Marcus Rashford on twitter

ChrisTheRed said:
Nice solid input 👌



Well I guess that's the point universal credit and child benefit is meant to address all minimum standards of living.

I have previously worked in welfare to work and the things people believe to be a necessity are just ridiculous... They will count sky, cigarettes and alcohol above feeding their children for example.
Click to expand...

Wow, what a sweeping generalisation straight out of the Tory divide and conquer handbook
 
ChrisTheRed said:
This is a conversation about free school dinners and not about general public spending.

I'd have liked my mortgage paid as opposed to all that money being spent but it isn't going to happen.
Click to expand...

It's about giving kids a meal who otherwise may go without.
By not doing this some kids will go without a meal, some kids will be malnourished, some will suffer with education as a result and some will have ruined lives as a result.
That's what saving £20m gets you

I'm really not sure of the downside of paying the £20m - its probably, in the scheme of public spending, around a tenner for you and me.

Interesting that both the Scottish and Welsh leaders think it is worth it
 
WeeGord said:
Wow, what a sweeping generalisation straight out of the Tory divide and conquer handbook
Click to expand...

No, I am talking from a position of knowledge having worked with thousands of people in welfare that were in arrears.

There is always exceptions obviously but that is what they were.

Ps I'm not a Tory.
 
ChrisTheRed said:
No, it is highlighting the point.

We could all have a wishlist.

The fact remains this is a conversation about school meals.
Click to expand...
Its not highlighting the point at all. You chide me for saying money would be better spent on feeding hungry children than giving Serco 16 billion to "develop" a spreadsheet.

In the very next sentence you then say money should be spent on housing, not children.

I'm actually surprised someone would rather billions was spent for consultants to fill in a spreadsheet then millions spent on feeding children. But there you go, seems there are "that type" of people in this world.
 
ChrisTheRed said:
Whilst I appreciate and understand children should not go hungry but where would it end?

Everyone deserves housing so should everyone have a house paid for? Same with running water, electricity and gas? Etc etc.
Click to expand...
If you think it ends at stopping children go hungry then I worry for you. We used to have a decent council housing service the Tories ravaged it and now it's in the hands of unscrupulous private landlords that use it as a method of transferring OUR tax revenues into their own property funds.....many of those property funds are owned by Tory fundraisers, stakeholders, councillors and MPs.
 
Happy to report that the Labour mayor and councillors up here have just voted through an emergency Poverty Intervention Fund to guarantee free meals for children during half term.

Tell you what, the Labour Party may be flawed - of course it is - but they're not mean spirited like this disgusting shower.
 
ChrisTheRed said:
I have previously worked in welfare to work and the things people believe to be a necessity are just ridiculous... They will count sky, cigarettes and alcohol above feeding their children for example.
Click to expand...
This is the staple answer from the economic far right. But the reality is the vast majority of parents do not put sky, cigarettes and alcohol above their children eating, it's a strawman argument unless you have some figures to back this up. Most people on the breadline do not have a sky subscription, that's a fact. It's also a reality that smoking and binge drinking are the result of poverty, lack of good education, and limited opportunities. Any link to causing poverty is historic in that both cigarettes and alcohol are addictive and governments have made those items prohibitively expensive while not driving down the use of those drugs in poorer areas.
 
SmallTown said:
Its not highlighting the point at all. You chide me for saying money would be better spent on feeding hungry children than giving Serco 16 billion to "develop" a spreadsheet.

In the very next sentence you then say money should be spent on housing, not children.

I'm actually surprised someone would rather billions was spent for consultants to fill in a spreadsheet then millions spent on feeding children. But there you go, seems there are "that type" of people in this world.
Click to expand...
technically the consultants were brought in to design the spreadsheet and operating model.....both of which have failed. They pay people a below average wage, to do next to zero work filling in the spreadsheet
 
ChrisTheRed said:
And you can get help for addictions or if it comes down to it and you choose alcohol or cigarettes over feeding your children then they should be taken away from you.
Click to expand...
...Trumpisms now, I mean separating parents and kids isn't a good look.
 
If I had the time to reply to you all I would but alas I don't.

However, this place is so far left it is incredible.
 
ChrisTheRed said:
Nice solid input 👌



Well I guess that's the point universal credit and child benefit is meant to address all minimum standards of living.

I have previously worked in welfare to work and the things people believe to be a necessity are just ridiculous... They will count sky, cigarettes and alcohol above feeding their children for example.
Click to expand...
You never mentioned sky, cigarettes or alcohol in your last post that's why it was a stupid question.
 
gravy173 said:
Aren't we discussing the lines where we would expect the state to intervene here, do we want a large state running things or a small state?

How does the national insurance and welfare system view this, should food for children (or even for everyone) be part of this given its a basic requirement of life, it's an interesting point of view of where the burden should lie in providing basic food for the public - state or self?

Given the Tories are viewed as a smaller state, lower taxes needed to pay for this party and labour are larger state higher taxes needed to pay for this party aren't we just talking about a fundamental viewpoint of each party and its not surprising that the vote went the way it did along party lines.
Click to expand...

I agree with the line in the sand argument, and in more sedate times this is pretty much the political struggle at the heart of the two parties. However, we're currently in a 'national crisis' where 'unprecendented times' has led to lots of norms being thrown out of the window - contracts awarded without tender process, a government in thrall to the private sector, huge amounts of money spent on Moonshots - so its galling to see that 'conservative principles of small state' kick in and so many MPs choke on their subsidised lunches when it comes to ensuring the poorest kids get better access to regular meals.



My own position is that as a relatively rich country with a manageable population we're only as strong as the least fortunate people in society, and the state should be there to stop people falling through the cracks because destitution is wholly avoidable. Sickening to see a majority government actively pushing for it, just to 'own the libs' and 'do-gooders'. I even think that the meals at Westminster should be subsidised and MPs should be on a higher salary if it allows people of different walks of life to be able to get involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top