Reform UK - A symptom of all that is wrong?
Discussion
Mr Penguin said:
The cost of means testing can be more than the saving of just paying for everything
The children who have the vouchers get picked on for being poor
Also, funded meals for schoolchildren is a policy that has repeatedly - in every instance it has been universally implemented on a large scale, I believe - been shown to return/save far more money than cost in terms of improved educational attainment, better health, better behaviour, greater socialisation etc. etc.The children who have the vouchers get picked on for being poor
There is literally no financial, practical or rational reason to be against such a policy - the only objections are ideological or moral. But the 'facts don't care about your feelings' crowd have a tough time in cases like this.
President Merkin said:
Ah
What a surprise that you snip posts leaving out my statement that all political parties present manifesto promises and fail to deliver. Both comments stand when you join the dots up. Context matters, but you know this.crankedup5 said:
The Labour Party are not offering anything at all, well other than some mealy mouthed ‘ambitions’ which is meaningless waffle.
Ohcrankedup5 said:
The point is with Reform UK they are clearly saying here is what we would like to do.(ambitions) The response is. 12% - 15% poll rating, a fairly high number of individuals if you believe polls.
Killboy said:
crankedup5 said:
The Labour Party are not offering anything at all, well other than some mealy mouthed ‘ambitions’ which is meaningless waffle.
Here is Khans - added bonus of what he has achieved.
As you can see, a little more detail, a little more attainable, and a whole lot less "I promise just to reverse everything" Cox.
2xChevrons said:
Also, funded meals for schoolchildren is a policy that has repeatedly - in every instance it has been universally implemented on a large scale, I believe - been shown to return/save far more money than cost in terms of improved educational attainment, better health, better behaviour, greater socialisation etc. etc.
There is literally no financial, practical or rational reason to be against such a policy - the only objections are ideological or moral. But the 'facts don't care about your feelings' crowd have a tough time in cases like this.
People objecting to kids being well fed at school is something I genuinely don't get.There is literally no financial, practical or rational reason to be against such a policy - the only objections are ideological or moral. But the 'facts don't care about your feelings' crowd have a tough time in cases like this.
In terms of outcomes is there any possible downside?
valiant said:
crankedup5 said:
You seem to be saying that Political Parties only get elected by offering the electorate acceptable and attractive policy proposals. Well of course and that’s been my starting point throughout. But this attractive policy stuff is always abandoned as soon as Governance is won.
But that's Reform in a nutshell. Offer unicorns that are unworkable but are appealing to their base. Should the unthinkable happen and Reform get elected most of their manifesto would have to be massively modified or abandoned.Slogans are fine until you start asking for details.
Take the London Reform leaflet just posted. The Mayor has no control over LTNs and 20mph limits (that are not on a red route) as it's the local councils that decide it but the 2% of Londoners thinking of voting for Reform for London Mayor will believe it.
You're offering unicorns and rainbows and are no different to the Monster Raving Loony Party in that respect.
2xChevrons said:
Mr Penguin said:
The cost of means testing can be more than the saving of just paying for everything
The children who have the vouchers get picked on for being poor
Also, funded meals for schoolchildren is a policy that has repeatedly - in every instance it has been universally implemented on a large scale, I believe - been shown to return/save far more money than cost in terms of improved educational attainment, better health, better behaviour, greater socialisation etc. etc.The children who have the vouchers get picked on for being poor
There is literally no financial, practical or rational reason to be against such a policy - the only objections are ideological or moral. But the 'facts don't care about your feelings' crowd have a tough time in cases like this.
valiant said:
crankedup5 said:
Of course, all political parties do this, but much then depends upon how those proposals resonate.
The Labour Party are not offering anything at all, well other than some mealy mouthed ‘ambitions’ which is meaningless waffle. Your saying it’s not OK for one Party to offer lofty appealing proposals but it is OK for Labour to offer ‘ambitions’ which they cannot possibly achieve owing to the Shadow Chancellor setting out strict financial restrictions. Unless of course another Labour Government decides to throw the financial restriction policy into the bin.
The point is with Reform UK they are clearly saying here is what we would like to do.(ambitions) The response is. 12% - 15% poll rating, a fairly high number of individuals if you believe polls. The two major parties will look at this and decide how to respond. I’ve said so many times now, smaller Parties offer alternatives to the main Parties in the trust that people will be attracted.
I believe that Reform U.K. do have a number of proposals that are interesting and innovative. But that doesn’t matter because the Party will get nowhere near Governing the Country, certainly not for a couple of Parliaments.
The two major Parties have served the Country so well over the past 50 years, let’s elecone of those again for more decay
Labour and the Tories have to offer policies that are grounded in reality according to the economic conditions of the time. They have costed plans which won't be offering unicorns as they'll rightly be held to account when manifestos are released and any 'unicorns' will be analysed to the nth degree. Any holes will be mercilessly jumped on.The Labour Party are not offering anything at all, well other than some mealy mouthed ‘ambitions’ which is meaningless waffle. Your saying it’s not OK for one Party to offer lofty appealing proposals but it is OK for Labour to offer ‘ambitions’ which they cannot possibly achieve owing to the Shadow Chancellor setting out strict financial restrictions. Unless of course another Labour Government decides to throw the financial restriction policy into the bin.
The point is with Reform UK they are clearly saying here is what we would like to do.(ambitions) The response is. 12% - 15% poll rating, a fairly high number of individuals if you believe polls. The two major parties will look at this and decide how to respond. I’ve said so many times now, smaller Parties offer alternatives to the main Parties in the trust that people will be attracted.
I believe that Reform U.K. do have a number of proposals that are interesting and innovative. But that doesn’t matter because the Party will get nowhere near Governing the Country, certainly not for a couple of Parliaments.
The two major Parties have served the Country so well over the past 50 years, let’s elecone of those again for more decay
You may like Reforms proposals as they are offering unicorns that appeal to you. Where are the costed elements to this? Its all pie in the sky wishful thinking designed solely to appeal to it's base knowing they'll never have to enact any of it.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:2xChevrons said:
Also, funded meals for schoolchildren is a policy that has repeatedly - in every instance it has been universally implemented on a large scale, I believe - been shown to return/save far more money than cost in terms of improved educational attainment, better health, better behaviour, greater socialisation etc. etc.
There is literally no financial, practical or rational reason to be against such a policy - the only objections are ideological or moral. But the 'facts don't care about your feelings' crowd have a tough time in cases like this.
People objecting to kids being well fed at school is something I genuinely don't get.There is literally no financial, practical or rational reason to be against such a policy - the only objections are ideological or moral. But the 'facts don't care about your feelings' crowd have a tough time in cases like this.
In terms of outcomes is there any possible downside?
The closest thing to that is the added short-term cost, but it pays for itself very quickly (something like £1.70 for every £1 spent on the programme, just for core benefits, let alone downstream/wider ones).
Everything else is subjective. As we've seen in this thread, people take a moral or ideological stance against it - "I'm not paying to feed someone else's child!", "Why can't we expect parents to pay for their own kids' food?", "What happened to personal responsibility?" - and then there are loopier thin-end-of-the-wedge reasons like how we'll start off with free school meals and then end up with compulsory communist state-run creches or parents will decide to have more kids because they don't have to pay for school meals and so costs will just spiral and spiral.
S600BSB said:
crankedup5 said:
I live in Suffolk.
Guessed as much. Edited by crankedup5 on Tuesday 30th April 22:25
bad company said:
Killboy said:
Here is Khans - added bonus of what he has achieved.
As you can see, a little more detail, a little more attainable, and a whole lot less "I promise just to reverse everything" Cox.
Why should all taxpayers pay for free school meals? That’ll include children of some very wealthy parents.As you can see, a little more detail, a little more attainable, and a whole lot less "I promise just to reverse everything" Cox.
crankedup5 said:
Killboy said:
crankedup5 said:
The Labour Party are not offering anything at all, well other than some mealy mouthed ‘ambitions’ which is meaningless waffle.
Here is Khans - added bonus of what he has achieved.As you can see, a little more detail, a little more attainable, and a whole lot less "I promise just to reverse everything" Cox.
Killboy said:
crankedup5 said:
Killboy said:
crankedup5 said:
The Labour Party are not offering anything at all, well other than some mealy mouthed ‘ambitions’ which is meaningless waffle.
Here is Khans - added bonus of what he has achieved.As you can see, a little more detail, a little more attainable, and a whole lot less "I promise just to reverse everything" Cox.
2xChevrons said:
Also, funded meals for schoolchildren is a policy that has repeatedly - in every instance it has been universally implemented on a large scale, I believe - been shown to return/save far more money than cost in terms of improved educational attainment, better health, better behaviour, greater socialisation etc. etc.
There is literally no financial, practical or rational reason to be against such a policy - the only objections are ideological or moral. But the 'facts don't care about your feelings' crowd have a tough time in cases like this.
Not a reason to give it to the rich children who would get the food anyway though.There is literally no financial, practical or rational reason to be against such a policy - the only objections are ideological or moral. But the 'facts don't care about your feelings' crowd have a tough time in cases like this.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff