Free School Meals £30 Food Box
Comments
-
interesting that they both came down far harder on rebels than their predecessorsrick_chasey said:
MPs really ought not to vote for things they are against, plain and simple.rjsterry said:
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.kingstongraham said:
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.rjsterry said:
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 said:
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.0 -
This requires a wholesale change to the way parliament works.rick_chasey said:
MPs really ought not to vote for things they are against, plain and simple.rjsterry said:
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.kingstongraham said:
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.rjsterry said:
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 said:
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.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Hang on, so what are you suggesting here? That we don't hold politicians accountable for their voting record?rjsterry said:
This requires a wholesale change to the way parliament works.rick_chasey said:
MPs really ought not to vote for things they are against, plain and simple.rjsterry said:
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.kingstongraham said:
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.rjsterry said:
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 said:
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.
What should journalists do instead with respect to the voting record - ignore it?0 -
Quite possibly, but the interviewers are at least partly to blame for the way ministers answer these questions. Between them they are failing their audience.Jezyboy said:
Well maybe words along those lines should have been Hancock's answer?rjsterry said:
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 said:1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
You need to either:
a) remove the party system - which would be chaos as nothing would get done as now one would be able to agree on anything
b) increase the number of parties in parliament. We're almost effectively a 2 party parliament at the moment.0 -
PR solves b)elbowloh said:You need to either:
a) remove the party system - which would be chaos as nothing would get done as now one would be able to agree on anything
b) increase the number of parties in parliament. We're almost effectively a 2 party parliament at the moment.0 -
Jersey doesn’t have a party system and they seem to do all right.elbowloh said:You need to either:
a) remove the party system - which would be chaos as nothing would get done as now one would be able to agree on anything
b) increase the number of parties in parliament. We're almost effectively a 2 party parliament at the moment.
#bergerac
.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
probably even Monaco, it doesn't scale up well though...MattFalle said:
Jersey doesn’t have a party system and they seem to do all right.elbowloh said:You need to either:
a) remove the party system - which would be chaos as nothing would get done as now one would be able to agree on anything
b) increase the number of parties in parliament. We're almost effectively a 2 party parliament at the moment.
#bergeracleft the forum March 20230 -
but both have less covid cases and are probably wealthier so its not all badugo.santalucia said:
probably even Monaco, it doesn't scale up well though...MattFalle said:
Jersey doesn’t have a party system and they seem to do all right.elbowloh said:You need to either:
a) remove the party system - which would be chaos as nothing would get done as now one would be able to agree on anything
b) increase the number of parties in parliament. We're almost effectively a 2 party parliament at the moment.
#bergerac
.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
Not so sure about that. Bergerac would seem to imply they have a high murder rate.MattFalle said:
Jersey doesn’t have a party system and they seem to do all right.elbowloh said:You need to either:
a) remove the party system - which would be chaos as nothing would get done as now one would be able to agree on anything
b) increase the number of parties in parliament. We're almost effectively a 2 party parliament at the moment.
#bergerac
Plus, they got occupied by the Germans...0 -
Must be as bad as the French 😀elbowloh said:
Not so sure about that. Bergerac would seem to imply they have a high murder rate.MattFalle said:
Jersey doesn’t have a party system and they seem to do all right.elbowloh said:You need to either:
a) remove the party system - which would be chaos as nothing would get done as now one would be able to agree on anything
b) increase the number of parties in parliament. We're almost effectively a 2 party parliament at the moment.
#bergerac
Plus, they got occupied by the Germans...0 -
The lack of empathy probably doesn't get helped by things like the BBC interview earlier. They were talking to a woman who mentioned her child going hungry then showed her opening a large fridge that seemed to be full to overflowing including bottles of booze.
Sure, it's a snap shot and she could have bought a load of cheap food that was near its use by date, the booze could have been Christmas presents and, as with most on here, it makes no difference to me as I'm relatively lucky and don't have to worry about being able to afford to put food on the table. However, my opinion might be different if I was working 40 odd hours a week to earn just above the benefits threshold. The BBC should probably be a bit more careful in their editing.0 -
Maybe they were. 😉Pross said:...The BBC should probably be a bit more careful in their editing.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Yeah, but not everyone who is poor is like that, like you said it's a snapshot. My mum was a single parent, raising 3 kids on her own, qualified for free school dinners. She worked 2 jobs to pay the bills and was teetotal.0
-
Of course, I was on free school meals briefly when my dad was on a 3 day week. Everything spare went to providing for me an my sister.
However, if you're doing a news report about kids going hungry you would think avoiding showing an image of the affected person opening an overflowing fridge. It just plays into the hands of those who are opposed to assistance.0 -
Assuming they went round somebody’s home entitled to free school meals why should they hide what they found?Pross said:Of course, I was on free school meals briefly when my dad was on a 3 day week. Everything spare went to providing for me an my sister.
However, if you're doing a news report about kids going hungry you would think avoiding showing an image of the affected person opening an overflowing fridge. It just plays into the hands of those who are opposed to assistance.
0 -
I'm not saying that. The point was that if you are doing an interview with someone who is saying about their child going hungry as part of a wider article about how the food vouchers / parcels are essential for many families then showing a well stocked fridge isn't very helpful and plays into the hands of those who think it isn't the Government's job to feed other people's children.surrey_commuter said:
Assuming they went round somebody’s home entitled to free school meals why should they hide what they found?Pross said:Of course, I was on free school meals briefly when my dad was on a 3 day week. Everything spare went to providing for me an my sister.
However, if you're doing a news report about kids going hungry you would think avoiding showing an image of the affected person opening an overflowing fridge. It just plays into the hands of those who are opposed to assistance.0 -
I get your point @Pross . It's akin to feeding the trolls, if you let the BBC show this lady's overflowing fridge on national TV.Ben
Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/0
