Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: SydneyRover on October 16, 2020, 12:07:07 pm
-
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/554276/signatures/new
-
Signed. I hope many others here will too.
-
Signed
-
Signed
Is this the petition Marcus Rashford is promoting?
-
Signed. Rashford is becoming a proper role model.
-
Signed.
-
Signed
Is this the petition Marcus Rashford is promoting?
I pretty sure it is RD
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/marcus-rashford-petition-child-poverty-signatures-free-school-meals-b1105471.html
-
Signed.
-
https://mobile.twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1318980021185351694
-
I see that Tory scum that won Don Valley voted against it, what a bas**rd he is, those that voted for him hang your heads, you were conned big time
-
I see that Tory scum that won Don Valley voted against it, what a bas**rd he is, those that voted for him hang your heads, you were conned big time
Absolutely. Got his seat and then shit on his constituents. Horrible man.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-54620118
This is what I never understand about some Tory MPs. They really just do not get that there is a fundamental kindness at the heart of British society. Clarke-Smith here is totally misjudging the public mood on this issue. Calling Rashford a "virtue-signaller" over this issue is just stupid. And once again, the amounts concerned are peanuts compared to the effect it could have, both on the lives of the very poorest kids, and on the way in which people see the Tories.
This sort of comment is what Theresa May meant all those years ago when she said that the Tories were seen as the nasty party.
-
Imagine attacking somebody campaigning to stop kids from starving. If you don't care about the issue that's one thing, but to be actively against it? Mind-bogglingly callous.
-
It’s inhuman and selfish.
I’m alright Jack attitude.
-
I think some of the points made about parents taking more responsibility are correct, some parents must get their responsibilities right. But that's not all of them and fact is to feed children a healthy balanced diet costs an absolute fortune, I don't know how we address that. Long term paying for kid's meals is not the right answer, improving the income or reducing outgoings of some parents is a better answer. But that's long term. Short term just fund the bloody thing for a few weeks.
One of the things I always found odd (I used to work in this area) was the takeup on FSM. It wasn't as high as you think, a number of those eligible didn't actually use it. But, the local authorities and providers still received the payment from government. This was 3-4 years ago so may well have changed. I'd perhaps have more sympathy for certain MP's quoting certain things if I didn't know how much profit the local authorities in their area were making on school meals and essentially abusing the system.
-
There was a man on LBC this morning speaking who said that his dad who was Egyptian, used to feed the family because the mother was alcoholic. The point being that coming from his background he knew how to cook good meals from basic ingredients at very little cost. This is sadly a skill which many in the western world do not have the knowledge to do. There's more to feeding kids than buying a box of turkey dinosaurs.
-
I was 10 when my Dad died after an accident at Broddie. I remember a social worker visiting my Mam, who worked at Bentley Laundry for a pittance, and one of the things to help her out was the offer of free school meals which at that time, early 60's, was 2/6d a week. My Mam turned on her and told her where to stick that offer, just pure pride, she would find the money to pay for the meals and would not accept what she saw as charity. Maybe that mentality still exists out there.
-
I think some of the points made about parents taking more responsibility are correct, some parents must get their responsibilities right. But that's not all of them and fact is to feed children a healthy balanced diet costs an absolute fortune, I don't know how we address that. Long term paying for kid's meals is not the right answer, improving the income or reducing outgoings of some parents is a better answer. But that's long term. Short term just fund the bloody thing for a few weeks.
One of the things I always found odd (I used to work in this area) was the takeup on FSM. It wasn't as high as you think, a number of those eligible didn't actually use it. But, the local authorities and providers still received the payment from government. This was 3-4 years ago so may well have changed. I'd perhaps have more sympathy for certain MP's quoting certain things if I didn't know how much profit the local authorities in their area were making on school meals and essentially abusing the system.
I understand its one of the 'passport' qualifications for additional funding for schools , can remeber getting a letter school when my lad was at junior school advising us to check and claim if possible as it helped them
-
Over the summer the taxpayer subsidised families, however wealthy, going out for a meal via the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme.
Taxpayers subsidise the cafes and restaraunts in the HoC where MP's earn £80 000 a year.
Why is it the country can't provide meals for children whose parents have been made redundant, or had their wages cut due to no fault of their own, over the half-term holidays again?
-
In fairness, here's a Tory MP who has but morals before her own job.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54642788
-
Over the summer the taxpayer subsidised families, however wealthy, going out for a meal via the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme.
Taxpayers subsidise the cafes and restaraunts in the HoC where MP's earn £80 000 a year.
Why is it the country can't provide meals for children whose parents have been made redundant, or had their wages cut due to no fault of their own, over the half-term holidays again?
Why can't councils use the funds they receive for unused school meals and keep at full profit?
-
It really annoys me that we have a society that can't cook at home and then essentially waste money on takeaways and eating out that costs 3 or 4 times the amount that it would to produce a healthier, more filling meal at home. Many can't or don't want to cook, but others are just plain lazy and then complain that they don't have the money to feed their kids.
Like it or not there are many 'professional' benefits claimers out there who could do more to ensure their offspring are well fed and watered.....and it might help matters if you didn't see them smoking & drinking regularly, and have the latest phones, wide screen TV, Sky package etc.
It's a real shame that kids go starving and in this "comfortable" society we live in there's the need for food banks to provide nourishment for young families to survive ...... however, I do really get a little disenchanted when I see parents covered in £1000's worth of tattoo's, smoking cigs at a tenner a packet and networking with their mates on their iPhone 11's, whilst shoving their offspring forward with the other hand, starving because they haven't had any breakfast... They have lost any sense of personal responsibility and it's utterly disgusting - try to prioritise your number one life responsibility. FEED YOUR CHILDREN.
IMO it is all about priorities.... correctly organised priorities.... just like my parents prioritised...... When I was a kid my family were skint - as were lots of the family's around us. It may have been hid behind closed doors, but I don’t recall anyone not being able to feed their kids. True, we didn’t eat like kings and we maybe ate cheaper meats and loads of veg and spuds because they were cheap... but we ate well. I have (and still could) easily feed a young adult/child on less than £20 p/w - including treats. It doesn't cost much to eat -healthy food is available and buying it should be the first priority not the last.
Unfortunately we have a generation of crap parents that are being led by a nanny state... which in turn will/have produced crap parents depending on a nanny state. Having kids isn't a right - it's a huge responsibility.
-
........And that is precisely why socialism doesn't work.
-
You do know that this is all happening under capitalism, don't you? I was starting to think there were a few things even you wouldn't use to bait the lefties, BB. Obviously starving kids isn't one of them.
MM, this often doesn't go down well with your generation, but there's a difference between being skint and just about managing as you describe and being below the poverty line. This generation is going through hardships that yours couldn't even imagine. Most parents in poverty are in work - https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/what-has-driven-rise-work-poverty - some in several jobs. Many are on insecure zero hour contracts. There's no safety net there for them. If you ate well, you were lucky. Privileged. Kids today are not so lucky. I assure you, you're getting annoyed at the wrong thing.
-
Over the summer the taxpayer subsidised families, however wealthy, going out for a meal via the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme.
Taxpayers subsidise the cafes and restaraunts in the HoC where MP's earn £80 000 a year.
Why is it the country can't provide meals for children whose parents have been made redundant, or had their wages cut due to no fault of their own, over the half-term holidays again?
Why can't councils use the funds they receive for unused school meals and keep at full profit?
Because they are not allowed. Neither are schools. That's what yesterdys vote was about that the Tory's voted against - extending provision of a service.
There is no left-over money anyway. Our school precept is decided by a number of criteria and the number of children on roll entitled to FSM is one of them. We then allocate the budget on that. It doesn't matter if the children eat the meals or not - or even leave - the money has been and gone before the year even starts.
-
........And that is precisely why socialism doesn't work.
Exactly. Why should we have free schooling anway? If you can't afford to pay for private school fees go and find a chimney to clean peasants.
-
It really annoys me that we have a society that can't cook at home and then essentially waste money on takeaways and eating out that costs 3 or 4 times the amount that it would to produce a healthier, more filling meal at home. Many can't or don't want to cook, but others are just plain lazy and then complain that they don't have the money to feed their kids.
Like it or not there are many 'professional' benefits claimers out there who could do more to ensure their offspring are well fed and watered.....and it might help matters if you didn't see them smoking & drinking regularly, and have the latest phones, wide screen TV, Sky package etc.
It's a real shame that kids go starving and in this "comfortable" society we live in there's the need for food banks to provide nourishment for young families to survive ...... however, I do really get a little disenchanted when I see parents covered in £1000's worth of tattoo's, smoking cigs at a tenner a packet and networking with their mates on their iPhone 11's, whilst shoving their offspring forward with the other hand, starving because they haven't had any breakfast... They have lost any sense of personal responsibility and it's utterly disgusting - try to prioritise your number one life responsibility. FEED YOUR CHILDREN.
IMO it is all about priorities.... correctly organised priorities.... just like my parents prioritised...... When I was a kid my family were skint - as were lots of the family's around us. It may have been hid behind closed doors, but I don’t recall anyone not being able to feed their kids. True, we didn’t eat like kings and we maybe ate cheaper meats and loads of veg and spuds because they were cheap... but we ate well. I have (and still could) easily feed a young adult/child on less than £20 p/w - including treats. It doesn't cost much to eat -healthy food is available and buying it should be the first priority not the last.
Unfortunately we have a generation of crap parents that are being led by a nanny state... which in turn will/have produced crap parents depending on a nanny state. Having kids isn't a right - it's a huge responsibility.
Totally agree with every word there.
-
MM. I have great sympathy for starving kids, even when their parents are spending money on fags and booze and top of the range mobiles. I sympathise with those kids because they have parents who use them as bargaining tools to claim benefits that are provided by people who genuinely care. People like you and me. Their parents don't have to care. We care for them.
It is these people who you should be condemning, not me! Many genuinely desperate people have to go without because of them.
-
You do know that this is all happening under capitalism, don't you? I was starting to think there were a few things even you wouldn't use to bait the lefties, BB. Obviously starving kids isn't one of them.
MM, this often doesn't go down well with your generation, but there's a difference between being skint and just about managing as you describe and being below the poverty line. This generation is going through hardships that yours couldn't even imagine. Most parents in poverty are in work - https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/what-has-driven-rise-work-poverty - some in several jobs. Many are on insecure zero hour contracts. There's no safety net there for them. If you ate well, you were lucky. Privileged. Kids today are not so lucky. I assure you, you're getting annoyed at the wrong thing.
If you have an iPhone, loads of tattoos and smoke cigs you are not in poverty. That is a life choice on how you spend money.
I don't have a phone, computer or foreign holidays, I put my money into my home, it is my life choice.
-
MM. I have great sympathy for starving kids, even when their parents are spending money on fags and booze and top of the range mobiles. I sympathise with those kids because they have parents who use them as bargaining tools to claim benefits that are provided by people who genuinely care. People like you and me. Their parents don't have to care. We care for them.
It is these people who you should be condemning, not me! Many genuinely desperate people have to go without because of them.
Surely you must see that these Benefit Street parents are few and far between and the vast majority of starving kids are living in honest, hardworking homes with parents working multiple jobs and often going without themselves to feed their kids. What about those kids? Should we just tar their parents with the same brush because of the tiny minority of spongers out there? I've worked with people in this kind of poverty before, and I can assure you I never met a single one of them who'd get a new iPhone every year before they fed their kids. Again, there's a difference between being skint and being in desperate poverty. That's who this safety net is for. And yeah, maybe the odd sponger will take advantage of it when they shouldn't. But it's a price worth paying. Because the alternative is this.
AL. That's good for you, but that's your choice. A lot of people don't have that choice. Oftentimes, they need a smartphone to look for work or to do their jobs when they get them. If they don't understand how to use them, they can't access the support they need. You might not need them in your life - good for you, but a lot of people will never get the opportunity to build a career like you did without one. A lot of them will never get that opportunity full stop.
There's also the issue of living - people shouldn't have to live in corrugated iron shacks doing jigsaws by candlelight before they're deemed "poor enough". Internet access, phones, TVs, cars etc are part of modern life now. Just having them doesn't mean you're not poor, and it doesn't mean you've got it easy.
-
MM. Who said anything about tarring them with the same brush? I certainly didn't! And why should they not be condemned just because you think they are 'few and far between?'
You said: "I've worked with people in this kind of poverty before, and I can assure you I never met a single one of them who'd get a new iPhone every year before they fed their kids." If they can afford a new iPhone after their kids have been fed by someone else I question the morality of that. Don't you? And, surely they are not in desperate poverty if they can do that, and if they are skint it's because they are spending all their money on non-essentials, instead of food. Don't you agree?
-
You do know that this is all happening under capitalism, don't you? I was starting to think there were a few things even you wouldn't use to bait the lefties, BB. Obviously starving kids isn't one of them.
MM, this often doesn't go down well with your generation, but there's a difference between being skint and just about managing as you describe and being below the poverty line. This generation is going through hardships that yours couldn't even imagine. Most parents in poverty are in work - https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/what-has-driven-rise-work-poverty - some in several jobs. Many are on insecure zero hour contracts. There's no safety net there for them. If you ate well, you were lucky. Privileged. Kids today are not so lucky. I assure you, you're getting annoyed at the wrong thing.
If you have an iPhone, loads of tattoos and smoke cigs you are not in poverty. That is a life choice on how you spend money.
I don't have a phone, computer or foreign holidays, I put my money into my home, it is my life choice.
Just out of interest AL but no phone or computer, how do you manage to post on here?
-
In fairness, here's a Tory MP who has but morals before her own job.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54642788
Or is she in a marginal seat and voted in a way to keep her seat
-
You do know that this is all happening under capitalism, don't you? I was starting to think there were a few things even you wouldn't use to bait the lefties, BB. Obviously starving kids isn't one of them.
MM, this often doesn't go down well with your generation, but there's a difference between being skint and just about managing as you describe and being below the poverty line. This generation is going through hardships that yours couldn't even imagine. Most parents in poverty are in work - https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/what-has-driven-rise-work-poverty - some in several jobs. Many are on insecure zero hour contracts. There's no safety net there for them. If you ate well, you were lucky. Privileged. Kids today are not so lucky. I assure you, you're getting annoyed at the wrong thing.
If you have an iPhone, loads of tattoos and smoke cigs you are not in poverty. That is a life choice on how you spend money.
I don't have a phone, computer or foreign holidays, I put my money into my home, it is my life choice.
How do you access the internet and post on a forum?
-
MM. Who said anything about tarring them with the same brush? I certainly didn't! And why should they not be condemned just because you think they are 'few and far between?'
You said: "I've worked with people in this kind of poverty before, and I can assure you I never met a single one of them who'd get a new iPhone every year before they fed their kids." If they can afford a new iPhone after their kids have been fed by someone else I question the morality of that. Don't you? And, surely they are not in desperate poverty if they can do that, and if they are skint it's because they are spending all their money on non-essentials, instead of food. Don't you agree?
But it's irrelevant, because we're talking about the children not the parents.
And I would think the %age of benefits claimants who fritter their money away on such "luxuries" is minimal, despite what a BAFTA winning Channel 5 documentary has potrayed.
(Plus, I actually think you've misread the post you've quoted)
-
It really annoys me that we have a society that can't cook at home and then essentially waste money on takeaways and eating out that costs 3 or 4 times the amount that it would to produce a healthier, more filling meal at home. Many can't or don't want to cook, but others are just plain lazy and then complain that they don't have the money to feed their kids.
Like it or not there are many 'professional' benefits claimers out there who could do more to ensure their offspring are well fed and watered.....and it might help matters if you didn't see them smoking & drinking regularly, and have the latest phones, wide screen TV, Sky package etc.
It's a real shame that kids go starving and in this "comfortable" society we live in there's the need for food banks to provide nourishment for young families to survive ...... however, I do really get a little disenchanted when I see parents covered in £1000's worth of tattoo's, smoking cigs at a tenner a packet and networking with their mates on their iPhone 11's, whilst shoving their offspring forward with the other hand, starving because they haven't had any breakfast... They have lost any sense of personal responsibility and it's utterly disgusting - try to prioritise your number one life responsibility. FEED YOUR CHILDREN.
IMO it is all about priorities.... correctly organised priorities.... just like my parents prioritised...... When I was a kid my family were skint - as were lots of the family's around us. It may have been hid behind closed doors, but I don’t recall anyone not being able to feed their kids. True, we didn’t eat like kings and we maybe ate cheaper meats and loads of veg and spuds because they were cheap... but we ate well. I have (and still could) easily feed a young adult/child on less than £20 p/w - including treats. It doesn't cost much to eat -healthy food is available and buying it should be the first priority not the last.
Unfortunately we have a generation of crap parents that are being led by a nanny state... which in turn will/have produced crap parents depending on a nanny state. Having kids isn't a right - it's a huge responsibility.
Totally agree with every word there.
Aye. Those parents grab the headlines. The ones who are working flat out on minimum wage precarious jobs get ignored.
-
Do you mean those on minimum wage who are working flat out whose priority is to feed their kids or those who put luxuries first and leave their kids to be fed by the state?
-
You do know that this is all happening under capitalism, don't you? I was starting to think there were a few things even you wouldn't use to bait the lefties, BB. Obviously starving kids isn't one of them.
MM, this often doesn't go down well with your generation, but there's a difference between being skint and just about managing as you describe and being below the poverty line. This generation is going through hardships that yours couldn't even imagine. Most parents in poverty are in work - https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/what-has-driven-rise-work-poverty - some in several jobs. Many are on insecure zero hour contracts. There's no safety net there for them. If you ate well, you were lucky. Privileged. Kids today are not so lucky. I assure you, you're getting annoyed at the wrong thing.
I'm guessing you've assumed what 'my generation' is and then padded it out to suit. However, I do have a bit of a handle on the hardships involved and working voluntarily for the Youth Offending Service has given me more of an insight to these. I also have colleagues who work with homeless children where I live and who increasingly see cases of child neglect and children who have had to leave home because of neglect and abuse. There are without doubt people working hard to provide for there kids, however there are also a large number who don't work, don't care and are riding the social welfare wave...
I'm no fan of this present government.... however they can't/shouldn't pay welfare twice - it's not a bottomless pot. There maybe a case for a proportion of welfare to be in the form of food vouchers rather than cash - I don't know...... but there is no way that someone on benefits should be unable to feed their children - the only thing preventing this is the parent/s. Many rely on the state for everything and have lost any sense of personal responsibility and it's utterly disgusting.
-
What always gets me is the amount of older folk who are of the mindset that because their life was hard, and in some cases, shit, everyone else's should be too.
-
I'm an older folk.
My generation were one of the luckiest ever.
Easy to get a job and a career.
Easy to get a mortgage on an affordable decent house.
Free healthcare and immunisation and if you were as lucky as me a great NHS pension.
My parents had to share a house with relatives and me dad's wages were crap down the pit.
And working class kids today are even worse off in every way.
-
So people were happy to contribute to the Eat Out To Help Out which subsidised meals for well-off families - cost £500 million (and begun the rise in infections for 2nd wave)
But not provide free school meals for a week for less well off families affected by a pandemic - cost £20 million.
Have a nice day.
-
Maybe now would be a good time to arrange a joint donation to a local food bank?
-
Maybe those with all the skills and advice on how to cook and how to budget should volunteer their time and use their expertise to help these families manage. It's a shame to waste all that knowledge here on the forum.
-
Could the same use be made of the political experts too?
-
politicians don't seem appear to be very appreciative of advice hound look how long it's taken them to understand that the world class multibillion pound test and trace system is nothing but a crock.
UK 7 richest and 205 worst out of 217 death/million the politicians are doing fine witout my input.
-
Anyone who thinks it's ok for the government to spend £150m on unusable PPE masks, or £500m so families can eat out for half-price, or give £13.8m to a ferry company with no ferries, but won't spend anything to ensure kids don't go hungry over the coming school holidays, is a scumbag. And don't try to convince anyone otherwise; just go look in the mirror and admit it to yourself - your are a scumbag.
-
Worse than just spending £150m on unusable facemasks. Spending £150m on unusable facemasks supplied by a company that won a contract with no public tender, that had no previous record in sourcing and supplying medical PPE, that actually has a background in pest control equipment, and that made a big point in its case for being awarded the uncompeted contract by saying that they had some family in China who could help them. Oh yeah, and that the MD's wife was a vet...
Oh aye. And a company, that had net assets of £18,047 in its last filed accounts, shortly before it was awarded a total of £340m of contracts to supply PPE.
Oh aye. And when they were awarded one of the small contracts to supply nitrile gloves, this was what the MD posted on LinkedIn.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ekb9SmJU0AECaD5?format=jpg&name=900x900
Oh aye, and those contracts were awarded in April. And our very own law says that the Govt must publish the details of contracts it awards within 30 days. Precisely so that there is a spotlight to show up this sort of corrupt incompetence. And they published them...last week.
And as you say BJW, the self same MPs who voted last night to deny free school meals over the holidays, and criticised the likes of Rashford as "virtue-signallers" have made not one whimper of public criticism about that outrage.
-
Maybe now would be a good time to arrange a joint donation to a local food bank?
From what I have read locally DMBC are going to provide the "missing" School Meals ***
I presume that the amount it costs means other things that are already underfunded will be more underfunded now and those things that they are just managing to keep going will now be underfunded
In another gesture I saw a local Chippy has said during the period when the kids are not getting the meals THEY will offer a basic Fishcake and Chips or Sausage and Chips FREE becasue they said "We are all in this together" - very public spirited - some wont agree of course
I am assuming both these scenarios will be played out across "most" of the UK.
*** Looking at this Thread and Facebook and Twitter it is obvious that there is a huge chasm of opinion already on the subject .... but ... for us around here ....
... whether people will agree with it or not I suppose its democratic in that we elected our local Politicians and could vote them out if we dont agree ?
-
Over the summer the taxpayer subsidised families, however wealthy, going out for a meal via the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme.
Taxpayers subsidise the cafes and restaraunts in the HoC where MP's earn £80 000 a year.
Why is it the country can't provide meals for children whose parents have been made redundant, or had their wages cut due to no fault of their own, over the half-term holidays again?
Why can't councils use the funds they receive for unused school meals and keep at full profit?
Because they are not allowed. Neither are schools. That's what yesterdys vote was about that the Tory's voted against - extending provision of a service.
There is no left-over money anyway. Our school precept is decided by a number of criteria and the number of children on roll entitled to FSM is one of them. We then allocate the budget on that. It doesn't matter if the children eat the meals or not - or even leave - the money has been and gone before the year even starts.
How have Doncaster managed it then?
I have physically seen and been involved in the conversations to look at how much can be made out of FSM. As an example those on FSM will get an allowance each day. If that allowance is unused the allowance is removed from the account of the child. Where is that money going?
Also for those that do pay how is it right that profit is added in some cases by 4 different entities before a child is charged?
-
My reply 2 above
Now seen Liverpool Cafes down to Greenwich Observatory are dishing out meals for kids
(Meantime wait for a U turn - sorry couldnt resist the meantime "joke")
-
Good to see restauarants/establishments all over the country step up and offer lunches through half term, not to mention our own council.
https://twitter.com/MyDoncaster/status/1319557066235826178 (https://twitter.com/MyDoncaster/status/1319557066235826178)
-
Anyone who thinks it's ok for the government to spend £150m on unusable PPE masks, or £500m so families can eat out for half-price, or give £13.8m to a ferry company with no ferries, but won't spend anything to ensure kids don't go hungry over the coming school holidays, is a scumbag. And don't try to convince anyone otherwise; just go look in the mirror and admit it to yourself - your are a scumbag.
As an aside and putting the correctness of the point to one side. BJW here illustrates why a lot of ppl, myself included, are reluctant to support Labour, the "if you don't agree with me you're scum" attitude of many on that side
-
Anyone who thinks it's ok for the government to spend £150m on unusable PPE masks, or £500m so families can eat out for half-price, or give £13.8m to a ferry company with no ferries, but won't spend anything to ensure kids don't go hungry over the coming school holidays, is a scumbag. And don't try to convince anyone otherwise; just go look in the mirror and admit it to yourself - your are a scumbag.
As an aside and putting the correctness of the point to one side. BJW here illustrates why a lot of ppl, myself included, are reluctant to support Labour, the "if you don't agree with me you're scum" attitude of many on that side
Her aunty had recently died from covid, and that bas**rd labelled her opportunistic, and then made an attempt at faux outrage when he tried to turn it round, probably difficult for her to control her disgust after labelling her aunty’s death as opportunistic, but at the end of the day what she said was correct, they are scum
-
Anyone who thinks it's ok for the government to spend £150m on unusable PPE masks, or £500m so families can eat out for half-price, or give £13.8m to a ferry company with no ferries, but won't spend anything to ensure kids don't go hungry over the coming school holidays, is a scumbag. And don't try to convince anyone otherwise; just go look in the mirror and admit it to yourself - your are a scumbag.
As an aside and putting the correctness of the point to one side. BJW here illustrates why a lot of ppl, myself included, are reluctant to support Labour, the "if you don't agree with me you're scum" attitude of many on that side
Her aunty had recently died from covid, and that bas**rd labelled her opportunistic, and then made an attempt at faux outrage when he tried to turn it round, probably difficult for her to control her disgust after labelling her aunty’s death as opportunistic, but at the end of the day what she said was correct, they are scum
Complete missing of my point
-
You do know that this is all happening under capitalism, don't you? I was starting to think there were a few things even you wouldn't use to bait the lefties, BB. Obviously starving kids isn't one of them.
MM, this often doesn't go down well with your generation, but there's a difference between being skint and just about managing as you describe and being below the poverty line. This generation is going through hardships that yours couldn't even imagine. Most parents in poverty are in work - https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/what-has-driven-rise-work-poverty - some in several jobs. Many are on insecure zero hour contracts. There's no safety net there for them. If you ate well, you were lucky. Privileged. Kids today are not so lucky. I assure you, you're getting annoyed at the wrong thing.
If you have an iPhone, loads of tattoos and smoke cigs you are not in poverty. That is a life choice on how you spend money.
I don't have a phone, computer or foreign holidays, I put my money into my home, it is my life choice.
Just out of interest AL but no phone or computer, how do you manage to post on here?
Computer at work.
-
Anyone who thinks it's ok for the government to spend £150m on unusable PPE masks, or £500m so families can eat out for half-price, or give £13.8m to a ferry company with no ferries, but won't spend anything to ensure kids don't go hungry over the coming school holidays, is a scumbag. And don't try to convince anyone otherwise; just go look in the mirror and admit it to yourself - your are a scumbag.
As an aside and putting the correctness of the point to one side. BJW here illustrates why a lot of ppl, myself included, are reluctant to support Labour, the "if you don't agree with me you're scum" attitude of many on that side
Her aunty had recently died from covid, and that bas**rd labelled her opportunistic, and then made an attempt at faux outrage when he tried to turn it round, probably difficult for her to control her disgust after labelling her aunty’s death as opportunistic, but at the end of the day what she said was correct, they are scum
Complete missing of my point
Quite deliberately as well no doubt. But did you really think for a minute a tory supporter would ever deny that a PM giving billions to his mates was anything other than a scumbag
-
Anyone who thinks it's ok for the government to spend £150m on unusable PPE masks, or £500m so families can eat out for half-price, or give £13.8m to a ferry company with no ferries, but won't spend anything to ensure kids don't go hungry over the coming school holidays, is a scumbag. And don't try to convince anyone otherwise; just go look in the mirror and admit it to yourself - your are a scumbag.
As an aside and putting the correctness of the point to one side. BJW here illustrates why a lot of ppl, myself included, are reluctant to support Labour, the "if you don't agree with me you're scum" attitude of many on that side
Her aunty had recently died from covid, and that bas**rd labelled her opportunistic, and then made an attempt at faux outrage when he tried to turn it round, probably difficult for her to control her disgust after labelling her aunty’s death as opportunistic, but at the end of the day what she said was correct, they are scum
Complete missing of my point
Quite deliberately as well no doubt. But did you really think for a minute a tory supporter would ever deny that a PM giving billions to his mates was anything other than a scumbag
Many who voted Tory will yes. It requires a full independent audit of that there is no doubt.
The use of that word is very wrong though, the point which is right is that creating division further will not win an election. Kier Starmer is good at being pointed but respectful, she simply is not.
If we think it's right to go around calling people scum openly then we have serious issues in society.
-
Yes calling people "scum" is not on imo. It inflames what is already a "difficult" time for all
Much better to be polite like this
https://twitter.com/mattuthompson/status/1312117010843660289?lang=en (https://twitter.com/mattuthompson/status/1312117010843660289?lang=en)
Perfectly reasonable question - maybe Hancock didnt fancy answering the actual question put. If he thinks that is divisive language well he aint been on here has he
-
Maybe now would be a good time to arrange a joint donation to a local food bank?
I remember there was a thread for this last season - is that still on do you know? Does SM have any more info about arrangements for this season?
-
Seems nothing's changed in decades , the insults were flying in Bevan's day too .
Nothing's changed because the Tory Party are lower than vermin and they are scum .
Just my opinion but one I will defend robustly as a working class man whose lived and worked long enough in South Yorkshire under tory government's .
Sometimes it has to be called out as you see it but it isn't lesser a fact either if you do .
https://tidesofhistory.com/2018/07/03/lower-than-vermin-the-story-of-bevans-quote-that-lives-on/
-
The lad doesn't give up , nice to see a young lad use his celebrity status in a positive way .
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/oct/23/marcus-rashford-public-campaign-end-child-food-poverty-covid-food-donations-mp-reject-free-school-meals
-
Anyone who thinks it's ok for the government to spend £150m on unusable PPE masks, or £500m so families can eat out for half-price, or give £13.8m to a ferry company with no ferries, but won't spend anything to ensure kids don't go hungry over the coming school holidays, is a scumbag. And don't try to convince anyone otherwise; just go look in the mirror and admit it to yourself - your are a scumbag.
As an aside and putting the correctness of the point to one side. BJW here illustrates why a lot of ppl, myself included, are reluctant to support Labour, the "if you don't agree with me you're scum" attitude of many on that side
Her aunty had recently died from covid, and that bas**rd labelled her opportunistic, and then made an attempt at faux outrage when he tried to turn it round, probably difficult for her to control her disgust after labelling her aunty’s death as opportunistic, but at the end of the day what she said was correct, they are scum
Complete missing of my point
Quite deliberately as well no doubt. But did you really think for a minute a tory supporter would ever deny that a PM giving billions to his mates was anything other than a scumbag
I think what ldr is referring to is that bjw wasn’t identifying one Tory individual.
His post comes across as though he thinks that anyone who voted Tory is a scumbag.
-
Cambridge University Press describes "scum" as a very bad or immoral person or group of people:
I think that description fits one person in particular and the group of people doesn't really need further explanation does it?
-
I see Donny council are stepping up to provide meals over the holidays. Sheffield too. Great stuff, although you wonder if this wasn't the plan all along - shove the burden onto the councils then wash your hands of it.
-
You're all missing the point I hope to make. If party "a" needs to pick up votes to gain power, then they need to romance ppl who don't vote for them. Unfortunately Labour have a lot of ppl like BJW who are willing to label people who don't scum. He's not alone either. The younger supporters, tend to be very antagonist and that is counter productive to gaining votes is the point.
-
You should vote for who you think is the right choice, not because of the views of some people who may vote the same way - you’re not voting for those individuals.?
-
You do know that this is all happening under capitalism, don't you? I was starting to think there were a few things even you wouldn't use to bait the lefties, BB. Obviously starving kids isn't one of them.
MM, this often doesn't go down well with your generation, but there's a difference between being skint and just about managing as you describe and being below the poverty line. This generation is going through hardships that yours couldn't even imagine. Most parents in poverty are in work - https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/what-has-driven-rise-work-poverty - some in several jobs. Many are on insecure zero hour contracts. There's no safety net there for them. If you ate well, you were lucky. Privileged. Kids today are not so lucky. I assure you, you're getting annoyed at the wrong thing.
If you have an iPhone, loads of tattoos and smoke cigs you are not in poverty. That is a life choice on how you spend money.
I don't have a phone, computer or foreign holidays, I put my money into my home, it is my life choice.
Just out of interest AL but no phone or computer, how do you manage to post on here?
Computer at work.
👍
-
Cambridge University Press describes "scum" as a very bad or immoral person or group of people:
I think that description fits one person in particular and the group of people doesn't really need further explanation does it?
Sorry to disagree E4D but the post by bjw clearly advises the reader to "go look in the mirror and admit it to yourself, your (should be you're) a scumbag.
-
Cambridge University Press describes "scum" as a very bad or immoral person or group of people:
I think that description fits one person in particular and the group of people doesn't really need further explanation does it?
Sorry to disagree E4D but the post by bjw clearly advises the reader to "go look in the mirror and admit it to yourself, your (should be you're) a scumbag.
Whilst I agree with what you say there are others who might interpret it differently. A bit like the Tier 3 lockdown rules which are not exactly crystal clear.
-
Cambridge University Press describes "scum" as a very bad or immoral person or group of people:
I think that description fits one person in particular and the group of people doesn't really need further explanation does it?
Sorry to disagree E4D but the post by bjw clearly advises the reader to "go look in the mirror and admit it to yourself, your (should be you're) a scumbag.
Whilst I agree with what you say there are others who might interpret it differently. A bit like the Tier 3 lockdown rules which are not exactly crystal clear.
That is another story though.
-
Cutting through the government spin , worth a watch .
https://youtu.be/T9OGJB0cEEI
-
Tory supporters of this disgraceful government on here are defending the indefensible.
Everything they do is for themselves or their mates or the people/organisations that line their pockets.
It must be breaking their greedy slavering chops that they've had to shell out some money to the oicks, even if they're giving as little as possible.
-
Over the summer the taxpayer subsidised families, however wealthy, going out for a meal via the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme.
Taxpayers subsidise the cafes and restaraunts in the HoC where MP's earn £80 000 a year.
Why is it the country can't provide meals for children whose parents have been made redundant, or had their wages cut due to no fault of their own, over the half-term holidays again?
Why can't councils use the funds they receive for unused school meals and keep at full profit?
Because they are not allowed. Neither are schools. That's what yesterdys vote was about that the Tory's voted against - extending provision of a service.
There is no left-over money anyway. Our school precept is decided by a number of criteria and the number of children on roll entitled to FSM is one of them. We then allocate the budget on that. It doesn't matter if the children eat the meals or not - or even leave - the money has been and gone before the year even starts.
How have Doncaster managed it then?
I have physically seen and been involved in the conversations to look at how much can be made out of FSM. As an example those on FSM will get an allowance each day. If that allowance is unused the allowance is removed from the account of the child. Where is that money going?
Also for those that do pay how is it right that profit is added in some cases by 4 different entities before a child is charged?
I am on the finance committee of our school and it is our task to agree the budget for this year. I have it here in front of me
We have two income lines, one is a lump sum allocated by the council based on numbers on roll (which takes into account FSM), the other is Pupil Premium which is based entirely on how many disadvantaged children (FSM) are on the roll.
We have about 30 expenditure lines - by far the largest is staff costs. The Pupil Premium money, which has to be accounted for in detail, most of that gets spent on extra staff and resources - because these children require extra resources to 'catch up'.
There is no money left. It doesn't matter whether the children have meals or not, the money is allocated already and its gone. The only 'extra' we can make is by hiring the facilities after hours, which ain't happening.
How Doncaster and the other councils have managed to fund the holiday schemes I don't know - it certainly hasn't come from education budgets.
-
Over the summer the taxpayer subsidised families, however wealthy, going out for a meal via the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme.
Taxpayers subsidise the cafes and restaraunts in the HoC where MP's earn £80 000 a year.
Why is it the country can't provide meals for children whose parents have been made redundant, or had their wages cut due to no fault of their own, over the half-term holidays again?
Why can't councils use the funds they receive for unused school meals and keep at full profit?
Because they are not allowed. Neither are schools. That's what yesterdys vote was about that the Tory's voted against - extending provision of a service.
There is no left-over money anyway. Our school precept is decided by a number of criteria and the number of children on roll entitled to FSM is one of them. We then allocate the budget on that. It doesn't matter if the children eat the meals or not - or even leave - the money has been and gone before the year even starts.
How have Doncaster managed it then?
I have physically seen and been involved in the conversations to look at how much can be made out of FSM. As an example those on FSM will get an allowance each day. If that allowance is unused the allowance is removed from the account of the child. Where is that money going?
Also for those that do pay how is it right that profit is added in some cases by 4 different entities before a child is charged?
I am on the finance committee of our school and it is our task to agree the budget for this year. I have it here in front of me
We have two income lines, one is a lump sum allocated by the council based on numbers on roll (which takes into account FSM), the other is Pupil Premium which is based entirely on how many disadvantaged children (FSM) are on the roll.
We have about 30 expenditure lines - by far the largest is staff costs. The Pupil Premium money, which has to be accounted for in detail, most of that gets spent on extra staff and resources - because these children require extra resources to 'catch up'.
There is no money left. It doesn't matter whether the children have meals or not, the money is allocated already and its gone. The only 'extra' we can make is by hiring the facilities after hours, which ain't happening.
How Doncaster and the other councils have managed to fund the holiday schemes I don't know - it certainly hasn't come from education budgets.
Tier 3 settlement?
-
Over the summer the taxpayer subsidised families, however wealthy, going out for a meal via the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme.
Taxpayers subsidise the cafes and restaraunts in the HoC where MP's earn £80 000 a year.
Why is it the country can't provide meals for children whose parents have been made redundant, or had their wages cut due to no fault of their own, over the half-term holidays again?
Why can't councils use the funds they receive for unused school meals and keep at full profit?
Because they are not allowed. Neither are schools. That's what yesterdys vote was about that the Tory's voted against - extending provision of a service.
There is no left-over money anyway. Our school precept is decided by a number of criteria and the number of children on roll entitled to FSM is one of them. We then allocate the budget on that. It doesn't matter if the children eat the meals or not - or even leave - the money has been and gone before the year even starts.
How have Doncaster managed it then?
I have physically seen and been involved in the conversations to look at how much can be made out of FSM. As an example those on FSM will get an allowance each day. If that allowance is unused the allowance is removed from the account of the child. Where is that money going?
Also for those that do pay how is it right that profit is added in some cases by 4 different entities before a child is charged?
I am on the finance committee of our school and it is our task to agree the budget for this year. I have it here in front of me
We have two income lines, one is a lump sum allocated by the council based on numbers on roll (which takes into account FSM), the other is Pupil Premium which is based entirely on how many disadvantaged children (FSM) are on the roll.
We have about 30 expenditure lines - by far the largest is staff costs. The Pupil Premium money, which has to be accounted for in detail, most of that gets spent on extra staff and resources - because these children require extra resources to 'catch up'.
There is no money left. It doesn't matter whether the children have meals or not, the money is allocated already and its gone. The only 'extra' we can make is by hiring the facilities after hours, which ain't happening.
How Doncaster and the other councils have managed to fund the holiday schemes I don't know - it certainly hasn't come from education budgets.
Tier 3 settlement?
Burnham bewitchment? (sic)
-
Here's a bit of light hearted fun for you. This is a list of all the MP's that voted against providing free school meals for a week - with a list of all the expenses they have claimed so far this year:
http://mpsagainstfreeschoolmeals.com/
-
It's not a though the chief tory is short of a derogatory word either to describe the great British working public or anyone that comes into his field of vision is he.
-
Of course the Tories will embrace the idea of business and charitable organisations stepping in to provide assistance instead of central government. Charitable donations are much more in tune with Tory thinking. shades of Cameron's big society. It also pushes Rashford back towards celebrity charity figurehead rather than political activist. The government will be much happier with that I would imagine.
In endorsing this approach, does it lift some of the pressure on government to provide a more robust safety net? I think perhaps it does.
-
I absolutely disagree with scattergun labelling of people of any political persuasion as scum. But I certainly don't recoil from pointing out specific examples.
Here's Ben Bradley for example. The young Tory MP for Mansfield. You might recall he made a minor tit of himself a few months ago when he said he wasn't privileged because he'd worked as a labourer. (Plot spoiler. He DID work for a few weeks as a gardener, between f**king up one degree and starting another one, all after his private school education.)
Anyway, this is how he's been acting this week.
https://mobile.twitter.com/BBradley_Mans/status/1319712149174968323
In summary, he clearly and unambiguously said in a tweet that FSM vouchers last summer in Mansfield were a subsidy to a crack house and a brothel. It's there in his own words.
When Angela Rayner publicised that, he then called out for her not to take his words out of context.
He also went to great lengths to lecture Rashford on Twitter about it being a complicated thing and that the Govt has to balance the books.
FSM for this half term would cost £20m. His geographically close colleague Jenrick wangled £25m out if the Town's Fund for his own town which didn't make the cut in the official rankings. Matt Hancock gave an uncompeted contract to a company who then bought £150m of useless PPE and passed it on to the NHS before it was found to be below standard and rejected it.
I've scoured Bradley's public comments, but I can't find any criticism of those flagrant and corrupt wastes of public money. Yet he chooses to stir up opposition to FSM by saying it subsidised illegality in Mansfield. Then complains when he's called out for it.
Choose your own noun to apply to people with standards like that. I know which one I would choose.
-
Scum is a mild word for Ben Bradley. The man is on record as saying the unemployed should be sterilised.
-
Bradley has just been on Newsnight again claiming to have been taken out of context.
He was also endorsing the idea of business providing charitable aid and trying to align himself with Rashford on that.
Personally I think Rashford ought to just have turned down the MBE in protest.
-
What Bradley is doing there by the way is an age old right wing trope. Undermining support for benefits by suggesting that they are subsidies for elements of society that right wingers traditionally abhor. And using that as the reason to withhold the benefits from everyone. It's a moral stance that I find revolting.
-
RD.
Folk can see the precise words he used and decide for themselves if he was taken out of context.
That's the other age old trope by the way.
a) Give an insight into your soul.
b) Provoke outrage.
c) Throw your hands up in bewildered innocence, saying "But...but...I didn't mean THAT!"
d) Throw the outrage back at the opponents saying, "Look how nasty they are."
Trump has been a master of that. Looks like he has a student in young Bradley.
-
Scum is a mild word for Ben Bradley. The man is on record as saying the unemployed should be sterilised.
Wow! I didn't know that MM, but here it is.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservative-vice-chairman-youth-ben-bradley-apology-unemployed-vasectomies-a8163151.html%3famp
And his "apology" is another insight into his soul.
"I apologise for these posts. My time in politics has allowed me to mature and I now realise that this language is not appropriate."
No, no, f**king NO!
It is NOT the "language" that is inappropriate. It is the personal standards and morality that lead to the synapses firing in the brain that lead to the language that are inappropriate. The language is the style in which you present your thoughts. His thoughts clearly were that benefit claimants should be sterilised. Saying that in different language doesn't make the thought any more appropriate.
-
Calling for sections of society to be sterilised really goes beyond right wing conservativism.
The man is a 'kin fascist.
Funnily enough, he sports a hitler youth undercut. How appropriate.
-
Get this too. Bradley was trolling Rashford earlier, goading him to come to visit a school in Mansfield where the Head is against FSM.
Except...here's a response from a school governor.
https://mobile.twitter.com/BraunandRed/status/1319720633761210374
-
The amazing thing if people actually looked at the facts are that the UK doesn't actually need a tory party never mind one in government .
The Labour Party under Blair was quite capable of keeping the wealth with the wealthy whilst levelling up .
I'm not Blair's New Labour's greatest advocate by any means and I'm looking at this pragmatically and trying desperately to find the common ground in this country right now .
For all it's faults which I'll accept its a tragedy Blair didn't put the Tories out of business altogether because he most certainly had the opportunity .
They couldn't get near him for three elections and only got back in under Cameron with a coalition .
Admittedly there's some compromise going on here but feck in hell it was never this as we are seeing today .
-
.... and all he had to do was to promote Proportional Representation - explain why it was better for us than the "unfair" FPTP and offer a vote on it and "bingo" job done
Government of the people by the people and FOR the people
However he missed his chance unfortunately and though it is not perfect and leads to some hung Parliaments I always think it suppresses extremism either way.
Not in my lifetime now I dont think
-
UKIP could have been been in power under PR, would it have been more accepted?
-
What some folks on here seem to forget is that Rashford isn’t campaigning for FSM, period - ie which people should benefit or not in general.
It’s about extending the existing scheme from term time to school holidays..
Do people in financial need suddenly become better off during the holidays.?
-
No, people in financial need don't become better off during the holidays. They never have done.
-
So you agree with me then.?
The extension of an existing provision which will cost peanuts to the government in the bigger picture isn’t really a debate is it.?
FSM and eligibility in general is another issue, but that isn’t what this is all about.
-
Over the summer the taxpayer subsidised families, however wealthy, going out for a meal via the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme.
Taxpayers subsidise the cafes and restaraunts in the HoC where MP's earn £80 000 a year.
Why is it the country can't provide meals for children whose parents have been made redundant, or had their wages cut due to no fault of their own, over the half-term holidays again?
Why can't councils use the funds they receive for unused school meals and keep at full profit?
Because they are not allowed. Neither are schools. That's what yesterdys vote was about that the Tory's voted against - extending provision of a service.
There is no left-over money anyway. Our school precept is decided by a number of criteria and the number of children on roll entitled to FSM is one of them. We then allocate the budget on that. It doesn't matter if the children eat the meals or not - or even leave - the money has been and gone before the year even starts.
How have Doncaster managed it then?
I have physically seen and been involved in the conversations to look at how much can be made out of FSM. As an example those on FSM will get an allowance each day. If that allowance is unused the allowance is removed from the account of the child. Where is that money going?
Also for those that do pay how is it right that profit is added in some cases by 4 different entities before a child is charged?
I am on the finance committee of our school and it is our task to agree the budget for this year. I have it here in front of me
We have two income lines, one is a lump sum allocated by the council based on numbers on roll (which takes into account FSM), the other is Pupil Premium which is based entirely on how many disadvantaged children (FSM) are on the roll.
We have about 30 expenditure lines - by far the largest is staff costs. The Pupil Premium money, which has to be accounted for in detail, most of that gets spent on extra staff and resources - because these children require extra resources to 'catch up'.
There is no money left. It doesn't matter whether the children have meals or not, the money is allocated already and its gone. The only 'extra' we can make is by hiring the facilities after hours, which ain't happening.
How Doncaster and the other councils have managed to fund the holiday schemes I don't know - it certainly hasn't come from education budgets.
Authorities will manage it in different ways of course as will various academies etc. Certainly in my experience 4 years ago in very different authorities it was very different to your scenario and many of them dealt with it differently aswell, which is a strange thing isn't it.
I can't speak for you area but some of the things I've seen authority schools spending on is laughable at best.
-
What some folks on here seem to forget is that Rashford isn’t campaigning for FSM, period - ie which people should benefit or not in general.
It’s about extending the existing scheme from term time to school holidays..
Do people in financial need suddenly become better off during the holidays.?
You raise an interesting point here. Why as a society don't we offer free meals for all kids at all times through vouchers etc? I don't know the costings this being the problem.
I do find it odd we means test this, same with child benefit (which I get and have to then pay back in tax and I have a big problem with that as I've said before), it's for the kids not us.
As for the ridiculous comments on where it goes, that's just a stupid mp not understanding the basics. Issue it in vouchers specific for this as they have done prior and it's solved.
The downside of this will be those who have decent money etc who will be taking advantage of the charity of restaurants etc, that's very sad.
-
What some folks on here seem to forget is that Rashford isn’t campaigning for FSM, period - ie which people should benefit or not in general.
It’s about extending the existing scheme from term time to school holidays..
Do people in financial need suddenly become better off during the holidays.?
Not quite. What Rashford is campaigning for - and 322 Tory MP's voted against - is to extend free school meal provision through holiday periods during a pandemic that has caused serious financial problems for many of those families affected.
That's it, that's all he is asking for.
£ billions of government money has been lost throught fraund, incompetence and dodgy contracts, £ millions were given to subsidise perfectly wealthy families eating out. MP's have subsidised meals all year round (and retain use of the facilities even when they have left parliament).
Yet we can't fund meals for children in financial hardship through no fault of their own.
-
That’s kind of what I meant - more kids have been put into a position to need FSM because of the pandemic which they can get in term time.. the big deal at the moment is extending this into the holidays.?
-
No such problems for the well off of course , one rule for us and one for the traditional tory voter .
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/oct/24/how-londons-top-restaurants-are-skewering-the-covid-rules
-
UKIP could have been been in power under PR, would it have been more accepted?
UKIP could have got 83 MPs in 2015 and Conservatives 244 thats 327 if they formed a Coalition. DUP would not have had 10 Seats though probably 2 for 329 out of 650 some of who do not take their Seats (Sinn Fein for a start)
So in the UKIP surge they would have got 83 and a bigger voice but cant guess if they would join with Tories or what might have happened if they did and they tried to get votes through the Commons - where less defectors could "thwart - great word" any Bill they didnt like more easily
Suppose looking at the Maths one of the big 2 would probably still win but would have to drive hard bargains with potential partners which didnt work with Cameron / Clegg in partnership as Lib Dems got agreements for Tuition Fees for one and a PR sytsem (I seem to remember). Cameron then hung his out to dry and they had to ditch Tuition Fees and a very watered down PR system failed (I cant remember the details of that so may be wrong)
It would certainly have been tighter
-
https://twitter.com/DBanksy/status/1319955251286466560?s=19
Another Tory MP who's been taken "out of context" by someone sharing her whole statement verbatim. Strange how this keeps happening.
-
Never mind starving kids....the Government could do so much more to help these distressed gentlefolk;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHdzkBhyweY
Priorities, innit?
-
Excellent efforts by everyone who is keeping this issue in the spotlight.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54678082
I sense a Govt climbdown is imminent.
-
Genuine question - is the government able to reverse something even though a majority in Parliament voted against it?
-
No it's not. But it's a bit more complicated than that.
A parliamentary vote can stop a Govt enacting a policy. But it can't force the Govt to enact a policy.
-
Billy, if the government do an about turn they will only take the money back off say local government to pay for it and say they have already given it to them for emergencies.
And it will be distributed by vouchers.
-
Billy, if the government do an about turn they will only take the money back off say local government to pay for it and say they have already given it to them for emergencies.
And it will be distributed by vouchers.
Which frankly is what they should have done in the first place.
-
This government and PM must be the most stupid in history.
Who does their PR? Let me guess. It's decided by a certain Mr Cummings.
Why oh why doesn't Doris get rid of him. It is one disaster after another. How many u turns have we had so far? and we can all see the next one coming very shortly.
I know Johnson doesn't need any help making himself look a fool but to continue to have Dominatrix Cummings as his advisor has to be the biggest PR disaster ever.
-
Billy, if the government do an about turn they will only take the money back off say local government to pay for it and say they have already given it to them for emergencies.
And it will be distributed by vouchers.
No. Absolutely not. In the current circumstances, the Govt can ( in fact MUST) borrow or print as much money as it needs to. That's textbook economics. There's no need to rob Peter to pay Paul.
-
I see Hancock lied about Rashford and Johnson being in communication on TV this morning, later this morning Johnson confirmed he hadn’t spoken to Rashford since June, lie after lie after lie!
-
Hancock is beyond belief. Right from the start of this crisis when he said the Govt had been discussing food deliveries to the shielded with supermarket bosses, he just lies instinctively when he's asked a question. They aren't even vital questions. And the lies are about matter that are easily, independently checked. It's a ridiculous approach, and frankly very unsettling.
-
Vouchers wouldn't alleviate anything, always find a corner shop willing to sell cigs for surestart milk vouchers up here
-
Good piece here from Newsnight if anyone is seriousy interested in the actual facts on child poverty in the UK. The main stats from it are:
4.2 million children are in relative child poverty (2.4 million of whom in absolute poverty, 3.7 million in absolute poverty after housing costs)
72% of kids living in poverty are in working households.
2.5m live in food insecure households.
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1320725467725484032
-
Hancock is beyond belief. Right from the start of this crisis when he said the Govt had been discussing food deliveries to the shielded with supermarket bosses, he just lies instinctively when he's asked a question. They aren't even vital questions. And the lies are about matter that are easily, independently checked. It's a ridiculous approach, and frankly very unsettling.
He dug himself into a hole by pronising 100000 tests by the end of (was it) May and looked to have no chance of doing it.
They then "baled him out" by posting that huge amount of Test Kits. Even then he hadnt really done wht he promised because they probably tested only 60 thou that day - and those were probably double swabbed so 2 tests on 1 person
Question is WHY ? Why did he have to promise to do something like that when there was no pressure on him to do so ? And my perennial question WHY? Why did he and the rest of them lie. Why not just come clean and say sorry it proved difficult but we will continue to "ramp up" (god I hate that phrase) testing until it covers our needs as a Country
-
Fascinating interview on R4 PM programme today, with Tim Montgomerie, who I always thought to be quite far to the right in the Tory party.
He was an adviser to Johnson on dealing with social inequality. He said he left the post because of his moral stance on how the No10 team (read: Cummings) was dealing with the issue. He said they'd identified poor working families, who traditionally vote as ones that could be persuaded to be support the Tories. And they had aimed all their policies on benefits at them. That was the whole Red Wall strategy.
He said there was a total lack of interest in what he called the "broken poor" who had become detached from society, often (Montgomerie's words) through bad luck, not through any fault of their own. He said the broken poor are the real societal problem, but No10 wasn't interested because they don't vote.
Very, very depressing interview.
-
pants on fire ....
''Treasury rejects claims it refused extra £150m for free school meals
Education secretary Gavin Williamson did not ask for funds for half-term, say officials''
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/oct/26/treasury-rejects-claims-it-refused-extra-150m-for-free-school-meals