Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 5)

[turbobloke]

130R said:

markyb_lcy said:

bhstewie said:

I doubt anyone is against reviewing the entire system or "whatever it takes" to put a robust long term solution in place.

The simple and obvious point is that won't happen overnight.

The kids in the tweet I posted did go to bed full last night though.

Well the current party of govt have had 10 years to do something about it to avoid the need for these sticking plasters. I dare say the govts that came before them could have done more too. Of course nobody could have known we were due an epidemic and nobody could have foreseen we would react in the extreme way we have, but if the system is one crisis away from leaving kids hungry then it is unsustainable.

We don't need a separate policy for taxpayer financed meals. We have Universal Credit in this country. Either that is set at an acceptable level or it isn't. If it isn't then that should be addressed. If it is but some people need more support then local authorities should give that support with additional money they have already been given. This is how a government should function rather than letting premier league footballers dictate policy on the hoof because this political football is being used to influence simpletons that think meals are 'free' and children in the UK are 'starving'.

It's a carefully worded message which grabs the attention of its intended audience. Activism uses emotion not reason, it's the core of propagandist tactics. That descends further with targeting on a personal level for anyone who doesn't enter the echo chamber and nod like a toy dog, as we've seen on PH.

One premier league footballer had better get a gong in the next honours list. The erudite twitterverse could implode otherwise.

[130R]

markyb_lcy said:

130R said:

markyb_lcy said:

bhstewie said:

I doubt anyone is against reviewing the entire system or "whatever it takes" to put a robust long term solution in place.

The simple and obvious point is that won't happen overnight.

The kids in the tweet I posted did go to bed full last night though.

Well the current party of govt have had 10 years to do something about it to avoid the need for these sticking plasters. I dare say the govts that came before them could have done more too. Of course nobody could have known we were due an epidemic and nobody could have foreseen we would react in the extreme way we have, but if the system is one crisis away from leaving kids hungry then it is unsustainable.

We don't need a separate policy for taxpayer financed meals. We have Universal Credit in this country. Either that is set at an acceptable level or it isn't. If it isn't then that should be addressed. If it is but some people need more support then local authorities should give that support with additional money they have already been given. This is how a government should function rather than letting premier league footballers dictate policy on the hoof because this political football is being used to influence simpletons that think meals are 'free' and children in the UK are 'starving'.

UC has been fraught with problems from the start. Not necessarily amounts of the payments but the waiting lists (or rather forced waiting periods) for accessing help. My reading of it is that it was made intentionally that way so less people would see it as an “easy option”. If so then we have to accept there are other consequences to that.

As for the additional funds to local councils... they have literally only just got this money, or been pledged it. I’m sure we can all appreciate these things take time to set up.

Then it follows that those are the issues the government should be held to account on

[Sway]

markyb_lcy said:

bhstewie said:

I doubt anyone is against reviewing the entire system or "whatever it takes" to put a robust long term solution in place.

The simple and obvious point is that won't happen overnight.

The kids in the tweet I posted did go to bed full last night though.

Well the current party of govt have had 10 years to do something about it to avoid the need for these sticking plasters. I dare say the govts that came before them could have done more too. Of course nobody could have known we were due an epidemic and nobody could have foreseen we would react in the extreme way we have, but if the system is one crisis away from leaving kids hungry then it is unsustainable and not fit for purpose.

There have been huge changes and uplifts in people's circumstances - from increases in NMW, through UC tapering instead of dropping so that there is less of a benefits trap. Extensions and widening of certain support schemes, etc. That's ignoring the billions that have been spent during the pandemic.

My issue with the Rashford proposal, is that it isn't targeted.

The Children's Commissioner states 350k children live in households where someone has had to skip a meal in the past week. Note, that does not mean the child is going hungry.

If the money required to implement this scheme were not spent on just over 3 million people, we'd be spending over £2.9k per effected child not £240.

It seems to me that with over ten times the cash per kid, perhaps some root causes could be dealt with as well as some short term full bellies.

[markyb_lcy]

130R said:

hen it follows that those are the issues the government should be held to account on

Perhaps, but will / should we put food in the mouths of children who need it while we spend months-years debating and holding to account?

[Tuna]

markyb_lcy said:

As for the additional funds to local councils... they have literally only just got this money, or been pledged it. I’m sure we can all appreciate these things take time to set up.

I thought we'd been told they got it months ago and have already spent it?

[markyb_lcy]

turbobloke said:

One premier league footballer had better get a gong in the next honours list. The erudite twitterverse could implode otherwise.

He’s already been honoured, Turbo.

[amusingduck]

chrispmartha said:

It’s fixing the immediate problem of the kids not being fed

If the £20/wk increase in UC didn't fix the immediate problem, why would vouchers?

[markyb_lcy]

Tuna said:

markyb_lcy said:

As for the additional funds to local councils... they have literally only just got this money, or been pledged it. I’m sure we can all appreciate these things take time to set up.

I thought we'd been told they got it months ago and have already spent it?

Probably on bus lane sign changes, closing roads, widening pavements and putting up “because Covid” signs?

[don'tbesilly]

Tuna said:

markyb_lcy said:

As for the additional funds to local councils... they have literally only just got this money, or been pledged it. I’m sure we can all appreciate these things take time to set up.

I thought we'd been told they got it months ago and have already spent it?

The funding was announced on the 11th June.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/63-million-for-...

I'm not sure when the extra £20.00pw on UC was announced, but I believe it was earlier than June.

[turbobloke]

Sway said:

My issue with the Rashford proposal, is that it isn't targeted.

Had young Rashford costed his proposal or was it a late lunge?

[Tuna]

bhstewie said:

That's the joy of PH. You can suggest feeding kids and a pack of wolves will descend saying you have your priorities all wrong or you can suggest bringing back workhouses and nobody will bat an eyelid..

You really need to get a grip.

[bitchstewie]

Tuna said:

bhstewie said:

That's the joy of PH. You can suggest feeding kids and a pack of wolves will descend saying you have your priorities all wrong or you can suggest bringing back workhouses and nobody will bat an eyelid..

You really need to get a grip.

When I'm reduced to using a special little script to filter out people I don't agree because I can't cope with people who have a different opinion to me I might consider taking tips from you on what "getting a grip" looks like.

[bitchstewie]

markyb_lcy said:

bhstewie said:

I doubt anyone is against reviewing the entire system or "whatever it takes" to put a robust long term solution in place.

The simple and obvious point is that won't happen overnight.

The kids in the tweet I posted did go to bed full last night though.

Well the current party of govt have had 10 years to do something about it to avoid the need for these sticking plasters. I dare say the govts that came before them could have done more too. Of course nobody could have known we were due an epidemic and nobody could have foreseen we would react in the extreme way we have, but if the system is one crisis away from leaving kids hungry then it is unsustainable and not fit for purpose.

I don't doubt that the issue goes back further than 10 years.

The difficulty is someone has to break that cycle and pointing in the rear view mirror going "look what we inherited" only works for so long.

[Tuna]

bhstewie said:

When I'm reduced to using a special little script to filter out people I don't agree because I can't cope with people who have a different opinion to me I might consider taking tips from you on what "getting a grip" looks like.

When the guy who wrote the script is telling you that you need to get a grip... you need to get a grip.

[Red 4]

Tuna said:

bhstewie said:

That's the joy of PH. You can suggest feeding kids and a pack of wolves will descend saying you have your priorities all wrong or you can suggest bringing back workhouses and nobody will bat an eyelid..

You really need to get a grip.

To be fair I'm not sure it's Stewie who needs to get a grip.

I just thought I'd throw the workhouses idea out there, like a fisherman casting his net, and see what I could catch.

It seems some on here are so crackers that they actually thought I was serious and that a return to workhouses could be a good idea.

Having said that, I'm yet to see anyone match JagLover with his little reminder of how things were in Victorian times regarding stunted growth and malnourishment and use that as a comparitor for how great things are today.

I've dealt with some fruitloops in my time but this place is next level sometimes.
As a means of taking a look inside someone's head it is truly fascinating.

[markyb_lcy]

Tuna said:

bhstewie said:

When I'm reduced to using a special little script to filter out people I don't agree because I can't cope with people who have a different opinion to me I might consider taking tips from you on what "getting a grip" looks like.

When the guy who wrote the script is telling you that you need to get a grip... you need to get a grip.

Wrote the script, or copied and pasted it?

[rustednut]

130R said:

markyb_lcy said:

130R said:

markyb_lcy said:

bhstewie said:

I doubt anyone is against reviewing the entire system or "whatever it takes" to put a robust long term solution in place.

The simple and obvious point is that won't happen overnight.

The kids in the tweet I posted did go to bed full last night though.

Well the current party of govt have had 10 years to do something about it to avoid the need for these sticking plasters. I dare say the govts that came before them could have done more too. Of course nobody could have known we were due an epidemic and nobody could have foreseen we would react in the extreme way we have, but if the system is one crisis away from leaving kids hungry then it is unsustainable.

We don't need a separate policy for taxpayer financed meals. We have Universal Credit in this country. Either that is set at an acceptable level or it isn't. If it isn't then that should be addressed. If it is but some people need more support then local authorities should give that support with additional money they have already been given. This is how a government should function rather than letting premier league footballers dictate policy on the hoof because this political football is being used to influence simpletons that think meals are 'free' and children in the UK are 'starving'.

UC has been fraught with problems from the start. Not necessarily amounts of the payments but the waiting lists (or rather forced waiting periods) for accessing help. My reading of it is that it was made intentionally that way so less people would see it as an “easy option”. If so then we have to accept there are other consequences to that.

As for the additional funds to local councils... they have literally only just got this money, or been pledged it. I’m sure we can all appreciate these things take time to set up.

Then it follows that those are the issues the government should be held to account on

I thought that was the issue, and being held to account over.

That we now are in a position (because of covid, or in addition to covid) that has made a few cracks obviously open up, that need to be short term fixed.

But now I realise that we have all been duped, due to Marcus Rashford so obviously lying about his own experiences that I have changed my opinion and think that we should stop all benefits money as a fitting punishment.

Would still rather have Marcus as a friend than those on here who oppose him and his ideals though, lies or not.

Do I believe he has lied about his experiences? For the record, No I don't.

As a personal anecdote I know of a few people who are on minimum (or close to) wage levels who pay their taxes and dues, but who struggle to feed them selves and their kids. But it is nice to know their taxes help keep 1 of the richest families in the world away from the foodbanks and council housing.

Perspective ?

[Murph7355]

chrispmartha said:

It’s fixing the immediate problem of the kids not being fed, has anyone actually stated it fixes the root of the problem, you can try fix the immediate issue and the root of the issue, they are not mutually exclusive....

I agree with this (though am far from convinced current approaches on the immediate problem won't simply end up with significant waste and not much material difference).

However...where are Marcus and the others on what the root causes actually are and the solutions therein? It's all band aiding.

Him bringing attention to the topic is a great use of his platform. It now needs using to get an objective view of the root causes so we don't have this same thing happening again and again.

[Murph7355]

markyb_lcy said:

Reasonable comments (although I don’t agree with your weighting of “slim possibility” and “more likely”).
...

We have to look at the empirical side of this. Too many people suggest that makes one mean, but it's important if effective solutions are to be driven (and I hope that is what we all really want).

UC has been upped by £20 a week. Child benefit (first child) is £20 a week. For the next £13. So your average single parent is now getting £53 a week that could/should be being used to feed those kids.

Their other costs, as a broad assumption, haven't changed. And don't forget that other benefits (including the pre-rise UC) will be picking up many/most of those.

Is that £53 a week enough to feed 3 people for a week?

I think it should be (albeit not in the lap of luxury - but that is a long way from what we are talking about). And am not convinced that throwing more money at the problem will therefore solve it. But am genuinely open to a costed example showing why this is not sufficient (on top of all other benefits remember).

This should be a piece of cake for the likes of The Guardian and BBC to set out. Get some proper journalism on it and actually find someone who spells out the case properly - if there are as many as we are led to believe, it should be a doddle. But that's not what we get. We get heart string stories with vagueness all over. That does not help the situation IMO, especially not for those who very much need the most help.

Both cases I have seen on the BBC in the last few days (as an example) have been from single parent homes. My view on that is that the fathers (or mothers) need to damn well step up and they should be the ones starving if they aren't providing for their kids. That should not fall to central govt to be paying more money out.

[Gogoplata]

don'tbesilly said:

The funding was announced on the 11th June.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/63-million-for-...

I'm not sure when the extra £20.00pw on UC was announced, but I believe it was earlier than June.

It's a shame that the media didn't get behind this initiative in the same way that they did a celebrity posting on Twitter. I guess it doesn't make a juicy story and get as many "likes" as "Grr Boris is stealing our children's lunch".

The local media are now lauding the local councils for taking action on the issue, without mentioning that they're just spending the money allocated to them for this issue by the government.