Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 5)

[roger.mellie]

IforB said:

valiant said:

Seriously, they’re doubling down on this st,



Can’t even bring themselves to praise local businesses for stepping up.

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.

I don't think they are but it's definitely the message they're projecting.

My assessment is that this government likes a noisy public brawl and this is just another one of many that will happen over the next four years. The collateral damage is not their concern, being seen to "win" among target voters is. It's much easier politically than having to propose a policy and stand over it.

[Helicopter123]

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.

In time, a Labour government will need to be elected to clear up the fiscal mess left by Boris and his incompetent government.

Meantime, feeding hungry kids during holidays seems to make more sense than spending giving £7k a day to individual contractors.

[anonymous-user]

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.

That’s great to see all those businesses helping.

[JagLover]

roger.mellie said:

My assessment is that this government likes a noisy public brawl and this is just another one of many that will happen over the next four years. The collateral damage is not their concern, being seen to "win" among target voters is. It's much easier politically than having to propose a policy and stand over it.

That is one interpretation

Mine is that there are complexities over these situations that don't translate well into a 140 character Twitter feed. The more money that is wasted on general untargeted welfare spending the less there is to spend on targeted support that has a better chance of genuinely stopping children from going hungry.

Whatever government in power they are going to be the subject of campaigns that both assume infinite public money and are completely ignorant of the complexities.

[IforB]

Stay in Bed Instead said:

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.

The Government are saying the free money already given to parents adequately covers the cost of food for their children.

Ah right, so they are lying again.

Plus ca change.

[Unknown_User]

I wonder how many of those that said we should stop giving handouts to foreigners and look after our own, are now saying these British kids don't need feeding?

[Stay in Bed Instead]

IforB said:

Ah right, so they are lying again.

Plus ca change.

Of course they are, it should be obvious to everyone that the free money is only sufficient to feed their children at weekends.

[frisbee]

JagLover said:

That is one interpretation

Mine is that there are complexities over these situations that don't translate well into a 140 character Twitter feed. The more money that is wasted on general untargeted welfare spending the less there is to spend on targeted support that has a better chance of genuinely stopping children from going hungry.

Whatever government in power they are going to be the subject of campaigns that both assume infinite public money and are completely ignorant of the complexities.

Sounds like a match made in heaven. Infinite public money and complete ignorance of the complexities are this government's main policies.

Edited by frisbee on Friday 23 October 15:02

[roger.mellie]

JagLover said:

roger.mellie said:

My assessment is that this government likes a noisy public brawl and this is just another one of many that will happen over the next four years. The collateral damage is not their concern, being seen to "win" among target voters is. It's much easier politically than having to propose a policy and stand over it.

That is one interpretation

Mine is that there are complexities over these situations that don't translate well into a 140 character Twitter feed. The more money that is wasted on general untargeted welfare spending the less there is to spend on targeted support that has a better chance of genuinely stopping children from going hungry.

Whatever government in power they are going to be the subject of campaigns that both assume infinite public money and are completely ignorant of the complexities.

Plenty of others are arguing the point on the flaws in the concept of "targeted" spend so I'll not go there, it's obviously a patronising concept.

It definitely is my interpretation. Everything about this government to date is about polling, facebook likes, retweets, probably effing tiktok too. They're almost certainly working out a way of climbing down that makes them look like the good guy and they supported this all along.

[bitchstewie]

JagLover said:

That is one interpretation

Mine is that there are complexities over these situations that don't translate well into a 140 character Twitter feed. The more money that is wasted on general untargeted welfare spending the less there is to spend on targeted support that has a better chance of genuinely stopping children from going hungry.

Whatever government in power they are going to be the subject of campaigns that both assume infinite public money and are completely ignorant of the complexities.

The Government are the Government.

They don't need a 140 character Twitter feed they can literally call a Press Conference at little to no notice and it'll be live on the national news.

Point being that if the poor ignorant public are "completely ignorant of the complexities" the Government do have the ability to explain it to us.

We have a Minister for Children and their responsibilities include "school food including free school meals" and "coronavirus (COVID-19) response for children’s services and childcare" amongst other things.

Without using Google could you tell me who the Minister for Children is?

I couldn't I've just had to look it up and even then I don't recognise her and I don't think I've seen or heard her give an interview on this issue.

Where is she?

[Red 4]

Helicopter123 said:

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.

In time, a Labour government will need to be elected to clear up the fiscal mess left by Boris and his incompetent government.

To be fair, Heli, I think that is a bridge too far for any government.

All Boris is doing though is promoting divisiveness, one rule for him and his mates and fk you very much, stupidity, ineptness and how to become toxic in 6 months or less.

If Boris is the best we have to offer the world then God help us.
Even Sunak is losing his shine now. The reality is that there probably is no alternative to Starmer come election time.
Completely different to the compulsive liar in charge now, which is what we need.

[Tuna]

IforB said:

All this has reminded me of, is just how unpleasant you appear to be based upon your posts.

You may want to reflect on that. Sneering is never a good look.

You will be unsurprised to learn I'm not here for your approval.

It's depressing how keen the people who talk about kindness and fairness are to label others as 'deplorable'. Even as I type this I know you'll be categorising it as a defence of some political position that you disapprove of. What it is to be misunderstood...

[Red 4]

Tuna said:

It's depressing how keen the people who talk about kindness and fairness are to label others as 'deplorable'.

Poor attempt at spin. 1/10.

It's as simple as knowing right from wrong and calling BS on those who deserve it.

I would have thought you'd learned your lesson by now. Clearly not.

[bitchstewie]

Red 4 said:

Tuna said:

It's depressing how keen the people who talk about kindness and fairness are to label others as 'deplorable'.

Poor attempt at spin. 1/10.

It's as simple as knowing right from wrong and calling BS on those who deserve it.

I would have thought you'd learned your lesson by now. Clearly not.

Are you still on the special little block script our champion of free speech uses?

[BigMon]

Helicopter123 said:

In time, a Labour government will need to be elected to clear up the fiscal mess left by Boris and his incompetent government.

Meantime, feeding hungry kids during holidays seems to make more sense than spending giving £7k a day to individual contractors.

I can tell you, as somebody who has voted Labour several times, I wouldn't be touching them with a bargepole until I am utterly positive Momentum has been eliminated and they have made a return towards the centre.

And even then I would have to think hard about it.

[Unknown_User]

Tuna said:

You will be unsurprised to learn I'm not here for your approval.

It's depressing how keen the people who talk about kindness and fairness are to label others as 'deplorable'. Even as I type this I know you'll be categorising it as a defence of some political position that you disapprove of. What it is to be misunderstood...

This is yet another new low.

Why you do this, I have no idea...? You actually have so much to offer and comments like this just detract from your better forum contributions.

[JagLover]

roger.mellie said:

Plenty of others are arguing the point on the flaws in the concept of "targeted" spend so I'll not go there, it's obviously a patronising concept.

If children are turning up to school hungry and in dirty clothes there are issues with the parents and they need targeted support, whether that is considered "patronising" or not.

Pretending this is some general issue for all children in families on UC doesn't help anyone, certainly not the children who need support.

[Disastrous]

Red 4 said:

Kudos for helping out and doing what you did.
A bit of reality helps in here sometimes.

Thanks but in all honesty, all I did was make them a film to raise some funds. Not exactly hard graft by the standards of the families we spoke to. Still, it was a very illuminating opportunity to get very close to a problem I really had no idea about before.

[roger.mellie]

JagLover said:

roger.mellie said:

Plenty of others are arguing the point on the flaws in the concept of "targeted" spend so I'll not go there, it's obviously a patronising concept.

If children are turning up to school hungry and in dirty clothes there are issues with the parents and they need targeted support, whether that is considered "patronising" or not.

Pretending this is some general issue for children in families on UC doesn't help anyone, certainly not the children who need support.

It's patronising because it boils down to deciding who's deserving. Pulling back from that it also boils down to who decides who's deserving. Targeted spend is patronising by definition.

I'm not making any comment on the right or wrongness of it. But it is definitely patronism motivated by personal morals.

[JagLover]

Red 4 said:

The reality is that there probably is no alternative to Starmer come election time.
.

He probably is the favourite.

The economic consequences of lockdown will become clear as will the fact most of it was unnecessary. Added to which Starmer is the media's man and the media still has the power to swing elections if enough of them go the same way.

So say Labour are in power in 2024, there still isn't infinite money. The level of current welfare spending is much as Labour left it, all benefits were raised in line with inflation in 2010-15 after all.