and every poor parent in jail?
It may not be an objection to the cost, more an objection that the cost as applied does no damn good. As has been proven time and again.The juxtaposition with the obese thread is stark. I wonder what demographics the obese kids come from.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: What I don't get is if people object to the cost of a bit of food what on earth will they say when they see the tax bill to put children in care and every poor parent in jail?
Yep, education and opportunities are far, far cheaper than prison and benefits.And whilst thousands of childless adults will cry that their tax money shouldn't be spent on something that doesn't directly benefit them, the indirect benefits in the workforce and economy aren't hard to realise.
Evanivitch said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: What I don't get is if people object to the cost of a bit of food what on earth will they say when they see the tax bill to put children in care and every poor parent in jail?
Yep, education and opportunities are far, far cheaper than prison and benefits.And whilst thousands of childless adults will cry that their tax money shouldn't be spent on something that doesn't directly benefit them, the indirect benefits in the workforce and economy aren't hard to realise.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: What I don't get is if people object to the cost of a bit of food what on earth will they say when they see the tax bill to put children in care and every poor parent in jail?
Perhaps there would be a disinsentive for the same feckless "parents" or their ilk to breed merely for the financial gain they will receive, if there is a chance the kid gets taken off (thus cutting off the money) or they end up in clink for child abuse? So one needs to consider the ongoing reduction in costs and well as the increase.
It also fails to consider the fundamental rationale, that is a parent is unable or unwilling to provide the most basic of "care" for their kid, ie feeding them, what other elements of care are missing? In many cases, the child would be better in care and the cost of that has to be wieghed but it should not be the overiding decision.
Feeding a kid tow meals a day oneself is a few pounds a week, it really is. The problem if you make the State responsible for that, it becomes a few hundred or so! But unless someone else does do it, in many cases the kid still wont get fed .
poo at Paul's said:
Perhaps there would be a disinsentive for the same feckless "parents" or their ilk to breed merely for the financial gain they will receive, if there is a chance the kid gets taken off (thus cutting off the money) or they end up in clink for child abuse? So one needs to consider the ongoing reduction in costs and well as the increase.
Where's the financial incentive in breakfast clubs and a decent lunch in school? Or packed lunches during holidays?poo at Paul's said:
It also fails to consider the fundamental rationale, that is a parent is unable or unwilling to provide the most basic of "care" for their kid, ie feeding them, what other elements of care are missing? In many cases, the child would be better in care and the cost of that has to be wieghed but it should not be the overiding decision.
Being unable to provide for your child materially isn't the same as being unable to care for your child emotionally.And where there is extreme neglect and abuse a child will be removed from parents.
poo at Paul's said:
Feeding a kid tow meals a day oneself is a few pounds a week, it really is. The problem if you make the State responsible for that, it becomes a few hundred or so! But unless someone else does do it, in many cases the kid still wont get fed .
Our school meal systems are incredibly cost efficient. They receive significantly less in funding per meal than a prison.poo at Paul's said:
Perhaps there would be a disinsentive for the same feckless "parents" or their ilk to breed merely for the financial gain they will receive,
Believe it or not poor people don't need a financial incentive to have lots of kids. That's why, even in the "good old days" before Child benefit, poor people still had lots of kids. However child mortality rates were much higher then which I suppose some PHers might consider to be preferable.Evanivitch said:
Where's the financial incentive in breakfast clubs and a decent lunch in school? Or packed lunches during holidays?
As child benefit is for the purpose of feeding the kids maybe remove some of that money from the parent? If they then fail to clothe & shoe the kids we could resort to public birching.poo at Paul's said:
Perhaps there would be a disinsentive for the same feckless "parents" or their ilk to breed merely for the financial gain they will receive, if there is a chance the kid gets taken off (thus cutting off the money) or they end up in clink for child abuse? So one needs to consider the ongoing reduction in costs and well as the increase.
It also fails to consider the fundamental rationale, that is a parent is unable or unwilling to provide the most basic of "care" for their kid, ie feeding them, what other elements of care are missing? In many cases, the child would be better in care and the cost of that has to be wieghed but it should not be the overiding decision.
Feeding a kid tow meals a day oneself is a few pounds a week, it really is. The problem if you make the State responsible for that, it becomes a few hundred or so! But unless someone else does do it, in many cases the kid still wont get fed .
I'm sure we could all point to cases where children have died of the most abhorrent physical abuse imaginable where neighbours will say "we heard things and reported it" anyone looking would think "how the hell were they left so they could do that?".It also fails to consider the fundamental rationale, that is a parent is unable or unwilling to provide the most basic of "care" for their kid, ie feeding them, what other elements of care are missing? In many cases, the child would be better in care and the cost of that has to be wieghed but it should not be the overiding decision.
Feeding a kid tow meals a day oneself is a few pounds a week, it really is. The problem if you make the State responsible for that, it becomes a few hundred or so! But unless someone else does do it, in many cases the kid still wont get fed .
When you can't clear that bar I honestly don't think we're going to see kids taken into care any time soon because their parents give them a 2L bottle of Cola to shut them up.
I'm fairly sure quite a few developed countries think nothing of providing school meals for children.
We seem a rather mean spirited nation with lots of talk of "looking after our own" but when push comes to shove somehow these children don't qualify as "our own".
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff