Marcus Rashford

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

That wasn't put forward as an option. In the case offered it was a choice of feeding children or not. What's your side? 

 Virtue signalling of the very highest order. Congratulations.

[AndyinLiverpool]

55 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

You're right - where does this end? If the people expect children feeding, next they'll expect everyone to be fed. Madness.

Steady on. You wouldn't want a better world to come about through carelessness, would you?

[Eddie]

2 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Thanks.

Just dont see the need for discussing completely unrelated issues.

It's never stopped you before.

All your posts are missing is a mention of Diane Abbott.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Eddie said:

It's never stopped you before.

All your posts are missing is a mention of Diane Abbott.

Hope you're keeping well under house arrest.

[Anon]

21 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

 Virtue signalling of the very highest order. Congratulations.

Politics is so simple. We should tell all the UK's creditors that children are starving and they're evil if they don't write off our debts. It's a binary choice, so they can't possibly refuse.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Anon said:

Politics is so simple. We should tell all the UK's creditors that children are starving and they're evil if they don't write off our debts. It's a binary choice, so they can't possibly refuse.

Exactly that's just how it works.

If you don't think that it is the states responsibility to feed children then you must want all children to die of starvation.

 

[maxjam]

24 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

That wasn't put forward as an option. In the case offered it was a choice of feeding children or not. What's your side? 

Thats a loaded question, even if you have valid reasons if you say no you come across as a Bamford.

 

20 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

Could you function without a mobile phone these days? Would you feel happy without a TV? The point is that these things might be superficial luxuries, but they are embedded into the fabric of 21st century society and to deprive a child of these things would be a hard choice

Should we be providing poverty stricken pensioners with free meals and mobile phones to prevent loneliness as well?  Lets not just stop at children.

 

I'd been keeping out of this thread as it will inevitably turn political, but here we go anyway...

Personally I would have voted against free meals as well, we already give eligible kids free school meals, provide child benefit and welfare support.  For to long in this country some people have viewed having kids as a career choice and the number of single parent families is growing.  Parents do need to accept some responsibility for their children and should the need arise go without themselves.

As far as I'm concerned its about how much State interference you want in your lives, you could make the argument as Labour did at the last election that broadband is essential these days - so why not give it away free?  Which then leads to needing something to use the free broadband on.  And if broadband is free, why not electricity?  You can't run anything unless its powered.  It goes on...

If you want to talk about reforming the Welfare State, I'd be happy to have that conversation - not on here though as its political.  We need to provide a good safety net for those down on their luck but also a way for them to get themselves off it. 

With regards to children, personally I would make school uniforms mandatory and provide a sliding scale of school clothing to those least able to afford it.  The same with school dinners.  Out of school, that would be taken care of by a reformed Welfare State and I would provide food/clothing vouchers to ensure the money is being spent where it is supposed to be spent.

[1of4]

1 hour ago, WhiteHorseRam said:

[This is cool - under the name of a footballer, the Politics Thread has secretly sprung back into life .. its like me finding some big lads drinking cans of Tennants over the Rec and they let me have one ]

All parents should focus on feeding their dependents for sure … but ...

5th largest economy in the world …. 

I think we can afford some dinner for some little kids

What's political about making sure that the children in our country have enough to eat? Thought it would be more to do with whether we do or don't live in a caring society.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Thats a loaded question, even if you have valid reasons if you say no you come across as a Bamford.

 

Should we be providing poverty stricken pensioners with free meals and mobile phones to prevent loneliness as well?  Lets not just stop at children.

 

I'd been keeping out of this thread as it will inevitably turn political, but here we go anyway...

Personally I would have voted against free meals as well, we already give eligible kids free school meals, provide child benefit and welfare support.  For to long in this country some people have viewed having kids as a career choice and the number of single parent families is growing.  Parents do need to accept some responsibility for their children and should the need arise go without themselves.

As far as I'm concerned its about how much State interference you want in your lives, you could make the argument as Labour did at the last election that broadband is essential these days - so why not give it away free?  Which then leads to needing something to use the free broadband on.  And if broadband is free, why not electricity?  You can't run anything unless its powered.  It goes on...

If you want to talk about reforming the Welfare State, I'd be happy to have that conversation - not on here though as its political.  We need to provide a good safety net for those down on their luck but also a way for them to get themselves off it. 

With regards to children, personally I would make school uniforms mandatory and provide a sliding scale of school clothing to those least able to afford it.  The same with school dinners.  Out of school, that would be taken care of by a reformed Welfare State and I would provide food/clothing vouchers to ensure the money is being spent where it is supposed to be spent.

So just to get it in black and white you want all children to starve? 

[Ghost of Clough]

1 hour ago, SchtivePesley said:

It's not ring-fenced for food! Clothes? heating? transport? books? pens? And that's just the necessities before you even get on to anthing that the child might even enjoy (heaven forbid - i mean we don't want that now do we?)

Anyone who thinks £21 a week is enough to provide fully for a child has obvously never had to account for how they spend £21 in terms of their kids. Aren't we lucky?

So apart from not pivoting to blame the parents, you are still basically blaming the parents.

Got it

Let's see how achievable it is to feed a child for £3 a day, shopping from Aldi.

Breakfast
Cereal - £1.19 (17p per serving)
Milk - £0.80 (less than 11p per serving)

1 day = £0.28
 

Lunch
Pasta - £0.45 (7p per serving)
Chopped tomatoes - £0.35 (18p per serving)
Tomatoes - £0.67 (22p per serving)
Peppers - £0.42 (21p per serving)
Chickpeas - £0.30 (15p per serving)

1 day = £0.83

Dinner
Pasta - £0.45 (7p per serving)
Minced Beef - £1.49 (75p per serving)
Mushrooms - £1.40 (35p per serving)
Peppers - £0.42 (21p per serving)

1 day = £1.38

 

Total cost for 1 day of food is just £2.49.

Want to save even more money? Make your own soup. For example, a portion of pea and broccoli soup could cost just 20p.

Or you can take your child to McDonald's and get a 4 chicken nugget happy meal for £2.79...

[bcnram]

49 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

So just to get it in black and white you want all children to starve? 

I think it is probably more about making people take responsibility for themselves and their children. 
I fear we have lost this lazy generation so will have to feed their offspring, but at least we should make sure that any allowance can only be spent on nutritional food and not microwave or fastfoods. So many fat kids and parents around these days. 

[Stive Pesley]

1 hour ago, maxjam said:

Should we be providing poverty stricken pensioners with free meals and mobile phones to prevent loneliness as well?  Lets not just stop at children.

No we shouldnt stop at children. I'm all for providing support for a fairer, kinder society. Pensioners get some breaks too - winter fuel discount, TV licenses, bus passes etc. It's all good stuff and not a competition.

Bottom line to me is that if you want to argue that poor people don't deserve help because <insert reasons here> then that's fine, but don't be under any illusions as to what an unpleasant person that makes you look. And don't start getting pissy when people point it out

 

[Mostyn6]

46 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Let's see how achievable it is to feed a child for £3 a day, shopping from Aldi.

Breakfast
Cereal - £1.19 (17p per serving)
Milk - £0.80 (less than 11p per serving)

1 day = £0.28
 

Lunch
Pasta - £0.45 (7p per serving)
Chopped tomatoes - £0.35 (18p per serving)
Tomatoes - £0.67 (22p per serving)
Peppers - £0.42 (21p per serving)
Chickpeas - £0.30 (15p per serving)

1 day = £0.83

Dinner
Pasta - £0.45 (7p per serving)
Minced Beef - £1.49 (75p per serving)
Mushrooms - £1.40 (35p per serving)
Peppers - £0.42 (21p per serving)

1 day = £1.38

 

Total cost for 1 day of food is just £2.49.

Want to save even more money? Make your own soup. For example, a portion of pea and broccoli soup could cost just 20p.

Or you can take your child to McDonald's and get a 4 chicken nugget happy meal for £2.79...

Good luck getting any kid to eat double pasta on a daily basis. Peppers? Yeah, good luck with those too! 

[1of4]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

Exactly that's just how it works.

If you don't think that it is the states responsibility to feed children then you must want all children to die of starvation.

 

I want the government to make sure that no family in our country is having to survive on a budget that is on or below the poverty line. Then we wouldn't even have to discuss the need for free school meals.

This government is happily boasting that since they took office, they are already providing tens of thousands of extra free school meals. Which seems odd as this can only mean that thousands more families must now be living on a poverty level budget.

[Sith Happens]

Its a tough argument regarding parental responsibility.

For me..100% you should be responsible when deciding to bring a child into the world. You should (at the point of conception) be able to support that child without any form of benefits, even child benefit in my opinion.

If you are unable to support the child without state benefits or hand outs then its totally irresponsible to burden yourself with the expense of bringing up a child, or expecting others who pay taxes to fund it.

Of course many people have a change in circumstances which means they need support down the line, it can happen to all of us, especially in the current climate, dont they say a lot of people are 4 missing pay packets from living on the street ( or something like that ). I have no issue with people unfortunate to be in this position receiving help.

That said no one wants anyone to go hungry, however surely there has to be an element of responsibility on the parent(s) at the time they choose to have a child.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, 1of4 said:

I want the government to make sure that no family in our country is having to survive on a budget that is on or below the poverty line. Then we wouldn't even have to discuss the need for free school meals.

This government is happily boasting that since they took office, they are already providing tens of thousands of extra free school meals. Which seems odd as this can only mean that thousands more families must now be living on a poverty level budget.

Or it could be mean that many parents have become that reliant on the state that they dont even bother prioritising their expenditure any more...

[WhiteHorseRam]

1 hour ago, 1of4 said:

What's political about making sure that the children in our country have enough to eat? Thought it would be more to do with whether we do or don't live in a caring society.

 

Handing out tax money has always been a political question I have found.

 

The first half of my post was celebrating the fact that the Politics Thread appears to have re-appeared covertly. I am really surprised David hasn't spotted it yet and sent @GboroRam to the Russian Front for dereliction of duty.

I then pointed out that as we have the 5th largest economy in the world we should give kids some free dinner … doesn't that make me caring?

I also made the point that parents should be responsible for their children's welfare in the first instance .. the family is the core of any society.

I think tax is the membership fee for civilisation and we should all chip in to help those less fortunate then ourselves, and also pay for infrastructure we all need (roads, water, defence etc). The very wealthy should be taxed heavily - though not to the point where folks stop bothering top be entrepreneurs. No one should be hammered for selling brollies in the rain.

 

Vote for me.

 

[Stive Pesley]

4 minutes ago, WhiteHorseRam said:

I also made the point that parents should be responsible for their children's welfare in the first instance .. the family is the core of any society.

I think we all agree on that- where the opinion diverges is when we recognise a small minority of parents who don't act very responsibly towards their kids

Some people are saying that this is unfortunate and wrong, but we can't let the kids suffer because they didn't choose their parents

Others are saying that this is unfortunate and wrong, and in order to punish the parents we should let their kids suffer. That'll teach em not to have kids.

 

Of course the other alternative is that we take the kids off them and put them into care. Then the kids don't suffer but they are no longer victims of bad parenting. Not sure who pays for their meals when they are in the care system. Anyone know?

 

 

 

[Mostyn6]

I know working parents who struggle to feed and clothe their kids.

It's a deeper political argument revolving around the lack of social/affordable housing, the excessive rent changes for private tenants and the 80s/90s clamour for owning property, culminating in the 00s trend of lumbering people with mortgages they cannot afford.

As a current Universal Credit claimant, who has put i25 years of income tax into the country, it's demeaning being unable to make ends meet. The "means tested" way of working out what you need to survive is not fit for purpose. For example, you cannot find work nowadays without internet access. You cannot even claim benefits without internet access. Does Universal Credit allow for connectivity? Does it Bamford! Anyway, without digressing further, it's ignorant and cruel to tar us with the same brush. I will now have a host of CCJs for cancelling payments for things I'm contractually obliged to pay, simply cos my £350 pm does not take into account Car Insurance, Car Tax, Broadband, Mobile Phone, SkyQ, Netflix etc, as well as agreed payments schedules for previous CCJs from last time I was unemployed and cancelled payments for non-essentials!

[ariotofmyown]

Why has no one mentioned Covid on this thread? At least bring in free schools meals for kids during the holidays whilst so many parents will be struggling even more with finances. Been laid off and no jobs to go to.

Surely the most rabid of right wingers would accept this?

They did actually, even Farage is for it!