End child poverty

[SydneyRover]

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/554276/signatures/new

[Not Now Kato]

Signed.  I hope many others here will too.

[tyke1962]

Signed

[River Don]

Signed

Is this the petition Marcus Rashford is promoting?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Signed. Rashford is becoming a proper role model.

[scawsby steve]

Signed.

[SydneyRover]

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

[idler]

Signed.

[BillyStubbsTears]

https://mobile.twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1318980021185351694

[Filo]

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

[5minstogo]

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.

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[MachoMadness]

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.

[idler]

It’s inhuman and selfish.
I’m alright Jack attitude.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

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.

[Axholme Lion]

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.

[ravenrover]

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.

[turnbull for england]

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   

[wilts rover]

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?

[BillyStubbsTears]

In fairness, here's a Tory MP who has but morals before her own job.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54642788

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

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?

[Metalmicky]

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.

[Bentley Bullet]

........And that is precisely why socialism doesn't work.

[MachoMadness]

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.

[wilts rover]

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.

[wilts rover]

........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.

[Axholme Lion]

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.

[Bentley Bullet]

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.

[Axholme Lion]

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.

[MachoMadness]

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.