Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 5)

[Murph7355]

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.

Doesn't seem like that's the case as the lady counsellor from Darlington said their original allocation had already been spent.

Recall also that Darlington council seems to have something like £77m in reserves. So one would think that is plenty (of taxpayer money) that could be leveraged to bridge any gap to the next payments

[IforB]

Murph7355 said:

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.

How long do you think it takes for a person in need to start receiving UC in general?

[Sway]

IforB said:

How long do you think it takes for a person in need to start receiving UC in general?

Five weeks for normal payments.

Three days for an advance payment, which since corona is now possible without having to have had an interview with a work coach - so much faster than before.

[bitchstewie]

Gogoplata said:

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.

The councils were allocated the money back in June/July and it's widely reported that they were told to spend it within 12 weeks.

So those councils taking action now seem to be saying they are using funds from elsewhere not from that allocation.

[Crackie]

bhstewie 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 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.

It is an understandably emotive subject but there is merit in historical analysis..........the problem of child poverty is decades old and yet a G7, which is still one of the worlds largest economies, shouldn't have such a significant issue with child poverty.

Looking at the historical trends pragmatically doesn't mean, as some would have you believe, someone has a broken soul; it is likely to be the best route towards long term sustainable solutions. How does the UK's child welfare system compare to similarly sized, similarly developed economies? How does UK spending compare to them per capita? Can we determine any changes in policy which have subsequently been proven to be beneficial / detrimental?

Significant improvements happened during Blair's first 1997-2001 term but something changed that improving trend during his second term and the number of children in poverty began to increase again in 2004. The GFC was years away so what drove the reversal? The numbers have remained relatively stable since then. People on the left will will rue the lack of improvement, grrrrr. People on the right will might conclude not bad considering the lack of cash in the economy post GFC and subsequent UK population growth. Neither view will do anything to address the underlying root causes. Plus ca change.

Fair play to Halfon regarding his criticism of government proposals........I'd like to hear more from him regarding what he's proposing.

Edited by Crackie on Wednesday 28th October 10:23

[Murph7355]

IforB said:

How long do you think it takes for a person in need to start receiving UC in general?

5wks (https://www.gov.uk/universal-credit/how-youre-paid) and advances can be applied for if required (https://www.gov.uk/universal-credit/get-an-advance-first-payment).

Too long? In the overall scheme of things it's understandable. I'd like to see the hardship funds that have been allocated used to help bridge gaps if needed.

(Welcome back btw. Have you taken some Rennie to allow you to cope with the abhorrent behaviours today, or will you need to go for a lie down again later )).

[Murph7355]

bhstewie said:

The councils were allocated the money back in June/July and it's widely reported that they were told to spend it within 12 weeks.

So those councils taking action now seem to be saying they are using funds from elsewhere not from that allocation.

There's more on the way.

I'd love to see a full table of all councils, the funds they received in the first tranche, what they are pegged to get in the second and how much useable reserves they have in the bank. If the Darlington example is anything to go by, I suspect it would open some eyes (not all ).

[Carl_Manchester]

130R said:

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.

It was discussed earlier but there is (as again mentioned above) that we have a need for a sticky plaster solution until the lockdowns are over and a longer term solution.

What i can see is that there is too much energy being spent about ideological long term aims and what we need to do over the next 3-6 months.

I don’t think the system was broken to start with but the lockdowns have changed that and we need to act.

Fellow Torys don’t like vouchers because they stigmatise but i think it’s the best and quickest route for the short term. I wouldn’t have any problems using them myself at the staffed tills but if you can scan the voucher codes yourself at the quick checkout tills then that could be a good fix for that.

[Red 4]

Right. I've been thinking. If workhouses aren't the answer how about domestic servitude ?

Someone mentioned sacking their Eastern European minimum wage cleaner earlier and replacing them with a little person. (Benefits include having smaller hands, so it's easier to get into those awkward places and due to the compactness of children, accommodation could be a cupboard rather than "living quarters" etc etc).
There aren't many downsides that I can see TBH.
I think this one has real traction.

Would you be prepared to help out ? Show the little people what a good work ethic really is ?
Just remember to keep the caviar, quails eggs and lobster under lock and key.
We wouldn't want them getting a taste of the good stuff. That could open up a real can of worms (I'm not suggesting you feed them worms, just to be clear, but I'm not completely removing that option either).

[Gogoplata]

bhstewie said:

The councils were allocated the money back in June/July and it's widely reported that they were told to spend it within 12 weeks.

So those councils taking action now seem to be saying they are using funds from elsewhere not from that allocation.

A quick Google suggests that the councils anticipated that it would be spent within 12 weeks, not that the government told them to spend it within 12 weeks.

[768]

Carl_Manchester said:

130R said:

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.

It was discussed earlier but there is (as again mentioned above) that we have a need for a sticky plaster solution until the lockdowns are over and a longer term solution.

What i can see is that there is too much energy being spent about ideological long term aims and what we need to do over the next 3-6 months.

Isn't that exactly what the £1000 for the year uplift in universal credit was for, a short term sticking plaster?

[don'tbesilly]

Murph7355 said:

bhstewie said:

The councils were allocated the money back in June/July and it's widely reported that they were told to spend it within 12 weeks.

So those councils taking action now seem to be saying they are using funds from elsewhere not from that allocation.

There's more on the way.

I'd love to see a full table of all councils, the funds they received in the first tranche, what they are pegged to get in the second and how much useable reserves they have in the bank. If the Darlington example is anything to go by, I suspect it would open some eyes (not all ).

Indeed, £1billion!

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/jenrick-confirm...

[Murph7355]

Carl_Manchester said:

..

What i can see is that there is too much energy being spent about ideological long term aims and what we need to do over the next 3-6 months.

I don’t think the system was broken to start with but the lockdowns have changed that and we need to act.
...

That's patently not correct.

- nowhere near enough energy has been put into long term fixes as, as one erstwhile (but slightly fragile) poster's post demonstrated this has been going on for 50yrs at least

- Covid19 may well have made the situation worse, but as noted above it existed long before Covid was a thing. Moreover, £20 a week extra has been provided to those on UC, councils have been given large slugs of additional money to bridge the gap and Child Benefit is still being paid. Not to mention other mechanisms that have been put in place (payment holidays on mortgages, furlough etc).

I fully agree that people will be struggling. But they should not be struggling to feed their kids.

[Tuna]

markyb_lcy said:

Wrote the script, or copied and pasted it?

Wrote this version - the previous version was not very usable.

[markyb_lcy]

Tuna said:

markyb_lcy said:

Wrote the script, or copied and pasted it?

Wrote this version - the previous version was not very usable.

Furry muff.

I seem to remember it worked well for me but I have not used it for some time.

[chrispmartha]

Murph7355 said:

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.

Isn’t the point that it really shouldn’t be down to footballer to find the fix for the root of the problem

[markyb_lcy]

chrispmartha said:

Murph7355 said:

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.

Isn’t the point that it really shouldn’t be down to footballer to find the fix for the root of the problem

Correct.

I know we’ve joked here about Rashford doing the govt’s job for them, but we don’t ACTUALLY want Rashford to do the govt’s job, it would be better if the elected officials did.

[Tuna]

markyb_lcy said:

Furry muff.

I seem to remember it worked well for me but I have not used it for some time.

The old version just removed any post from anyone on the troll list, and any post by anyone quoting a troll. You could end up with completely blank pages if someone was going off on one.

This one puts a "Reveal spoiler" type tag just around the actual text of trolls. You can still see what's going on, and take a look at what they're saying, as well as seeing what people responding to them are saying.

[markyb_lcy]

Tuna said:

markyb_lcy said:

Furry muff.

I seem to remember it worked well for me but I have not used it for some time.

The old version just removed any post from anyone on the troll list, and any post by anyone quoting a troll. You could end up with completely blank pages if someone was going off on one.

This one puts a "Reveal spoiler" type tag just around the actual text of trolls. You can still see what's going on, and take a look at what they're saying, as well as seeing what people responding to them are saying.

Never had you down for a coder Tuna. That’s pretty good. Puts a whole new slant on the word “spoiler”

[Tuna]

Not that there's much mileage in continuing this discussion, but can anyone point to a G20 nation that has got this right? Which country has eliminated child poverty? What should we be learning from them?