Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 5)
Discussion
Sway said:
El stovey said:
JagLover said:
This is a problem mostly divorced from the economic cycle in any case. There is a minority of parents who fail to feed their children properly and there have been anecdotal stories about them in the press for years, in good times and bad.
It’s been going on for years? Sounds like it’s a specific problem (made worse by covid) needing a different solution than what’s been tried before because as you say, that’s not worked. That Rashford bloke seems to have some new ideas maybe the government should try and get behind what he and (already struggling) local businesses are trying to do to help?
They also extended free meals at schools, with really low take up.
This isn't anything new.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: Yes I saw him on BBC Breakfast beaming like a Cheshire Cat.
Trying to walk the tightrope of trying to say he agrees with Marcus Rashford's campaign and all the amazing work those businesses are doing whilst also saying he doesn't quite agree with enough to ensure that kids aren't dependent on private businesses to get food.
Pretty incredible really.
The media “shame on you!” Trying to walk the tightrope of trying to say he agrees with Marcus Rashford's campaign and all the amazing work those businesses are doing whilst also saying he doesn't quite agree with enough to ensure that kids aren't dependent on private businesses to get food.
Pretty incredible really.
Hancock “no we’re really happy”
Hancock ought to get some award for the amount of nonsense he’s had to recite in front of the cameras over the last few months.
Unfortunately he’s actually more likely to get much of the blame if the government can’t pin it on the public, science, care homes and the NHS.
Maybe due to his support, the ring of steel meant for carehomes will go around Hancock instead?
Sway said:
You've done the same thing as IforB - diving so deep into the "they're evil" pool that you're ignoring all the things that are done, so that it comes across you believe the only way these families can feed their kids is to rely on private business.
As absolute rubbish goes. This is very impressive, even for you.Is this the new tack today. Just spout any old utterly incorrect nonsense as a way of distracting from the utter disaster the Government have just had?
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:El stovey said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Nice to see you've found your voices when there's a bit of defending to be done.
Ask you why Johnson can't even bring himself to find a single word to acknowledge the extraordinary efforts of all those struggling businesses and it all goes a bit quiet.
Hancock was praising them this morning trying to make out how great it was that business is helping, ignoring the fact that business is stepping in to fill a gap in support. Ask you why Johnson can't even bring himself to find a single word to acknowledge the extraordinary efforts of all those struggling businesses and it all goes a bit quiet.
I think this is the line the government are taking just saying how pleased they are that everyone is contributing as though it’s nothing to do with them or that it’s the old blitz spirit and we’re all in it together type thing.
Hancock stopped short of actually taking credit for the whole scheme but he was obviously told to make out they’re very happy about it.
Trying to walk the tightrope of trying to say he agrees with Marcus Rashford's campaign and all the amazing work those businesses are doing whilst also saying he doesn't quite agree with enough to ensure that kids aren't dependent on private businesses to get food.
Pretty incredible really.
Sway said:
You've done the same thing as IforB - diving so deep into the "they're evil" pool that you're ignoring all the things that are done, so that it comes across you believe the only way these families can feed their kids is to rely on private business.
And you're diving so deep down the "there's plenty of support" pool that you're ignoring the fact that the Prime Minister can't even bring himself to acknowledge the herculean effort of thousands of businesses up and down the country.So that one cuts both ways.
Funny how Hancock didn't say "you know this support really isn't necessary" when interviewed this morning.
IforB said:
Sway said:
You've done the same thing as IforB - diving so deep into the "they're evil" pool that you're ignoring all the things that are done, so that it comes across you believe the only way these families can feed their kids is to rely on private business.
As absolute rubbish goes. This is very impressive, even for you.Is this the new tack today. Just spout any old utterly incorrect nonsense as a way of distracting from the utter disaster the Government have just had?
Is it a fair assumption that a lot of families who would be helped by the free food initiative are already on Universal Credit and have no working family members? If that is the case, than why would there be any change in their situations given that they subsist on benefits anyway? This is not a mischievous question, I am genuinely interested. They don't need the State to feed their children during the holidays under normal circumstances, so what has changed? Obviously some will be relying on a wage from a minimum wage job that has disappeared because of CV19, but even they should fall into job-seekers category shouldn't they?
don'tbesilly said:
Hancock also pointed out the extra £20.00 pw for UC claimants and the £63 million made available to local authorities to help with those impacted by the virus and specifically those struggling to afford food and other specifics.
That's lovely as every little helps.Have you thought any more why you think Johnson has kept so quiet on the efforts of all those struggling businesses yet?
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:Sway said:
You've done the same thing as IforB - diving so deep into the "they're evil" pool that you're ignoring all the things that are done, so that it comes across you believe the only way these families can feed their kids is to rely on private business.
And you're diving so deep down the "there's plenty of support" pool that you're ignoring the fact that the Prime Minister can't even bring himself to acknowledge the herculean effort of thousands of businesses up and down the country.So that one cuts both ways.
Funny how Hancock didn't say "you know this support really isn't necessary" when interviewed this morning.
ks about what politicians praise. I'm interested more in policy and actions than "optics" and I'm reasonably satisfied with their current approach on that. Increases to UC and direct funding of councils to provide support seem targeted and reasonable.Sway said:
I'm interested more in policy and actions than "optics" and I'm reasonably satisfied with their current approach on that. Increases to UC and direct funding of councils to provide support seem targeted and reasonable.
That's where you are going wrong. It doesn't matter what practical policy is actually in place. You need to support the latest social media campaign by a celebrity who knows F*ck all about current welfare policy. If you don't you are an evil person who wants to starve children. 768 said:
markyb_lcy said:
Are we forgetting the (apparently temporary) crisis that the pandemic creates?
There’s unexpected loss of income occurring all over the place. Don’t you agree this presents a scenario for some families that otherwise wouldn’t require state intervention and support?
It’s the government that have made these decisions that have created said scenario, therefore it’s incumbent on them to support the people it affects.
How about an extra £1000 to those who need it most, maybe over the course of a year, because of the pandemic?There’s unexpected loss of income occurring all over the place. Don’t you agree this presents a scenario for some families that otherwise wouldn’t require state intervention and support?
It’s the government that have made these decisions that have created said scenario, therefore it’s incumbent on them to support the people it affects.
JagLover said:
That's where you are going wrong. It doesn't matter what practical policy is actually in place. You need to support the latest social media campaign by a celebrity who knows F*ck all about current welfare policy. If you don't you are an evil person who wants to starve children.
You mean like Rob Halfon?Or the Children's Commissioner?
Any others who don't know as much as you do about child welfare?
What will you guys defending the decision not to support the Rashford campaign say when/if the government start to support it?
As a critic of the government for not supporting it, I’ll say well done for getting there in the end but it would be better if they could stop making these poor decisions in the first place.
As a critic of the government for not supporting it, I’ll say well done for getting there in the end but it would be better if they could stop making these poor decisions in the first place.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:don'tbesilly said:
Hancock also pointed out the extra £20.00 pw for UC claimants and the £63 million made available to local authorities to help with those impacted by the virus and specifically those struggling to afford food and other specifics.
That's lovely as every little helps.Have you thought any more why you think Johnson has kept so quiet on the efforts of all those struggling businesses yet?
"If it's all the same I'll decide my own contributions and I'm quite happy with the point I previously made." (edited)
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:Disastrous said:
It makes me wonder.
There’s a massive opportunity for the usual govt spokespeople in here to get this one right and say something like:
“You know what? You’re absolutely right. They have got it SO wrong here, and her comments are utterly abhorrent. I may still broadly support the government but they’re on their own here”
And just leave it at that without a ‘bit’ or a ‘what about...’.
Let’s see.
It won't happen.There’s a massive opportunity for the usual govt spokespeople in here to get this one right and say something like:
“You know what? You’re absolutely right. They have got it SO wrong here, and her comments are utterly abhorrent. I may still broadly support the government but they’re on their own here”
And just leave it at that without a ‘bit’ or a ‘what about...’.
Let’s see.
It's a phenomenon I think I first noticed on the Farage thread.
The man wanted to leave the EU which is fair enough even if I don't agree with his way of going about things.
Now of course if you dig into Nigel's politics there's quite a lot of grubby stuff there.
You could bring up incident after incident and simply suggest to people that it's quite reasonable to say "I agree with Nigel on wanting to leave the EU but I don't agree with him on this".
Incident after incident and time after time but most of them just couldn't bring themselves to do it.
The odd thing is I'm not convinced most of them agreed with the things they were getting behind I think they just went along with it because of a mix of pride and thinking it winds up people like me.
The penny didn't seem to drop that they'd started out wanting to leave the EU and ended up doing things like defending the AfD's manifesto rather than just saying they didn't think Farage should have gone on stage at one of their rallies.
I digress but politics does properly funny stuff to people.
El stovey said:
What will you guys defending the decision not to support the Rashford campaign say when/if the government start to support it?
As a critic of the government for not supporting it, I’ll say well done for getting there in the end but it would be better if they could stop making these poor decisions in the first place.
My opinion wouldn't change, why would it?As a critic of the government for not supporting it, I’ll say well done for getting there in the end but it would be better if they could stop making these poor decisions in the first place.
Don't tell me you've bought into that 'any differing opinion is de-facto defence of the govt because I say so' bullshine
Obligatory 'I don't like child poverty' etc
don'tbesilly said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:don'tbesilly said:
Hancock also pointed out the extra £20.00 pw for UC claimants and the £63 million made available to local authorities to help with those impacted by the virus and specifically those struggling to afford food and other specifics.
That's lovely as every little helps.Have you thought any more why you think Johnson has kept so quiet on the efforts of all those struggling businesses yet?
"If it's all the same I'll decide my own contributions and I'm quite happy with the point I previously made." (edited)
Like a loyal terrier who daren't criticise his master.
You can pop that in your little notebook if you like
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff