Angela Rayner calls Tory MP "Scum"
Discussion
fat80b said:
Zoon said:
You shouldn't need the government to bail you out just because you can't be arsed.
Very true.But.....
The wife is a teacher (a very rare non lefty one) in a village near Cambridge where you might think hungry kids would not be an issue. She constantly tells me that you'd be surprised how many children come in to school having not had any breakfast nor get a proper dinner.
The school lunch is effectively their only meal of the day.
It's easy to say that the parents should not be so rubbish, or that they already get a boat load of benefits but unfortunately, people are irresponsible and it's the child that ends up suffering. And it definitely isn't the child's fault.
The discussion on what to do though is really difficult. Do we really want a system with state supported children from the outset? Does this result in the society that we want in the future? What is actually the best way to solve this problem?
I'm personally not sure that it is by giving more money to the feckless but it is hard to come up with a much better alternative when you are dealing with people who can't or won't even give their child some weetabix in the morning and a tin of beans of an evening .
Why don't we tackle the real issue.
Handing free food out is a green light for folk to carry on in the same way.
Zoon said:
fat80b said:
Zoon said:
You shouldn't need the government to bail you out just because you can't be arsed.
Very true.But.....
The wife is a teacher (a very rare non lefty one) in a village near Cambridge where you might think hungry kids would not be an issue. She constantly tells me that you'd be surprised how many children come in to school having not had any breakfast nor get a proper dinner.
The school lunch is effectively their only meal of the day.
It's easy to say that the parents should not be so rubbish, or that they already get a boat load of benefits but unfortunately, people are irresponsible and it's the child that ends up suffering. And it definitely isn't the child's fault.
The discussion on what to do though is really difficult. Do we really want a system with state supported children from the outset? Does this result in the society that we want in the future? What is actually the best way to solve this problem?
I'm personally not sure that it is by giving more money to the feckless but it is hard to come up with a much better alternative when you are dealing with people who can't or won't even give their child some weetabix in the morning and a tin of beans of an evening .
Why don't we tackle the real issue.
Handing free food out is a green light for folk to carry on in the same way.
Your attitude is exactly why people say the right has no compassion, and get called Tory scum.
Zoon said:
Yes but blaming the Government for poor parenting is the easy way out.
Why don't we tackle the real issue.
Handing free food out is a green light for folk to carry on in the same way.
Because the problem is here now and needs addressed immediately and is being exacerbated by covid. Why don't we tackle the real issue.
Handing free food out is a green light for folk to carry on in the same way.
Long term ideological arguments about “tackling the real issue” haven’t solved it so far. This Rashford bill was designed as a short term immediate fix for something happening right now.
Kent Border Kenny said:
Deathmole said:
I'm with her, imagine voting down a bill that was attempting to help fund meals for hungry children.....
Scum indeed.
You may not realise, but poorer families in the UK get both child benefit and child tax credits to ensure that they have enough money to feed their children.Scum indeed.
Sadly there is a class of people who still choose to let their children go hungry, and their cheerleaders like you who will blame the government not the feckless families for this.
El stovey said:
Because the problem is here now and needs addressed immediately and is being exacerbated by covid.
Long term ideological arguments about “tackling the real issue” haven’t solved it so far. This Rashford bill was designed as a short term immediate fix for something happening right now.
i would hazard a guess you are are trying to get an argument over to someone who has absolutely no clue of the true impact of poverty and struggling to survive.Long term ideological arguments about “tackling the real issue” haven’t solved it so far. This Rashford bill was designed as a short term immediate fix for something happening right now.
crofty1984 said:
So it should be easy for Labour to look better by comparison. All they have to do is demonstrate the bare minimum of professionalism and competency. And yet they got absolutely trounced at the last election. Rather than calling names, they should be trying to work out how they utterly, utterly failed to put up a credible alternative to Boris and the Tories. How did some of their core support disappear? What did (or rather didn't) they do to win over the undecided?
Getting rid of Team Corbyn was a very good start but they need to build on it if they're ever to get back into power to actually fix any of the things they're complaining about. I'm neither staunchly one way or the other, but a good, competent opposition (whoever is in power) is to the benefit of the country. Not a bunch of name-callers with no solutions.
"Team Corbyn" was the precise reason they were utterly trounced. Labour policies under him were utterly bat-sGetting rid of Team Corbyn was a very good start but they need to build on it if they're ever to get back into power to actually fix any of the things they're complaining about. I'm neither staunchly one way or the other, but a good, competent opposition (whoever is in power) is to the benefit of the country. Not a bunch of name-callers with no solutions.
t crazy. When you have the likes of Ronnie Campbell in Blyth Valley which was just about the reddest of the red actually saying "Vote Tory because the current Labour party is run by a bunch of dangerous fkwits" then it demonstrates just how mental these people are. If you think the Tories are doing badly at present (debateable) how do you think the country would be doing now given all the fantasy spending Corbyn was planning? We'd be f
ked and the Labour party would be getting berated because all the people who voted for them wouldn't be getting their state funded mega-broadband all the other free stuff they were promised. I was happy at the very lucky escape we had back in December - it's magnitudes luckier given what's occurred since. fat80b said:
Very true.
But.....
The wife is a teacher (a very rare non lefty one) in a village near Cambridge where you might think hungry kids would not be an issue. She constantly tells me that you'd be surprised how many children come in to school having not had any breakfast nor get a proper dinner.
The school lunch is effectively their only meal of the day.
It's easy to say that the parents should not be so rubbish, or that they already get a boat load of benefits but unfortunately, people are irresponsible and it's the child that ends up suffering. And it definitely isn't the child's fault.
The discussion on what to do though is really difficult. Do we really want a system with state supported children from the outset? Does this result in the society that we want in the future? What is actually the best way to solve this problem?
I'm personally not sure that it is by giving more money to the feckless but it is hard to come up with a much better alternative when you are dealing with people who can't or won't even give their child some weetabix in the morning and a tin of beans of an evening .
Other than being very tough, I don't see the alternative. Do teachers have a duty to report this kind of thing? If so then surely social services have a duty to act on it? To be fair, I don't think it's all that terrible not having breakfast - I never do and didn't really when I was at school. Personally I've never liked eating in the morning. When the only meal a child has though is the school lunch that's not a good situation. But.....
The wife is a teacher (a very rare non lefty one) in a village near Cambridge where you might think hungry kids would not be an issue. She constantly tells me that you'd be surprised how many children come in to school having not had any breakfast nor get a proper dinner.
The school lunch is effectively their only meal of the day.
It's easy to say that the parents should not be so rubbish, or that they already get a boat load of benefits but unfortunately, people are irresponsible and it's the child that ends up suffering. And it definitely isn't the child's fault.
The discussion on what to do though is really difficult. Do we really want a system with state supported children from the outset? Does this result in the society that we want in the future? What is actually the best way to solve this problem?
I'm personally not sure that it is by giving more money to the feckless but it is hard to come up with a much better alternative when you are dealing with people who can't or won't even give their child some weetabix in the morning and a tin of beans of an evening .
If you can't afford kids then don't have them. We need to get back to the belief that benefits are a safety net when times are tough rather than a lifestyle choice. If most of your income is derived from state benefits then why do you feel you have a right to something you cannot afford?
Electro1980 said:
People don’t go out wanting their children to be hungry. Life happens. People get made redundant, businesses fail, unexpected things happen, people get ill, parents die etc. The vast majority of children that go hungry have loving parents who are facing hard times through no fault of their own.
Your attitude is exactly why people say the right has no compassion, and get called Tory scum.
Lots and lots of people have children when they cannot really afford it. The benefits system is supposed to be there for the very reasons you mention, unforeseen events which are beyond your control, but if you are living on a knife-edge financially speaking then is it really the right thing to have kids? Your attitude is exactly why people say the right has no compassion, and get called Tory scum.
AJL308 said:
Electro1980 said:
People don’t go out wanting their children to be hungry. Life happens. People get made redundant, businesses fail, unexpected things happen, people get ill, parents die etc. The vast majority of children that go hungry have loving parents who are facing hard times through no fault of their own.
Your attitude is exactly why people say the right has no compassion, and get called Tory scum.
Lots and lots of people have children when they cannot really afford it. The benefits system is supposed to be there for the very reasons you mention, unforeseen events which are beyond your control, but if you are living on a knife-edge financially speaking then is it really the right thing to have kids? Your attitude is exactly why people say the right has no compassion, and get called Tory scum.
It must be nice to live in a cosy middle class world where you don’t have to deal with these things. You never have to make choices about heating or eating. You are able to save enough to deal with a major expense or borrow the money at a reasonable rate. To say “well don’t have children if you can’t afford it” is massively ignorant of the reality of life for a lot of people.
AJL308 said:
Other than being very tough, I don't see the alternative. Do teachers have a duty to report this kind of thing? If so then surely social services have a duty to act on it?
My sister is a social worker, she's at the end of her tether and thinking of leaving after 25 years because she feels utterly powerless in the face of lazy, entitled parents who won't feed their childern before school (can't be arsed to get out of bed) and don't feed them when they come home (as they're not there or they have mates round and, again, can't be arsed).In her opinion we've enabled 2 generations of feckless parents now by taking away responsibility for having and looking after children and gradually removing the power of Social Services to do anything meaningful about it.
She used to be a card-carrying socialist, but 25 years dealing in Childrens' Services has changed her views on this completely.
Isn't this why child benefit exists, and is paid to a wide array of society, some of whom could comfortably do without it.
If the parents spend child benefit on anything other than food and clothes for their kids then throwing more money their way is not going to change people's behaviours or attitudes, it's just lining their pockets for the sake of it.
Feeding kids is on a level with roof over head in terms of priority, I don't want to generalise but I bet if you inspected the household finances of 90% of families with kids who require meals to fill in the blanks then you would find a lot of money gets directed towards other stuff. This is why I find it hard to be lobbing all the blame for child poverty on the government.
If the parents spend child benefit on anything other than food and clothes for their kids then throwing more money their way is not going to change people's behaviours or attitudes, it's just lining their pockets for the sake of it.
Feeding kids is on a level with roof over head in terms of priority, I don't want to generalise but I bet if you inspected the household finances of 90% of families with kids who require meals to fill in the blanks then you would find a lot of money gets directed towards other stuff. This is why I find it hard to be lobbing all the blame for child poverty on the government.
dazwalsh said:
Isn't this why child benefit exists, and is paid to a wide array of society, some of whom could comfortably do without it.
If the parents spend child benefit on anything other than food and clothes for their kids then throwing more money their way is not going to change people's behaviours or attitudes, it's just lining their pockets for the sake of it.
Feeding kids is on a level with roof over head in terms of priority, I don't want to generalise but I bet if you inspected the household finances of 90% of families with kids who require meals to fill in the blanks then you would find a lot of money gets directed towards other stuff. This is why I find it hard to be lobbing all the blame for child poverty on the government.
Exactly.If the parents spend child benefit on anything other than food and clothes for their kids then throwing more money their way is not going to change people's behaviours or attitudes, it's just lining their pockets for the sake of it.
Feeding kids is on a level with roof over head in terms of priority, I don't want to generalise but I bet if you inspected the household finances of 90% of families with kids who require meals to fill in the blanks then you would find a lot of money gets directed towards other stuff. This is why I find it hard to be lobbing all the blame for child poverty on the government.
As long as the magic food fairy keeps providing where's the incentive to do any better.
I don't believe anyone who says they cannot find work unless severe disability prevents them.
I appreciate there are genuine cases of hardship which do need help that are totally beyond the control of some.
Zoon said:
Exactly.
As long as the magic food fairy keeps providing where's the incentive to do any better.
I don't believe anyone who says they cannot find work unless severe disability prevents them.
I appreciate there are genuine cases of hardship which do need help that are totally beyond the control of some.
Those are the cases that are highlighted on the newspapers, Facebook, Twitter etc but nobody is going to go on and admit to spending the Child benefit on Sky or the latest iPhone are they?As long as the magic food fairy keeps providing where's the incentive to do any better.
I don't believe anyone who says they cannot find work unless severe disability prevents them.
I appreciate there are genuine cases of hardship which do need help that are totally beyond the control of some.
I’m all for a readily accessible emergency fund. Isn’t that what food banks were designed to be?
dazwalsh said:
Isn't this why child benefit exists, and is paid to a wide array of society, some of whom could comfortably do without it.
If the parents spend child benefit on anything other than food and clothes for their kids then throwing more money their way is not going to change people's behaviours or attitudes, it's just lining their pockets for the sake of it.
Feeding kids is on a level with roof over head in terms of priority, I don't want to generalise but I bet if you inspected the household finances of 90% of families with kids who require meals to fill in the blanks then you would find a lot of money gets directed towards other stuff. This is why I find it hard to be lobbing all the blame for child poverty on the government.
I don't really disagree with much of what you say.If the parents spend child benefit on anything other than food and clothes for their kids then throwing more money their way is not going to change people's behaviours or attitudes, it's just lining their pockets for the sake of it.
Feeding kids is on a level with roof over head in terms of priority, I don't want to generalise but I bet if you inspected the household finances of 90% of families with kids who require meals to fill in the blanks then you would find a lot of money gets directed towards other stuff. This is why I find it hard to be lobbing all the blame for child poverty on the government.
However, and I have seen this even in well off families, for various reasons, kids end up at school without breakfast, let alone either a packed lunch or money to buy one.
It is a fact that hungry kids don't learn too well.
There's a reasonable argument to say that failure to provide for kid's punishes them for the failures of their parents and does not help break the cycle, or promote better standards of education.
These are the kids wee need to run the economy and pay the debt off when we retire.
Drawweight said:
I’m all for a readily accessible emergency fund. Isn’t that what food banks were designed to be?
They were but you then you read thishttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2608606/N...
Zoon said:
See you are clueless posting right wing propaganda. I actually volunteered at one, maybe you should give it a try, instead of arguing about things you have no idea about.Yes it is open to misuse but like everything represents a very small proportion of claims. We shouldn't need food banks. the goc should take care of everyone, just like the homeless are now, but there is demand.
When you listen to the actual stories of people using them, well maybe you might have a better understanding than reading the Dailymail for your information.
Electro1980 said:
AJL308 said:
Electro1980 said:
People don’t go out wanting their children to be hungry. Life happens. People get made redundant, businesses fail, unexpected things happen, people get ill, parents die etc. The vast majority of children that go hungry have loving parents who are facing hard times through no fault of their own.
Your attitude is exactly why people say the right has no compassion, and get called Tory scum.
Lots and lots of people have children when they cannot really afford it. The benefits system is supposed to be there for the very reasons you mention, unforeseen events which are beyond your control, but if you are living on a knife-edge financially speaking then is it really the right thing to have kids? Your attitude is exactly why people say the right has no compassion, and get called Tory scum.
It must be nice to live in a cosy middle class world where you don’t have to deal with these things. You never have to make choices about heating or eating. You are able to save enough to deal with a major expense or borrow the money at a reasonable rate. To say “well don’t have children if you can’t afford it” is massively ignorant of the reality of life for a lot of people.
Not taking on a financial burden that you cannot afford is not ignorant at all.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff