Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 5)
Discussion
JagLover said:
£250 million to be precise
Yes Coronavirus, and its response, is going to leave us with the worst debt to GDP levels since the world wars. After this there is going to be a long hard slog to try and get back to a better position. Perhaps not the time then for a new permanent spending measure that does very little to achieve its stated objective.
"whatever it takes"Yes Coronavirus, and its response, is going to leave us with the worst debt to GDP levels since the world wars. After this there is going to be a long hard slog to try and get back to a better position. Perhaps not the time then for a new permanent spending measure that does very little to achieve its stated objective.
And I thought it was until Easter?
JagLover said:
valiant said:
The government seems to think there’s a bottomless pit of money as it keeps drawing from it. What did Sunak’s proposals cost yesterday? Heard on the radio that it could cost up to £15bn. Also that £2bn was lost to furlough fraud never mind what’s lost in iffy business loans and grants and what the government itself has wasted and this is the hill they want to die on? A few million quid feeding kids?
£250 million to be preciseYes Coronavirus, and its response, is going to leave us with the worst debt to GDP levels since the world wars. After this there is going to be a long hard slog to try and get back to a better position. Perhaps not the time then for a new permanent spending measure that does very little to achieve its stated objective.
Yes, there will be a kerfuffle if it's withdrawn but it would be easier to justify that if this coronavirus thing is on a downward slope.
As it stands it just looks like the govt being mean and digging their heels in. Arrogance, in the face of an emotive subject, never looks good.
The economy is already tanked. This will make zero difference (in real terms) to that.
Meanwhile, money is thrown at other things that nobody really wants. Nope, I can't see any upside to this policy for government. Sorry.
Disastrous said:
Sway said:
They're still causing mental distress.
Are you diminishing the importance of mental health and reducing anxiety/bullying?
I appreciate the point you're making but what I mean is that whilst the public weight of opinion is likely to behind feeding, clothing and housing kids, it's unlikely to fall behind treating them to designer trainers that lots of regular adults couldn't afford.Are you diminishing the importance of mental health and reducing anxiety/bullying?
Thus there's not a massive PR risk in the Govt refusing to fund Jordans for all.
If you were arguing for kids to be given 'shoes of some kind' to avoid going barefoot then yes, I think you would find it hard to argue that shouldn't happen.
As an aside, I did some work last year for a charity that supports child poverty. I was initially PH-cynical that the parents would all be drunks/drug-addled wasters but was absolutely appalled to discover most of them were genuinely lovely people working as many hours as they could to try and provide for their families. What was starkly clear is that *we* have no idea about the types of choices that these people have to make many times a day.
For example, you can give your son lunch. But then you won't be able to top the electricity meter so when you do your nightshift, he'll have to sit in the dark on his own and wrap up warm. One family (both parents working) had three kids. But you only ever saw two at once. Because they had only two pairs of shoes they had to share between the three of them.
Genuinely heartbreaking stuff and actually, the abused and neglected children were arguably easier to identify and take appropriate care of than the ones in working-poor families who had slipped between the cracks.
Anyone arguing against this needs to spend a bit of time with these people IMO.
That this money, or less, could achieve far more than just a few month's worth of free meals.
Disastrous said:
It's really weird.
Even the most wet behind the ears PR graduate would seemingly be able to run rings round the Tory party. They have exceptional form for just irrelevantly saying things that will upset the public and look awful from a distance.
Nobody:
Tories: Fox Hunting/Elderly Heating/Children Feeding/Grenfell Common Sense etc etc
I can't decide if they're just massively unaware or incredibly naive as to how the public views things.
I get that all these things are more complex than the headlines make them but come on, you KNOW how it will look, surely??
It's almost as if Boris believes he's Prince Regent and Cummings Edmund Blackadder, and everything is filtered by the question "What would Blackadder do?"Even the most wet behind the ears PR graduate would seemingly be able to run rings round the Tory party. They have exceptional form for just irrelevantly saying things that will upset the public and look awful from a distance.
Nobody:
Tories: Fox Hunting/Elderly Heating/Children Feeding/Grenfell Common Sense etc etc
I can't decide if they're just massively unaware or incredibly naive as to how the public views things.
I get that all these things are more complex than the headlines make them but come on, you KNOW how it will look, surely??
Red 4 said:
Who said it has to be permanent ? How about until Spring ?
Yes, there will be a kerfuffle if it's withdrawn but it would be easier to justify that if this coronavirus thing is on a downward slope.
As it stands it just looks like the govt being mean and digging their heels in. Arrogance, in the face of an emotive subject, never looks good.
The economy is already tanked. This will make zero difference (in real terms) to that.
Meanwhile, money is thrown at other things that nobody really wants. Nope, I can't see any upside to this policy for government. Sorry.
The vouchers were offered before on the basis that so much of the country was in lockdown. The most serious consequence of which was that the various holiday clubs that local authorities ran, that provided food to those most in need, were shut down due to the Coronavirus threat. Looking online they were all shut until 20 July by government lockdown restrictions. Yes, there will be a kerfuffle if it's withdrawn but it would be easier to justify that if this coronavirus thing is on a downward slope.
As it stands it just looks like the govt being mean and digging their heels in. Arrogance, in the face of an emotive subject, never looks good.
The economy is already tanked. This will make zero difference (in real terms) to that.
Meanwhile, money is thrown at other things that nobody really wants. Nope, I can't see any upside to this policy for government. Sorry.
This is no longer the case and there is also likely to be no material difference between the economic situation now and that in two years time. If it is extended again then it likely becomes permanent. An interesting example really how any new temporary government spending has such pressure to become permanent. It hardly needs pointing out that nothing like this scheme was in place before March 2020 and somehow the sky didn't fall in.
Edited by JagLover on Friday 23 October 13:55
Sway said:
I completely agree - my position on this all along has been that the spend to benefit ratio is massively out of whack (fag packet suggests using the food strategy paper figures £1300 for every child gaining improved food security).
That this money, or less, could achieve far more than just a few month's worth of free meals.
Maybe the answer is to somehow support the restaurants etc getting involved in Rashfords scheme? some kind of new specific school meals face saving involvement that helps the problem (and the business) without it becoming another u turn to be used against them. That this money, or less, could achieve far more than just a few month's worth of free meals.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 23 October 13:55
Sway said:
I completely agree - my position on this all along has been that the spend to benefit ratio is massively out of whack (fag packet suggests using the food strategy paper figures £1300 for every child gaining improved food security).
That this money, or less, could achieve far more than just a few month's worth of free meals.
Clearly we disagree on the six month "sticking plaster" that's been voted against this week.That this money, or less, could achieve far more than just a few month's worth of free meals.
However let's go back to your maths.
You're claiming £1300 per child which I'll take at face value.
If you think that money "could achieve far more than just a few month's worth of free meals", and I'll concede £1300 sounds like quite a lot of food though I assume that has to cover all the other costs, where is the plan from Government that says "instead of X we will provide extra funding to do Y and we will do it quickly to deal with the problem at hand now"?
That's what grates here.
Not to vote against something whilst offering an alternative but to simply vote against.
You've literally got chip shops on Twitter telling families "if you pop in and ask we'll give your kids food for free".
I didn't think I'd see that in Britain in 2020 under a Conservative Government.
Disastrous said:
As an aside, I did some work last year for a charity that supports child poverty. I was initially PH-cynical that the parents would all be drunks/drug-addled wasters but was absolutely appalled to discover most of them were genuinely lovely people working as many hours as they could to try and provide for their families. What was starkly clear is that *we* have no idea about the types of choices that these people have to make many times a day.
For example, you can give your son lunch. But then you won't be able to top the electricity meter so when you do your nightshift, he'll have to sit in the dark on his own and wrap up warm. One family (both parents working) had three kids. But you only ever saw two at once. Because they had only two pairs of shoes they had to share between the three of them.
Genuinely heartbreaking stuff and actually, the abused and neglected children were arguably easier to identify and take appropriate care of than the ones in working-poor families who had slipped between the cracks.
Anyone arguing against this needs to spend a bit of time with these people IMO.
How dare you come on here and share your real-life experiences of the struggles many hard working families face.For example, you can give your son lunch. But then you won't be able to top the electricity meter so when you do your nightshift, he'll have to sit in the dark on his own and wrap up warm. One family (both parents working) had three kids. But you only ever saw two at once. Because they had only two pairs of shoes they had to share between the three of them.
Genuinely heartbreaking stuff and actually, the abused and neglected children were arguably easier to identify and take appropriate care of than the ones in working-poor families who had slipped between the cracks.
Anyone arguing against this needs to spend a bit of time with these people IMO.
Every PH'er knows that child poverty is solely down to drug addled, Tennents swilling, lazy, feckless, takeaway munching, massive tele watching feral underclass.
It's all their own fault for not being born with a silver spoon in their mouth.
Be off with you. Hand in your membership at the door. Be grateful we aren't throwing you out on your arse.
Kudos for helping out and doing what you did.
A bit of reality helps in here sometimes.
El stovey said:
Sway said:
I completely agree - my position on this all along has been that the spend to benefit ratio is massively out of whack (fag packet suggests using the food strategy paper figures £1300 for every child gaining improved food security).
That this money, or less, could achieve far more than just a few month's worth of free meals.
Maybe the answer is to somehow support the restaurants etc getting involved in Rashfords scheme? some kind of face saving involvement that helps the problem without it becoming another u turn to be used against them. That this money, or less, could achieve far more than just a few month's worth of free meals.
For me, I'd love to see an approach taken where companies get Corp tax (or even employers NI) discounts for supporting their communities, increasing productivity, supporting staff development and training, etc.
IforB said:
This sums up this thread quite nicely too.
Not at all. Apart from being simplistic sloganeering doggerel, it contains a basic error.There's a third type of person, one who doesn't follow Rashford or any other sleb timeline, because they don't do twittter ot facebook or whatever else, and don't 'follow' trends (or the opposite).
turbobloke said:
IforB said:
This sums up this thread quite nicely too.
Not at all. Apart from being simplistic sloganeering doggerel, it contains a basic error.There's a third type of person, one who doesn't follow Rashford or any other sleb timeline, because they don't do twittter ot facebook or whatever else, and don't 'follow' trends (or the opposite).
turbobloke said:
Not at all. Apart from being simplistic sloganeering doggerel, it contains a basic error.
There's a third type of person, one who doesn't follow Rashford or any other sleb timeline, because they don't do twittter ot facebook or whatever else, and don't 'follow' trends (or the opposite).
You don't need to do Twitter or facebook or follow trends to know right from wrong.There's a third type of person, one who doesn't follow Rashford or any other sleb timeline, because they don't do twittter ot facebook or whatever else, and don't 'follow' trends (or the opposite).
Top marks to the businesses involved but do you honestly think this is right?
valiant said:
Seriously, they’re doubling down on this s
t,
Can’t even bring themselves to praise local businesses for stepping up.
It is quite astonishing to see.t,Can’t even bring themselves to praise local businesses for stepping up.
They are genuinely and deliberately saying to the whole country "we don't care about kids going hungry in the middle of a crisis."
To call them contemptible is not doing what I am currently feeling towards them justice. Simple hatred and revulsion is closer to it I think.
In other interesting news. The Good law project (with that oft mentioned bete-noire to many on this thread Jo Maugham QC) have managed to get a judgement that forces Uber to pay £1.5Bn in tax.
That will pay for a few kids to have some lunch.
Amazing that "lefty lawyers" and "do-gooders" have done HMRC's work for them.
That will pay for a few kids to have some lunch.
Amazing that "lefty lawyers" and "do-gooders" have done HMRC's work for them.
It is hard to look at Rashford's twitter feed and not smile - https://twitter.com/MarcusRashford
This shouldn't be happening, not here, not anywhere (although that is perhaps a bit idealistic). But to see so many local businesses and communities come together and fill in the gaps that this pathetic government have left, well you just love to see it.
This shouldn't be happening, not here, not anywhere (although that is perhaps a bit idealistic). But to see so many local businesses and communities come together and fill in the gaps that this pathetic government have left, well you just love to see it.
Mafffew said:
It is hard to look at Rashford's twitter feed and not smile - https://twitter.com/MarcusRashford
This shouldn't be happening, not here, not anywhere (although that is perhaps a bit idealistic). But to see so many local businesses and communities come together and fill in the gaps that this pathetic government have left, well you just love to see it.
Agreed it's heart-warming seeing just how many businesses have stepped up to provide This shouldn't be happening, not here, not anywhere (although that is perhaps a bit idealistic). But to see so many local businesses and communities come together and fill in the gaps that this pathetic government have left, well you just love to see it.
Good lad.
IforB said:
It is quite astonishing to see.
They are genuinely and deliberately saying to the whole country "we don't care about kids going hungry in the middle of a crisis."
To call them contemptible is not doing what I am currently feeling towards them justice. Simple hatred and revulsion is closer to it I think.
Calm down then.They are genuinely and deliberately saying to the whole country "we don't care about kids going hungry in the middle of a crisis."
To call them contemptible is not doing what I am currently feeling towards them justice. Simple hatred and revulsion is closer to it I think.
The Government are saying the free money already given to parents adequately covers the cost of food for their children.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff