Free School Meals £30 Food Box

kingstongraham

This does seem the appropriate thread to be raising the issue of people wasting money that should be used for decent food for kids.

rjsterry

I don't think anyone believes it is anything more than a sticking plaster. Interesting that you suggest raising the tax threshold again. While this helps people currently just above the current threshold it does nothing for those already below it. I also think the idea that income tax is something only well off people pay is only likely to increase division.

ugo.santalucia

It is incredibly sad to see these procured outfits providing the boxes profiteering from the poor and vulnerable. With my wife we worked out the content of the boxes pictured was around 5 pounds, not 30.
There should be an investigation and if they are found guilty, then the punishment should be exemplar.
10 years behind bar is a long enough time to think hard about how greedy and selfish they are.... in the middle of a pandemic, unforgivable!

david37

rick_chasey said:

John with the least surprising non-empathetic take there.

I would suggest if you want to reduce the reliance on benefits long term you support policies that reduce levels of inequality, as the very poor in the U.K. really have extremely little.

or promote the concept of personal responsibility, the state should only need to step in where people fall on hard times, not be the provider for those that have never bothered.

if that were the case there would be more for those that need it.

Removing 2020 from the numbers, spending on benefits was 27.3% of total GDP.

According to gov.co.uk

ugo.santalucia

david37 said:

or promote the concept of personal responsibility, the state should only need to step in where people fall on hard times, not be the provider for those that have never bothered.

It's the classic argument of the extreme right... and it's the argument that gave us Brexit...
In the years to come, we can expect the demand for benefits from lazy EU immigrant to fall and we will all be fine...

Except, it turns out that number was insignificant, just like the number of UK parasites, that the extreme right wants to inflate to cause outrage.

kingstongraham

david37 said:

rick_chasey said:

John with the least surprising non-empathetic take there.

I would suggest if you want to reduce the reliance on benefits long term you support policies that reduce levels of inequality, as the very poor in the U.K. really have extremely little.

or promote the concept of personal responsibility, the state should only need to step in where people fall on hard times, not be the provider for those that have never bothered.

if that were the case there would be more for those that need it.

Removing 2020 from the numbers, spending on benefits was 27.3% of total GDP.

According to gov.co.uk

No it wasn't.

pangolin

kingstongraham said:

david37 said:

rick_chasey said:

John with the least surprising non-empathetic take there.

I would suggest if you want to reduce the reliance on benefits long term you support policies that reduce levels of inequality, as the very poor in the U.K. really have extremely little.

or promote the concept of personal responsibility, the state should only need to step in where people fall on hard times, not be the provider for those that have never bothered.

if that were the case there would be more for those that need it.

Removing 2020 from the numbers, spending on benefits was 27.3% of total GDP.

According to gov.co.uk

No it wasn't.

rjsterry

It's like having our very own Priti Patel . Incidentally, why can he never spell her name correctly?

johngti

Our household income is a very long way off £100k but because one of us is actually quite well-paid, we end up paying back a chunk of the child benefit we receive. That’s never felt particularly fair but it is what it is.

Jezyboy

Nothing like punishing the children for the sins of their father.

And nothing like learning on an empty stomach to succeed in education and get a good secure job.

Having said that there are clearly wider social factors that need to be examined. It would be interesting to hear examples of what people think these should be. Vague notions about promoting individual responsibility seem as much use as a chocolate tea pot though.

Ben6899

johngti said:

MattFalle said:

The Tories, eh. The party of the people. Bet people are glad they voted for them now, eh.

#toryscum

Not necessarily. Two types I reckon - first time Tory voters in poor parts of the country may be wondering what they’ve done but there’s going to be a decent proportion who really couldn’t care less. After all, nobody is so poor that they can’t buy food; they waste their money on ciggies/booze/drugs/sky rather than the important stuff.

I really hope they're wondering what they've done.

It will take me a very long time to forgive people who I know swapped from long-time Labour to Tory just to get Boris in and "get Brexit done". In fact, I'll probably never forgive them.

And I wish people would stop rolling out this trope.

joe_totale-2

Ben6899 said:

johngti said:

MattFalle said:

The Tories, eh. The party of the people. Bet people are glad they voted for them now, eh.

#toryscum

Not necessarily. Two types I reckon - first time Tory voters in poor parts of the country may be wondering what they’ve done but there’s going to be a decent proportion who really couldn’t care less. After all, nobody is so poor that they can’t buy food; they waste their money on ciggies/booze/drugs/sky rather than the important stuff.

I really hope they're wondering what they've done.

It will take me a very long time to forgive people who I know swapped from long-time Labour to Tory just to get Boris in and "get Brexit done". In fact, I'll probably never forgive them.

And I wish people would stop rolling out this trope.

A few Tory MP's had even stated that some parents were using the vouchers to buy drugs! No idea where they get their drugs from but I can't imagine any dealers being happy to trade drugs for a food parcel.

rick_chasey

Maybe they could ask their own dealers and find out?

Dorset_Boy

Ben6899 said:

johngti said:

MattFalle said:

The Tories, eh. The party of the people. Bet people are glad they voted for them now, eh.

#toryscum

Not necessarily. Two types I reckon - first time Tory voters in poor parts of the country may be wondering what they’ve done but there’s going to be a decent proportion who really couldn’t care less. After all, nobody is so poor that they can’t buy food; they waste their money on ciggies/booze/drugs/sky rather than the important stuff.

I really hope they're wondering what they've done.

It will take me a very long time to forgive people who I know swapped from long-time Labour to Tory just to get Boris in and "get Brexit done". In fact, I'll probably never forgive them.

And I wish people would stop rolling out this trope.

And how exactly is a sentiment like that going to help or improve things with regards to the divisions that have been created? You just seem to want to perpetuate the sore.

Ben6899

Dorset_Boy said:

Ben6899 said:

johngti said:

MattFalle said:

The Tories, eh. The party of the people. Bet people are glad they voted for them now, eh.

#toryscum

Not necessarily. Two types I reckon - first time Tory voters in poor parts of the country may be wondering what they’ve done but there’s going to be a decent proportion who really couldn’t care less. After all, nobody is so poor that they can’t buy food; they waste their money on ciggies/booze/drugs/sky rather than the important stuff.

I really hope they're wondering what they've done.

It will take me a very long time to forgive people who I know swapped from long-time Labour to Tory just to get Boris in and "get Brexit done". In fact, I'll probably never forgive them.

And I wish people would stop rolling out this trope.

And how exactly is a sentiment like that going to help or improve things with regards to the divisions that have been created? You just seem to want to perpetuate the sore.

I don't care what those particular people do with the rest of their lives, to be honest. I wasn't overly invested before Brexit either.

Leave them to it, if they think they know what's for the best. Let's just hope it works out for them (it won't).

MattFalle

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/tory-mp-defends-free-school-meal-controversy-saying-its-only-lunch/13/01/?utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=tlb&fbclid=IwAR1FRnjVa6DO3XUYl2B03ISaNBxhtrWFepzCui9kaElCxFGA0i4nW5fXbJc

this is why tories are scum

#toryscum

Dorset_Boy

We need a wider debate as a country about relative poverty, and a genuine look at the various factors that cause it. Nothing should be off the table in that debate, no matter how tough the conversation.

R5 interviewed a woman yesterday afternoon in a piece about nurseries staying open or closing. She has a 2 yo, her nursery is small and was saying they could only take kids where both parents were key workers.

She said her husband had spent almost all of last year unemployed but now had just found a job. She also said she is many months pregnant. Putting an accident aside, why with only one income coming in, did they feel it was sensible to try for a second child at that time?

Or there was the family with 8 kids, ranging in age from 2 to 16. The parents are consigning themselves and their kids to poverty. Why on earth have so many kids?

Clearly I'll be labelled a fascist for suggesting that people should consider how many children is a reasonable number to have, but things like this have to form part of the debate, along with how to improve education standards for those children, how to improve the standard of their housing, how to give the kids a belief (and opportunity) that just because they have been born into that situation they can get out of it.

rick_chasey

https://twitter.com/profcarycooper/status/1349299116636069888?s

What a car crash

rick_chasey

You can’t stop people f@cking so it’s a pointless avenue to explore.

Unless you’re in the business of taking children off parents.

johngti

Ben6899 said:

.

And I wish people would stop rolling out this trope.

Agree completely. It displays a lack of critical thought and blind belief in a vicious level of propaganda propagated by right wing commentators in order to justify punishing those members of our society who are not equipped to fight back. It goes back to Osborne creating an image of the hard working man leaving his home at 5am, looking up at the closed curtains of the benefit scroungers living a life of luxury paid for by him. (Actually goes back to the Victorian idea of the deserving poor - I’d have hoped we’d have moved on from that as a society)

Benefit fraud has always represented a vanishingly small proportion of the welfare bill but it’s easy to grab on to if you want to justify an extreme position regarding excusing high levels of child poverty in particular. I find it inexcusable that anyone can salve their conscience in this way. People who do so are people I don’t identify with and, tbh, I have no respect for.

Ben6899

johngti said:

Ben6899 said:

.

And I wish people would stop rolling out this trope.

Agree completely. It displays a lack of critical thought and blind belief in a vicious level of propaganda propagated by right wing commentators in order to justify punishing those members of our society who are not equipped to fight back. It goes back to Osborne creating an image of the hard working man leaving his home at 5am, looking up at the closed curtains of the benefit scroungers living a life of luxury paid for by him. (Actually goes back to the Victorian idea of the deserving poor - I’d have hoped we’d have moved on from that as a society)

Benefit fraud has always represented a vanishingly small proportion of the welfare bill but it’s easy to grab on to if you want to justify an extreme position regarding excusing high levels of child poverty in particular. I find it inexcusable that anyone can salve their conscience in this way. People who do so are people I don’t identify with and, tbh, I have no respect for.

All of this.

rjsterry

johngti said:

Ben6899 said:

.

And I wish people would stop rolling out this trope.

Agree completely. It displays a lack of critical thought and blind belief in a vicious level of propaganda propagated by right wing commentators in order to justify punishing those members of our society who are not equipped to fight back. It goes back to Osborne creating an image of the hard working man leaving his home at 5am, looking up at the closed curtains of the benefit scroungers living a life of luxury paid for by him. (Actually goes back to the Victorian idea of the deserving poor - I’d have hoped we’d have moved on from that as a society)

Benefit fraud has always represented a vanishingly small proportion of the welfare bill but it’s easy to grab on to if you want to justify an extreme position regarding excusing high levels of child poverty in particular. I find it inexcusable that anyone can salve their conscience in this way. People who do so are people I don’t identify with and, tbh, I have no respect for.

We get the politicians we deserve and while I think the cliché of 'hard-working families' is massively overused - who doesn't think they're in that category? - it wouldn't be used if it didn't have popular support. I'm not sure cries of "Tory scum" will make anyone better off, and is every bit as divisive as dismissing those on benefits as lazy, undeserving, etc.

johngti

rjsterry said:

I'm not sure cries of "Tory scum" will make anyone better off, and is every bit as divisive as dismissing those on benefits as lazy, undeserving, etc.

I'd never refer to tories in that way but it doesn't mean I have to respect their position or them for blindly holding those views. Although "blindly" may be the wrong word - I'm sure there are plenty of Tory supporters who very clearly believe this image and uncritically following where the media lead doesn't come into the equation.

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

https://twitter.com/profcarycooper/status/1349299116636069888?s

What a car crash

I think a lot of people - particularly those interviewing politicians - should learn how parliamentary votes work. An MP voting for or against something is not a reliable indication of their beliefs. The party system means that MPs frequently are required by whips to vote for things towards which they might at best be ambivalent. Yes, they can 'rebel' but this is not without consequences. They may quite reasonably feel that they can do more good by being more of a 'team player' than an overly principled purist.

rick_chasey

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

https://twitter.com/profcarycooper/status/1349299116636069888?s

What a car crash

I think a lot of people - particularly those interviewing politicians - should learn how parliamentary votes work. An MP voting for or against something is not a reliable indication of their beliefs. The party system means that MPs frequently are required by whips to vote for things towards which they might at best be ambivalent. Yes, they can 'rebel' but this is not without consequences. They may quite reasonably feel that they can do more good by being more of a 'team player' than an overly principled purist.

Then Hancock can be honest about it.

"I voted with the whips as I didn't really care about the issue enough to disobey them. And look now, I'm doing such a great job of being health minister. Look, we're top of the death charts. Oh, wait. I mean vaccination charts"

kingstongraham

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

https://twitter.com/profcarycooper/status/1349299116636069888?s

What a car crash

I think a lot of people - particularly those interviewing politicians - should learn how parliamentary votes work. An MP voting for or against something is not a reliable indication of their beliefs. The party system means that MPs frequently are required by whips to vote for things towards which they might at best be ambivalent. Yes, they can 'rebel' but this is not without consequences. They may quite reasonably feel that they can do more good by being more of a 'team player' than an overly principled purist.

I think it's more about the party's opposition to something that the same party now supports. If something changed in the intervening period to make them reassess and change their position, then the minister can say that. As it is, the only thing that changed was that they took incoming for it, and changed to avoid it. There is no answer that doesn't make the government look bad, for the simple reason that even they think it was a bad call.

MattFalle

rick_chasey said:

https://twitter.com/profcarycooper/status/1349299116636069888?s

What a car crash

complete and total tory scum. how they can sleep at night is beyond MF but they are thoughtless money grabbing dirty vindictive corrupt scum and he is not so its beyond him.

it really comes to something when Piers Morgan makes you look a bigger cntu than he is.

MF never thought he would say this but thank you Rick for your post - utterly spot on.

#toryscum

rjsterry

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

https://twitter.com/profcarycooper/status/1349299116636069888?s

What a car crash

I think a lot of people - particularly those interviewing politicians - should learn how parliamentary votes work. An MP voting for or against something is not a reliable indication of their beliefs. The party system means that MPs frequently are required by whips to vote for things towards which they might at best be ambivalent. Yes, they can 'rebel' but this is not without consequences. They may quite reasonably feel that they can do more good by being more of a 'team player' than an overly principled purist.

I think it's more about the party's opposition to something that the same party now supports. If something changed in the intervening period to make them reassess and change their position, then the minister can say that. As it is, the only thing that changed was that they took incoming for it, and changed to avoid it. There is no answer that doesn't make the government look bad, for the simple reason that even they think it was a bad call.

I agree that their approach has been very muddled and seemingly motivated more by a sort of teenage stubbornness than any coherent policy. I also think Hancock (and many other ministers) don't help themselves in these situations by so transparently trying to dodge difficult questions. I just get a bit tired of "you voted for X so you must think it's brilliant in all regards." The same stupidity led to the SNP effectively voting against the UK EU trade deal.

rick_chasey

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

https://twitter.com/profcarycooper/status/1349299116636069888?s

What a car crash

I think a lot of people - particularly those interviewing politicians - should learn how parliamentary votes work. An MP voting for or against something is not a reliable indication of their beliefs. The party system means that MPs frequently are required by whips to vote for things towards which they might at best be ambivalent. Yes, they can 'rebel' but this is not without consequences. They may quite reasonably feel that they can do more good by being more of a 'team player' than an overly principled purist.

I think it's more about the party's opposition to something that the same party now supports. If something changed in the intervening period to make them reassess and change their position, then the minister can say that. As it is, the only thing that changed was that they took incoming for it, and changed to avoid it. There is no answer that doesn't make the government look bad, for the simple reason that even they think it was a bad call.

I agree that their approach has been very muddled and seemingly motivated more by a sort of teenage stubbornness than any coherent policy. I also think Hancock (and many other ministers) don't help themselves in these situations by so transparently trying to dodge difficult questions. I just get a bit tired of "you voted for X so you must think it's brilliant in all regards." The same stupidity led to the SNP effectively voting against the UK EU trade deal.

MPs really ought not to vote for things they are against, plain and simple.

I am very relaxed about taking politicians to task for their voting record. If they can't defend it or don't want to, they shouldn't do it.

If BoJo and Corbyn are good for one thing is an example that a serial rebel can make it to the top.

Jezyboy

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

https://twitter.com/profcarycooper/status/1349299116636069888?s

What a car crash

I think a lot of people - particularly those interviewing politicians - should learn how parliamentary votes work. An MP voting for or against something is not a reliable indication of their beliefs. The party system means that MPs frequently are required by whips to vote for things towards which they might at best be ambivalent. Yes, they can 'rebel' but this is not without consequences. They may quite reasonably feel that they can do more good by being more of a 'team player' than an overly principled purist.

Well maybe words along those lines should have been Hancock's answer?