End child poverty

[tyke1962]

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

[drfchound]

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.

[EasyforDennis]

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?

[MachoMadness]

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.

[Ldr]

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.

[IDM]

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.?

[ravenrover]

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.

👍

[drfchound]

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.

[EasyforDennis]

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.

[drfchound]

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.

[tyke1962]

Cutting through the government spin , worth a watch .


https://youtu.be/T9OGJB0cEEI

[tommy toes]

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.

[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.

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.

[Ldr]

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?

[Metalmicky]

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)

[wilts rover]

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/

[SydneyRover]

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.

[River Don]

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.

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[MachoMadness]

Scum is a mild word for Ben Bradley. The man is on record as saying the unemployed should be sterilised.

[River Don]

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.

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[River Don]

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.

[BillyStubbsTears]

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

[tyke1962]

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 .

[Donnywolf]

.... 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

[Bentley Bullet]

UKIP could have been been in power under PR, would it have been more accepted?

[IDM]

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.?