UKC

"I do not believe in nationalising children...

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Ciro 22 Oct 2020

... We need to get back to the idea of taking responsibility. This means less celebrity virtue signalling on Twitter by proxy"

Tory MP Brandon Clark-Smith arguing against free school meals during the holidays, during a pandemic, when many minimum wage workers are unable to work. 

What sort of mental gymnastics do you need to go through, to equate feeding the vulnerable to "nationalising" them and "virtue signalling". The mind boggles. Is he so far removed from reality that he actually believes nobody needs help at this time?

5
 Cobra_Head 22 Oct 2020
In reply to Ciro:

Victim blaming of the highest order, the word "scum" springs to mind.

And what do the kids do when the parents don't, or can't, take responsibility?

8
 Rob Exile Ward 22 Oct 2020
In reply to Ciro:

There is a genuine disconnect between some of these politicians and their constituents. Like IDS thinking he could live for a week on Social Security, but when push came to shove couldn't last a day; another Tory politician from a previous era suggesting that if pensioners were short of money 'they could sell a few of their pictures' to make ends meet. In a similar vein my Dad - who was a teacher all his life - didn't understand that being self employed, if I didn't work, I didn't earn any money.  I tried explaining, but I don't think he ever believed me!

2
 Rog Wilko 22 Oct 2020
In reply to Ciro:

The interviewer on Today (Radio 4) missed a trick this morning. Failed to point out to some weasel of a minister (the interviewee) that children don't simply stop being hungry when the school holidays arrive. If free school meals are needed in term time .......

Edit: sorry, that's unfair  .... to weasels.

Post edited at 10:44
1
 Toccata 22 Oct 2020
In reply to Ciro:

Just picked my jaw off the floor having read this on the BBC. In a year of stiff competition this must get the prize for most heartless, out of touch comment by an MP.

4
 elsewhere 22 Oct 2020
In reply to Ciro:

"There is no finer investment for any community than putting milk into babies."

Prominent Conservative Party Member*, radio broadcast, 21 March 1943

*not a Conservative PM but a National Government PM at that time?

Post edited at 11:28
 Dave B 22 Oct 2020
In reply to Ciro:

We are led to believe that at least one top. Conservative politician has not taken financial responsibility for all his children. 

2
 PaulJepson 22 Oct 2020
In reply to Ciro:

All politicians should have to live on social benefits for a month prior to taking office. How can they be expected to make sensible and compassionate decisions when they don't have the slightest clue what they're dealing with. 

Same reason I think road users should have to pass a cycling proficiency test before being allowed to drive. 

3
In reply to Dave B:

You can't surely be referring to 'Spaffer' Johnson...?

2
 John Kelly 22 Oct 2020
In reply to Ciro:

Maybe one possible solution would be to use some of the good quality, food outlets that are currently suffering a downturn, they are literally built for the job and need the work. Hope not to offend but might taste better than school meals.

Rashford is a top man, brilliant to see great sporting hero actually being real a role model.

Post edited at 14:16
3
 dread-i 22 Oct 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

> "There is no finer investment for any community than putting milk into babies."

> Prominent Conservative Party Member*, radio broadcast, 21 March 1943

> *not a Conservative PM but a National Government PM at that time?

The most infamous cut of all was the Department of Education's decision to end universal free school milk- taken by Secretary of State Margaret Thatcher.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/uk/2000/uk_confidential/1095121.stm

To be fair, she was against increasing charges for overdue library books. But happy to increase the cost of school meals. Clearly another tory with her finger on the pulse of the nation.

Plus ça change. Which I think is Latin for 'kill the poor'. (I can state categorically that the lack of milk and quality dinners in school didn't affect my education

1
 Greenbanks 22 Oct 2020
In reply to Ciro:

I think the word you're looking for is 'scum'

2
 toad 22 Oct 2020
In reply to Ciro:

I foresee SERCO branching out into chimney sweeping and cotton milling with a new compact- sized work force

 Greenbanks 22 Oct 2020
In reply to Ciro:

"If the government can subsidise Eat Out to Help Out, not being seen to give poor kids lunch in the school holidays looks mean and is wrong".

Just posted on Twitter by err....Nigel Farage.

You have to be totally inept to conspire to make Farage look like one of the anointed...

 Greenbanks 22 Oct 2020
In reply to Ciro:

Why Would you Even?

As we handed out the fruit today

Lily politely requested a pear

She put it in her pocket

Whilst the others ate right there

Later, Finn shared out his birthday cake

Brought in by mum, with some sweets

Lily wrapped hers in a napkin

Watching her classmates eat

"Can I take it home to my mum please?"

Lily answered, polite but sad

We don't have cake at our house

We haven't had much since dad.

It will be a bit tricky for mum next week

When I'm on holiday

She can't go to work when I'm at home

We'll have lots of fun and we play

But it's a long time without school stuff

My lunches will be really small

And I want to take the cake home

Because mummy eats nothing at all.

7
 Herdwickmatt 22 Oct 2020
In reply to Greenbanks:

Oh that made me well up. If I wasn’t in a waiting room for the physio I’d probably have shed a tear

In reply to Herdwickmatt:

Better not read the full version. I can barely see to post.

https://mobile.twitter.com/MissSBMP/status/1319141231503593478

Post edited at 17:56
 Herdwickmatt 22 Oct 2020
In reply to captain paranoia: Dammit! 😢😢😢

 marsbar 22 Oct 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

Its happens more than you might think stuff like that.  I found out that one kid had persuaded his mum to make him a double packed lunch everyday so his friend could have one for later.  

OP Ciro 22 Oct 2020
In reply to Greenbanks:

A relative's kid played the part of a hungry kid for a charity advertising campaign a few years back. She acted out what was apparently a true story of what some kids had been doing in school.

She pocketed the little tomato sauce sachets in the canteen, took them home, and made "cup soup" from them for a "warm meal". Heartbreaking to think about.

 bouldery bits 22 Oct 2020
In reply to Ciro:

> She pocketed the little tomato sauce sachets in the canteen, took them home, and made "cup soup" from them for a "warm meal". Heartbreaking to think about.

We deal with stuff like this everyday at school. There are certain kids we know to 'load up' with whatever food is going. I have a system of leaving cereal bars and fruit in some kids trays. It's a balance as well of not damaging parent's pride and making a tricky situation even more strained. Some families really do struggle and, ultimately, blameless children suffer.

Honestly, not feeding children when we have the means. Reprehensible.

Post edited at 18:52
1
 girlymonkey 22 Oct 2020
In reply to Ciro:

There's a channel 4 documentary which you can get on catch up called "Growing up poor". It's a really sad programme to watch, but at the same time really worthwhile to get some level of understanding of the problem. 

It's devastating that a so called "developed" country can't even ensure families have enough to eat!

And that was before the pandemic hit!

In reply to marsbar:

> Its happens more than you might think stuff like that.

My parents, many of my relatives and a former girlfriend were teachers. Those are familiar stories, from late 50s to the 90s. Disgraceful that they are on the rise again.

In reply to bouldery bits:

> Honestly, not feeding children when we have the means. Reprehensible.

Johnson is saying that we provide families with benefits, so no further support is needed.

But, if free school meals are needed during school term, what magic suddenly means they are not needed during holidays, or makes the benefits suddenly able to pay those meals?

1
 Yanis Nayu 22 Oct 2020
In reply to Ciro:

They're utter wankers. They could easily make an exception given the unprecedented hardship in the country. They’re too busy giving billions to Dildo Hardon et al and enjoying their subsidised canteen. They’re utterly incompetent and complete bastards. I loathe them.  

2
baron 22 Oct 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

> > Honestly, not feeding children when we have the means. Reprehensible.

> Johnson is saying that we provide families with benefits, so no further support is needed.

> But, if free school meals are needed during school term, what magic suddenly means they are not needed during holidays, or makes the benefits suddenly able to pay those meals?

The theory is that school meals are sold at a price which enables the provider to make a profit.

While a child is at home it is imagined that the parents are not interested in making any monetary profit from feeding their children and therefore the costs of meals will be lower.

Of course theory and reality are not always the same.

3
 Darron 22 Oct 2020
In reply to Ciro:

Thanks for the kick up the backside. Just donated to our local charity that helps with this.

OP Ciro 22 Oct 2020
In reply to baron:

> The theory is that school meals are sold at a price which enables the provider to make a profit.

> While a child is at home it is imagined that the parents are not interested in making any monetary profit from feeding their children and therefore the costs of meals will be lower.

> Of course theory and reality are not always the same.

We're taking about children who get school meals - the cost to the state make no difference to the parents budget whatsoever.

1
 bouldery bits 22 Oct 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

> > Honestly, not feeding children when we have the means. Reprehensible.

> Johnson is saying that we provide families with benefits, so no further support is needed.

> But, if free school meals are needed during school term, what magic suddenly means they are not needed during holidays, or makes the benefits suddenly able to pay those meals?

Put it this way, during lockdown we made damn sure that the kids we knew may not have access to regular meals had some support to access food. Either by inviting them in to school, even if just for the morning and lunch, or with vouchers for families.

We know many families really struggle over the holidays. I'm not saying that parents always make the best decisions, or indeed the decisions I might make, but ultimately it is the children who suffer when parents are struggling to put food on the table.

Post edited at 19:35
baron 22 Oct 2020
In reply to Ciro:

> We're taking about children who get school meals - the cost to the state make no difference to the parents budget whatsoever.

I believe that you have completely misunderstood my post.

Shall I try to explain it again?

3
 marsbar 22 Oct 2020
In reply to baron:

I don't see how there can be much profit in school meals these days.  Its usually about 1.50 for a meal.  

Post edited at 19:49
1
baron 22 Oct 2020
In reply to marsbar:

> I don't see how there can be much profit in school meals these days.  

There seems to be enough profit for private companies to be involved but how much ‘enough‘ actually  is I don’t know.

 Toby_W 22 Oct 2020
In reply to Ciro:

I don’t think we should, I think people should be paid properly and that our social care should be fit for purpose so that this is never even an issue.

cheers

toby

OP Ciro 22 Oct 2020
In reply to baron:

> I believe that you have completely misunderstood my post.

> Shall I try to explain it again?

Yes please. 

 girlymonkey 22 Oct 2020
In reply to Toby_W:

I would agree. However, have you seen who our wise nation voted in to make such decisions?! 

1
OP Ciro 22 Oct 2020
In reply to Toby_W:

> I don’t think we should, I think people should be paid properly and that our social care should be fit for purpose so that this is never even an issue.

> cheers

> toby

Heartily agree. Not sure we can put that in place in time for the next school holiday though...

In reply to baron:

> The theory is that school meals are sold at a price which enables the provider to make a profit.

And I guess we're into the argument about outsourcing public services.

But when you've got contracts to award to your mates, why not?

 Blunderbuss 22 Oct 2020
In reply to Greenbanks:

> "If the government can subsidise Eat Out to Help Out, not being seen to give poor kids lunch in the school holidays looks mean and is wrong".

> Just posted on Twitter by err....Nigel Farage.

> You have to be totally inept to conspire to make Farage look like one of the anointed...

Bloody hell the first time in my life I agree with Farage...

baron 22 Oct 2020
In reply to Ciro:

> Yes please. 

OK.

During term time children pay for their lunches at school. The cost of these lunches includes some profit for the company providing the lunches. This makes the lunch more expensive than one that could be provided by the child’s parents should the child be eating at home. So the government provides free lunches for those children who meet the criteria, I.e. their parents are in receipt of certain benefits and might not be able to afford the inflated prices of a school meal.

Parents not in receipt of those certain benefits are expected to pay the full price of a school meal. Even if their income is only marginally greater than those on benefits.

During school holidays it is envisaged that all parents, including those in receipt of certain benefits, will be able to pay for the food necessary to feed their child as they buy food and feed their children with no mark up (for profit) involved. I.e. it’s cheaper to feed your children at home.

That’s the theory.

Hope that’s a clearer explanation.  

5
 Greenbanks 22 Oct 2020
In reply to bouldery bits:

Re. the cereal bars in trays: good on you; great also if, like a number of schools I know, there’s a collective decision to ensure that the kids most in need of a feed get some extras. Speaks volumes, and it places the current govt response exactly where it should be - at the very bottom of the cesspit, alongside a raft of other shameful and verging on the inhuman policy positions. Pity its Sober October - this is turning me to drink☹️

baron 22 Oct 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

> > The theory is that school meals are sold at a price which enables the provider to make a profit.

> And I guess we're into the argument about outsourcing public services.

> But when you've got contracts to award to your mates, why not?

As a recipient of council provided school dinners I would have thought that anything would be an improvement!

But that’s looking at it from the quality and variety of food provided rather than the opportunity for letting your mates make a profit.

Saving tax payers money by outsourcing is a good idea if the level of service and employment conditions for the workforce remain the same but obviously not when it’s just a way of lining someone’s pockets.

In reply to baron:

Do you think the HoP caterers make a profit on the prices MPs pay? Or do you think their pressed duck leg with caper terrine, celeriac and mustard remoulade and sour dough toast at £4.50 might be subsidised...?

1
 marsbar 22 Oct 2020
In reply to baron:

I used to eat at school every lunchtime because I couldn't make a packed lunch for the price of a school meal.  

I get the theory but it is flawed.

2
In reply to baron:

> While a child is at home it is imagined that the parents are not interested in making any monetary profit from feeding their children and therefore the costs of meals will be lower.

BTW, did you miss the bit about comparing the cost of free school meals with parents having to pay for meals in holiday time...?

1
baron 22 Oct 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

> > While a child is at home it is imagined that the parents are not interested in making any monetary profit from feeding their children and therefore the costs of meals will be lower.

> BTW, did you miss the bit about comparing the cost of free school meals with parents having to pay for meals in holiday time...?

No.

Parents in receipt of certain benefits should receive the difference between what a school meal costs and what it costs them to feed their child at home.

This would, of course, be extremely difficult and costly to calculate so the government does the easier, cheaper thing and pays for the whole meal.

It could be said that parents benefit twice from free school meals during term time by not only receiving the meals themselves for nothing but also continuing to receive the benefits given to them in order to feed their children.

Only during holiday time do parents actually have to use that part of their benefits which is allocated for feeding their children, the rest of the time such monies can be used for other things.

This is meant as an explanation as to the theory behind school meals not as a justification for the government’s present policy.

11
baron 22 Oct 2020
In reply to marsbar:

> I used to eat at school every lunchtime because I couldn't make a packed lunch for the price of a school meal.  

> I get the theory but it is flawed.

Sometimes we used to buy a bag of chips from the local chippy and share them but mostly we skipped lunch and played football instead.

The children in the last mainstream school that I taught in used to buy bacon butties from some enterprising parents who sold them at lunchtime through the school railings.

I know that the theory is flawed.

1
baron 22 Oct 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

> Do you think the HoP caterers make a profit on the prices MPs pay? Or do you think their pressed duck leg with caper terrine, celeriac and mustard remoulade and sour dough toast at £4.50 might be subsidised...?

I don’t know but I’ll guess that politicians of all parties avail themselves of said facilities. Hypocrites.

1
 pec 22 Oct 2020
In reply to PaulJepson:

> All politicians should have to live on social benefits for a month prior to taking office. How can they be expected to make sensible and compassionate decisions when they don't have the slightest clue what they're dealing with. 

Do you also think all politicians should have to run a large business for a month before taking office as well?

How can they be expected to make sensible and responsible decisions when they don't have a clue where the money comes from to pay for all those social benefits?

6
 EddInaBox 22 Oct 2020
In reply to baron:

> ... This is meant as an explanation as to the theory behind school meals...

Is this your own personal theory or is it based on some published policy/calculation?  If the latter could you tell me where to find it?

OP Ciro 22 Oct 2020
In reply to baron:

> During school holidays it is envisaged that all parents, including those in receipt of certain benefits, will be able to pay for the food necessary to feed their child as they buy food and feed their children with no mark up (for profit) involved. I.e. it’s cheaper to feed your children at home.

> That’s the theory.

> Hope that’s a clearer explanation.  

I'm still at a loss as to how during the holidays parents can feed their children for cheaper than a FREE SCHOOL MEAL.

If a child is entitled to free school meals, during holidays the parents have to find the money for 5 extra meals per week. For some kids, those are actually the only decent meals they are getting.

1
baron 22 Oct 2020
In reply to EddInaBox:

> Is this your own personal theory or is it based on some published policy/calculation?  If the latter could you tell me where to find it?

It’s my own personal theory.

I’m sure you can find some published policy if you want.

I cannot be bothered searching for something to support my theory which may or may not be total bollocks.

2
 peebles boy 22 Oct 2020
In reply to Naechi:

Yep, Welsh govt have also put plans in place for meals during hols. So just the UK gov penalising English kids for coming from poorer backgrounds or having parent/s in lower paid jobs which are being adversely effected by the government's shambolic management of the pandemic 😪

baron 22 Oct 2020
In reply to Ciro:

> I'm still at a loss as to how during the holidays parents can feed their children for cheaper than a FREE SCHOOL MEAL.

> If a child is entitled to free school meals, during holidays the parents have to find the money for 5 extra meals per week. For some kids, those are actually the only decent meals they are getting.

They cannot feed their children for cheaper than a free meal. That would be magic.

What they can do is use the money provided by the government as part of their benefits to feed their children.

This is money that they receive throughout the year as part of their benefits but don’t spend during term time as that’s when they receive free school meals. And possibly free breakfast club as well. As well as all the extras provided by their caring teachers, teaching assistants and learning mentors.

So think of benefits being there to feed your children all year round with the added bonus of not having to use some of that money during term time for its intended use.

If you want to debate whether or not those benefits are adequate for their intended purposes then that’s another matter.

7
baron 22 Oct 2020
In reply to peebles boy:

> Yep, Welsh govt have also put plans in place for meals during hols. So just the UK gov penalising English kids for coming from poorer backgrounds or having parent/s in lower paid jobs which are being adversely effected by the government's shambolic management of the pandemic 😪

Is the Welsh government funding this?

If so, where is the money coming from?

 wintertree 22 Oct 2020
In reply to pec:

> How can they be expected to make sensible and responsible decisions when they don't have a clue where the money comes from to pay for all those social benefits?

They know how much money there is, and they know where it goes.  They choose where it goes.  And boy, does some of it go.  Not to hungry children.

1
 EddInaBox 22 Oct 2020
In reply to baron:

> It’s my own personal theory.

Then it would have been clearer if you had started your post with 'my theory' rather than 'the theory' which implied that you were giving us some insight into how the government calculated benefit amounts based on something other than pure speculation.

> I cannot be bothered searching for something to support my theory which may or may not be total bollocks.

It is, not least because it completely ignores economies of scale.

baron 22 Oct 2020
In reply to EddInaBox:

> Then it would have been clearer if you had started your post with 'my theory' rather than 'the theory' which implied that you were giving us some insight into how the government calculated benefit amounts based on something other than pure speculation.

> It is, not least because it completely ignores economies of scale.

OK smarty pants.

Let’s here your theory of how and why some children receive free school meals and have done for many years.

5
 bouldery bits 22 Oct 2020
In reply to baron:

> OK smarty pants.

> Let’s here your theory of how and why some children receive free school meals and have done for many years.

I cannot fathom how you are sat there, on your well fed bottom, suggesting that the current system is in anyway defensible. 

Many of the children who get free school meals need them. That's why.

Children sometimes need to be protected or insulated from the choices of the adults who look after them or the circumstances those adults find themselves in.

Post edited at 22:54
1
baron 22 Oct 2020
In reply to bouldery bits:

> I cannot fathom how you are sat there, on your well fed bottom, suggesting that the current system is in anyway defensible. 

> Many of the children who get free school meals need them. That's why.

> Children sometimes need to be protected from the choices of the adults who look after them or the circumstances those adults find themselves in.

I have tried to explain why I think free school meals work (or don’t work) the way that they do.

While the system doesn’t work for some children for many it does but like most things that isn’t a very newsworthy story nor does it allow politicians to score points against each other.

Where you have got the idea that I have been defending the current system - until this post - I have no idea.

2
 EddInaBox 22 Oct 2020
In reply to baron:

> OK smarty pants.

> Let’s here your theory of how and why some children receive free school meals and have done for many years.

Because successive governments and society as a whole have believed they have an obligation to those children to stop them going hungry.

I have another theory too, this government doesn't care but realises that quite a lot of the electorate do, so are employing their usual tactic of claiming their policies are working and they are fulfilling their obligations whilst actually doing the opposite.  The corollary to that is that if children could vote this government would be putting significantly more money into stopping them going hungry and wouldn't be saying it's their fault for having crap parents.

1
baron 22 Oct 2020
In reply to EddInaBox:

> Because successive governments and society as a whole have believed they have an obligation to those children to stop them going hungry.

> I have another theory too, this government doesn't care but realises that quite a lot of the electorate do, so are employing their usual tactic of claiming their policies are working and they are fulfilling their obligations whilst actually doing the opposite.  The corollary to that is that if children could vote this government would be putting significantly more money into stopping them going hungry and wouldn't be saying it's their fault for having crap parents.

So how is the present government’s position on free school meals different to that of previous governments?

 EddInaBox 22 Oct 2020
In reply to baron:

A further thought on the matter is why free school meals rather than food vouchers or increased benefits to buy lunch?  Because it has been recognised for a long time that some parents are crap, and the duty is to the child not the parents.

baron 22 Oct 2020
In reply to EddInaBox:

> A further thought on the matter is why free school meals rather than food vouchers or increased benefits to buy lunch?  Because it has been recognised for a long time that some parents are crap, and the duty is to the child not the parents.

You won’t find me arguing about that.

So what’s the plan for providing food for children during holidays?

I know what my plan would be but I don’t think it’s going to happen.

 EddInaBox 22 Oct 2020
In reply to baron:

> So how is the present government’s position on free school meals different to that of previous governments?

Because many household incomes have been signifcantly reduced because of the restrictions which are being imposed by the government so more children need help.

1
baron 22 Oct 2020
In reply to EddInaBox:

> Because many household incomes have been signifcantly reduced because of the restrictions which are being imposed by the government so more children need help.

As tough as times are right now there have been times when the unemployment rate has been much, much higher and relatively speaking children lived in greater poverty.

Free school meals during holidays didn’t feature then.

Maybe now is the time to make free meals available all year round but how you deliver such a scheme successfully is another matter.

 EddInaBox 22 Oct 2020
In reply to baron:

> So what’s the plan for providing food for children during holidays?

I think Boris Johnson's current plan is to let them go hungry.

1
 EddInaBox 22 Oct 2020
In reply to baron:

> Maybe now is the time to make free meals available all year round...

No maybe about it, it is just a question of how long it takes before Johnson is forced into another embarrassing U-turn.

baron 22 Oct 2020
In reply to EddInaBox:

> I think Boris Johnson's current plan is to let them go hungry.

Some children undoubtedly will.

Some children undoubtedly will even if the government changes its mind.

Any plan to deliver free meals during holidays needs to be deliverable and not just a box ticking exercise.

 bouldery bits 22 Oct 2020
In reply to baron:

> Some children undoubtedly will.

> Some children undoubtedly will even if the government changes its mind.

> Any plan to deliver free meals during holidays needs to be deliverable and not just a box ticking exercise.

Firstly, apologies for my previous (now deleted) post. It has been a long half term and this is a somewhat emotive subject for me at present. Particularly this week as it happens.

I completely agree and feel that, in the short term, the best compromise is a voucher type system of the kind that was voted out of the Commons today.

Take care,

BB

Post edited at 23:52
 EddInaBox 22 Oct 2020
In reply to baron:

> Some children undoubtedly will even if the government changes its mind.

> Any plan to deliver free meals during holidays needs to be deliverable and not just a box ticking exercise.

I'm not sure what your point is, given that the theory of yours that led to our discussion was that children wouldn't have to go hungry because the benefits their parents receive would cover the cost of feeding them.

1
baron 22 Oct 2020
In reply to bouldery bits:

> Firstly, apologies for my previous (now deleted) message. It has been a long half term and this is a somewhat emotive subject for me at present. Particularly this week as it happens.

> I completely agree and feel that, in the short term, the best compromise is a voucher types system of the kind that was voted out of the Commons today.

> Take care,

> BB

Thanks for the apology but there’s no need.

I’m sure that an already difficult job has been made much harder by the current situation.

The time to worry is when one doesn’t get emotional about the children that you work with.

I’ve forgotten about the level of involvement that comes with teaching and I’ve been too busy engaging in my theoretical debate while you have to deal with the actual consequences and it is me who should be apologising.

Have a good half term holiday.

baron 23 Oct 2020
In reply to EddInaBox:

> I'm not sure what your point is, given that the theory of yours that led to our discussion was that children wouldn't have to go hungry because the benefits their parents receive would cover the cost of feeding them.

My point was that children shouldn’t have to go hungry.

Shouldn’t and wouldn’t aren’t the same.

If benefits don’t cover the cost of feeding your children then they need to be increased  -  that won’t stop children going hungry but  it will make us feel better about ourselves.

5
 EddInaBox 23 Oct 2020
In reply to baron:

> If benefits don’t cover the cost of feeding your children then they need to be increased  -  that won’t stop children going hungry...

Yes it will, not all children but many.

1
 Lord_ash2000 24 Oct 2020
In reply to EddInaBox:

Didn't they increase benefits by £20 a week because of the schools having to shut etc? I assume this cash increase doesn't stop during half terms?

The reason they are doing it this way is because the government is not there to parent people's children for them. It's there to provide an environment where people can do it themselves and they have done that. I certainly wouldn't want the government telling me what to spend my money on.

The unfortunate fact however is some people out there are reckless, selfish, horrid human beings who refuse to carry out the most basic duty a person can have, to feed ones offspring. you might even call them scum. Mean for goodness sake even birds and small mammals grasp that the number one priority is to feed and protect your young. But for some people an extra £20 a week just means a couple of extra packs of fags and tins from the offy.

If an adult repeatedly demonstrates they are unwilling to prioritize their own children's health and wellbeing then social services need to get involved and question whether they should be taken into care and ideally adopted by a family who will look after them. 

Why are not outraged at these people's behaviour?

Post edited at 00:40
13
 MonkeyPuzzle 24 Oct 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

That's your first mental stop? Why do you disembark there? Are the paninis good?

Irresponsible people exist. You want to starve their kids into making them responsible? 

1
 girlymonkey 24 Oct 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Please go onto the channel 4 catch up service and look up the documentary "Growing up poor". Watch it. 

1
OP Ciro 24 Oct 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> Didn't they increase benefits by £20 a week because of the schools having to shut etc? I assume this cash increase doesn't stop during half terms?

> The reason they are doing it this way is because the government is not there to parent people's children for them. It's there to provide an environment where people can do it themselves and they have done that. I certainly wouldn't want the government telling me what to spend my money on.

> The unfortunate fact however is some people out there are reckless, selfish, horrid human beings who refuse to carry out the most basic duty a person can have, to feed ones offspring. you might even call them scum. Mean for goodness sake even birds and small mammals grasp that the number one priority is to feed and protect your young. But for some people an extra £20 a week just means a couple of extra packs of fags and tins from the offy.

> If an adult repeatedly demonstrates they are unwilling to prioritize their own children's health and wellbeing then social services need to get involved and question whether they should be taken into care and ideally adopted by a family who will look after them. 

> Why are not outraged at these people's behaviour?

The parents of an estimated 900,000 children have recently applied for free school meals as the effects of Covid on family finances bite. That's on top of the 1,400,000 kids who were already getting free school meals.

You think the solution is to take them all into care?

https://theguardian.com/education/2020/oct/12/surge-in-number-of-uk-childre...

1
 climbercool 24 Oct 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000

you say you wouldn't want the government telling you how to spend your money but later in the same post suggest that the government should take children from irresponsible parents.  That seems like totaly the wrong way round to me.  The government should be able to dictate how irresponsible parents spend their money (which is exactly the point of free school meals) and as a result many kids which would otherwise need to be put into care can carry on living with their parents.

Many people are just utterly useless with money and are incapable of budgeting for a month, they could still be great parents other than this, free school meals are a great way to gaurantee poor families spend their money wisely.

1
 Philip 24 Oct 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> The reason they are doing it this way is because the government is not there to parent people's children for them. It's there to provide an environment where people can do it themselves and they have done that. I certainly wouldn't want the government telling me what to spend my money on.

I think you mean state, not government. There is a difference. The government should not, the state should.

The state already provides free healthcare, education, legal aid, ... 

Why do you arbitrarily think it should not provide food to impoverished children?

Children should not be a victim of their parents inadequacies. It is not a punishment on the parents to let their children suffer.

2020. The year humanity died.

2
 EddInaBox 24 Oct 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Other posters have made a lot of key points in reply to you already so I won't repeat them.

> The reason they are doing it this way is because the government is not there to parent people's children for them. It's there to provide an environment where people can do it themselves and they have done that.

Have they?  The Tories have cut funding for the program that did exactly that by two thirds, getting on for 1,000 Sure Start Children's Centres have been closed.  One of the initial goals of the program was to help teach parenting skills, but that emphasis was shifted to childcare so that parents could go to work.  Even natural parental instincts don't equip one with the necessary skills to do the best job within the setting of our modern industrialised way of life, those instincts evolved when we were hunter gatherers living in small tribes.

> The unfortunate fact however is some people out there are reckless, selfish, horrid human beings... Why are not outraged at these people's behaviour?

It isn't either or.

Society has a duty of care to children, that is separate from their parents' duty of care, society must step in when parents cannot feed their children properly but unless the parents are unfit to look after the children, the children should be supported within their own family.  Being unable to properly feed your children in such difficult times does not automatically mean you are an unfit parent and it is your fault, it certainly isn't the children's fault.

1
 Wainers44 24 Oct 2020
In reply to Ciro:

Saw one of the Tory MPs who voted against this on TV this morning.  Can't recall his name, not worth using brain cells to retain it.

The more he attempted to try to justify why its OK for kids in Scotland and Wales to be supported but it's not also needed in England the more ridiculous,  mean minded,  uncaring and head up own ar*e he sounded. Best thing for him was that line broke down ending the interview.  Like to think that someone at the Beeb just switched him off....

1
 deepsoup 24 Oct 2020
In reply to Ciro:

I just posted this in the 'scum' thread but it's actually a bit off-topic there, perhaps it belongs on this one instead.

"I am delighted our local businesses have bounced back so much after lockdown they are able to give away food for free, and very much hope they will not be seeking any further government support."

Selaine Saxby, Conservative MP for North Devon, there writing in a subsequently deleted Facebook post in response to praise for local businesses stepping up to provide lunches for hungry children during half term.  (And to condemnation coming her way after she voted with the government to reject the proposal that they should spend 0.2% of the budget of Johnson's Operation Moonspaff to do the same.)

1
 Darron 24 Oct 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

I see the term “nasty party” is being bandied around again. I prefer b,stards myself but hey ho.

2
OP Ciro 24 Oct 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

> I just posted this in the 'scum' thread but it's actually a bit off-topic there, perhaps it belongs on this one instead.

> "I am delighted our local businesses have bounced back so much after lockdown they are able to give away food for free, and very much hope they will not be seeking any further government support."

> Selaine Saxby, Conservative MP for North Devon, there writing in a subsequently deleted Facebook post in response to praise for local businesses stepping up to provide lunches for hungry children during half term.  (And to condemnation coming her way after she voted with the government to reject the proposal that they should spend 0.2% of the budget of Johnson's Operation Moonspaff to do the same.)

I think that deserves its own thread. There's whole new levels of contempt for the electorate in there. Even if you're callous enough to think it, how delusional do you need to be to voice that opinion?

1
 girlymonkey 24 Oct 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

Thank you for highlighting this. What an utterly contemptible piece of work she is! 

1
mattmurphy 24 Oct 2020
In reply to Ciro:

There is a tax implication for all of this. The money has to come from somewhere after all.

2
 marsbar 24 Oct 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

They increased benefits for adults by £20.  Nothing to do with children or schools.  

My concern is for the children of the low paid, particularly in areas where housing costs are high.  

It's not all about parents spending money on booze or whatever.  Its having to choose between paying the bills and eating.  

1
 marsbar 24 Oct 2020
In reply to mattmurphy:

Compared to some of the ridiculous spending this isn't much money.  

Half a non existent garden bridge was one example I saw.  

1
 MG 24 Oct 2020
In reply to mattmurphy:

Correct. We can choose from, for example

Feeding children 

Subsidising MPs posh lunches 

Paying useless consultants £6000/day

Paying companies with no ships to ship stuff.

Etc. 

1
 AJM 24 Oct 2020
In reply to mattmurphy:

> There is a tax implication for all of this. The money has to come from somewhere after all

At the moment it's being printed faster than we can borrow it, so currently it's mainly coming from thin air.

The 2020 round of QE, which is after all just the printing of money, is targeting buying £300bn of government debt out of the market, compared to the c£250bn issued into the market by the government so far this year.

I think the BofE currently owns slightly over a third of the entire national debt via its various rounds of QE (it's target is £745bn, versus the total debt of just over £2tn). 

mattmurphy 24 Oct 2020
In reply to AJM:

Just because it’s currently being printed into existence doesn’t mean it won’t have to be paid back by you and me.

My own personal take on the matter is that if you give free school meals in term time then you should also provide the same outside of term time.

However I’ve also checked out how much the government spends on child related benefits and speaking as someone without children it is a sickeningly large number.

Post edited at 17:04
1
In reply to deepsoup:

F*ck me, that's breathtaking, isn't it?

 marsbar 24 Oct 2020
In reply to mattmurphy:

You were one once though. 

1
 Lord_ash2000 24 Oct 2020
In reply to marsbar:

> They increased benefits for adults by £20.  Nothing to do with children or schools.  

Adults tend to be the people with the children to look after, it's kind of how it works. No adult in this country has a genuine excuse to not be able to feed their children. Those who've somehow failed to manage this and repeatedly fail to manage this most fundamental responsibility of being a mother or father really need to have their fitness to look after child reviewed.   

> It's not all about parents spending money on booze or whatever.  Its having to choose between paying the bills and eating.  

Then they should choose to feed their kids. If you're on a tight budget as no doubt many people are at the moment then priority one is feed the children, then yourself, then shelter (which is covered by housing benefit if you're that poor), then utility bills and so on.

Mean I'm all for paying what you owe in this world but if push came to shove I'd default on a phone bill before I let my child genuinely go hungry. 

Post edited at 17:26
15
 marsbar 24 Oct 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

And would you risk eviction?  No heating? 

Its generally the mums who go hungry before the kids.  Not everyone is in a privileged position.  

Housing benefit doesn't cover mortgages, so working families who have in the past been self reliant are screwed over once again.  

Post edited at 17:31
1
 girlymonkey 24 Oct 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Did you watch the channel 4 documentary I suggested?

Universal credit is not enough to live on. Then there is a delay in getting it after you apply, so people get into debt then.

There is not enough social housing, so people have to pay extortionate rents in the private sector, housing benefit isn't nearly enough for this. 

There is a lack of mental health support, and people with poor mental health make poor decisions.

It costs more to be poor, you can't take advantage of bulk buy offers etc which work out cheaper overall but have a bigger up front cost.

Some people are massively under educated so may not be able to do the basic maths required to budget.

Some people are illiterate so may not be able to find out about resources available to them.

There are so many reasons for hungry children. None of them the fault of the child, many not the fault of the adults. 

1
 AJM 24 Oct 2020
In reply to mattmurphy:

> Just because it’s currently being printed into existence doesn’t mean it won’t have to be paid back by you and me.

That's certainly the conventional view and the one that the Bank would like to encourage; I personally am skeptical and would not be at all surprised if a chunk of it still remains with the bank when I retire.

We're a decade on from the first "financial crisis" round of QE and none of that has yet been wound down. The bank has been replacing gilts as they expire for the last decade, not allowing it to wind down naturally, and they have made no active moves to sell it down. In the near term, the talk is of negative interest rates and the likelihood is that might be accompanied by more QE rather than less, since unwinding QE would tend to push rates up. Unwinding QE would draw money out of the economy and tend to reduce inflation; with inflation currently very low the bank is unlikely to want to tip into deflation.

I'm sure that the Bank would like to unwind it - after all they're conditioned to recoil from anything that looks like financing of the government debt - I'm just personally skeptical that they'll be able to over any meaningful timeframe, especially as covid and it's consequences continue to draw out. We were going to have it cracked by June, then there was going to be near normality by Christmas, now we're facing a hard winter, and we have to be realistic about how much of a magic bullet vaccines will be..... Every time the horizon extends theres the knock on impact on both the amount of borrowing and the time period until we get to a position where the economy could take the unwind of QE (bearing in mind again that we never got there pre-covid and that the amount to be unwound is so much larger now).

OP Ciro 24 Oct 2020
In reply to mattmurphy:

> Just because it’s currently being printed into existence doesn’t mean it won’t have to be paid back by you and me.

> My own personal take on the matter is that if you give free school meals in term time then you should also provide the same outside of term time.

> However I’ve also checked out how much the government spends on child related benefits and speaking as someone without children it is a sickeningly large number.

Aside from being outrageously selfish in the short term, you don't want a workforce to run and pay taxes for roads, hospitals, police etc. in your old age?

Mad Max here we come.

 Yanis Nayu 24 Oct 2020
In reply to girlymonkey:

> Did you watch the channel 4 documentary I suggested?

> Universal credit is not enough to live on. Then there is a delay in getting it after you apply, so people get into debt then.

> There is not enough social housing, so people have to pay extortionate rents in the private sector, housing benefit isn't nearly enough for this. 

> There is a lack of mental health support, and people with poor mental health make poor decisions.

> It costs more to be poor, you can't take advantage of bulk buy offers etc which work out cheaper overall but have a bigger up front cost.

> Some people are massively under educated so may not be able to do the basic maths required to budget.

> Some people are illiterate so may not be able to find out about resources available to them.

> There are so many reasons for hungry children. None of them the fault of the child, many not the fault of the adults. 

Very well put. 

1
mattmurphy 24 Oct 2020
In reply to Ciro:

I just object to paying money to people wealthier than I am to support their children - it’s hardly mad max.

9
 bouldery bits 24 Oct 2020
In reply to mattmurphy:

> I just object to paying money to people wealthier than I am to support their children - it’s hardly mad max.

I resent paying for any public service that you benefit from.

1
 EddInaBox 24 Oct 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> ... No adult in this country has a genuine excuse to not be able to feed their children. Those who've somehow failed to manage this and repeatedly fail to manage this most fundamental responsibility of being a mother or father really need to have their fitness to look after child reviewed.

Have you considered a change of career, you would fit right in as a Conservative M.P.

1
 EddInaBox 24 Oct 2020
In reply to mattmurphy:

> I just object to paying money to people wealthier than I am to support their children - it’s hardly mad max.

I look forward to hearing that you have voluntarily paid back the treasury for the cost of your education since I am sure you earn considerably more than I do.

1
 The New NickB 24 Oct 2020
In reply to mattmurphy:

> There is a tax implication for all of this. The money has to come from somewhere after all.

Think financial stimulus!

 The New NickB 24 Oct 2020
In reply to EddInaBox:

> Have you considered a change of career, you would fit right in as a Conservative M.P.

I’m definitely picking up a Ben Bradley vibe!

mattmurphy 24 Oct 2020
In reply to bouldery bits:

What public services do you think I use? 
 

In the past 5 years:

- NHS - No

- Police - No

- Fire brigade - No

- Army - No

I suppose I do get my rubbish collected and the roads are maintained, but it’s not exactly good value for money.

14
 Arms Cliff 24 Oct 2020
In reply to mattmurphy:

> What public services do you think I use? 

> In the past 5 years:

> - NHS - No

> - Police - No

> - Fire brigade - No

> - Army - No

You really need to go away and think about this for at least 30 seconds. 

 Ian W 24 Oct 2020
In reply to mattmurphy:

> What public services do you think I use? 

> In the past 5 years:

> - NHS - No

> - Police - No

> - Fire brigade - No

> - Army - No

> I suppose I do get my rubbish collected and the roads are maintained, but it’s not exactly good value for money.


I think you'll find you use the army every single day. And the police. You might not realise it, but you do. And do you not think the NHS and fire service payments are not a reasonable insurance. I pay house insurance every year, sincerely hope i never have to use it, but am happy to pay someone else to take the risk of a big payout should i ever need it.

Here's a question - if yuou are not happy to have your taxes spent on feeding hungry children, what are you happy to have it spent on?

 wbo2 24 Oct 2020
In reply to mattmurphy:

> There is a tax implication for all of this. The money has to come from somewhere after all.

Honestly, it doesn't.  The total sum of money in the economy is just an abstract number,,,, we left the gold standard.  The current situation is wierd as inflation isn't enough to zap old deby away.

I'd bear in mind that you might think you haven't got your moneys worth  yet, but it doesn't take much to get you into the negative... what's the total tax paid so far .. not much, few 10's of 1000's?... one broken ankle, hospital repair, bit of sick pay will soon eat that up.  I believe that over there lifetime only  few % of people are net contributors to the social sfety net in the UK

 EddInaBox 24 Oct 2020
In reply to mattmurphy:

> What public services do you think I use? 

> In the past 5 years:

> - NHS - No

If you really haven't then as you get older you will.

> - Police - No
> - Fire brigade - No

If you drive then you have benefited directly, who do you think manages sorting out the chaos when collisions and accidents block roads?

It isn't possible to quantify, but you would be much more likely to have been directly affected by crime without the police.

Every time you go into a building that has had a Fire Brigade safety inspection you benefit.

> - Army - No

I could go on and on, but you probably get the idea.

 bouldery bits 24 Oct 2020
In reply to mattmurphy:

> What public services do you think I use? 

> In the past 5 years:

> - NHS - No

> - Police - No

> - Fire brigade - No

> - Army - No

You know, from a certain perspective, you are starting to look like an utter wigwam. 

 wercat 24 Oct 2020
In reply to mattmurphy:

I was at Durham and I never heard anything so silly or delusional as this

I TRUST you are not in Grey, as you will know it burned down just before it was due to open - my grandfather was a retained fireman in attendance, hence the scaling ladders in the college coat of arms

I see more sense in the behaviour of our resident blackbirds

> What public services do you think I use? 

> In the past 5 years:

> - NHS - No

> - Police - No

> - Fire brigade - No

> - Army - No

> I suppose I do get my rubbish collected and the roads are maintained, but it’s not exactly good value for money.

Post edited at 19:59
 jethro kiernan 25 Oct 2020
In reply to mattmurphy:

> I just object to paying money to people wealthier than I am to support their children - it’s hardly mad max.

Your displaying an attitude that is so destructive and common in Britain at the moment, the petty desire to take  something from someone you feel is underserving, if you really do earn less than universal credit then surely you should be better off challenging why your wage is so low and what can be done to change it.

so much of the social progress We have achieved over the last 100 years is being undermined in a fit of pettiness, it’s almost as if we’ve been encouraged to punch downwards rather than campaign upwards.

wave a single mum of five around in the tabloid press and we’re suddenly happy to throw away any concept of society and a 100 years of hard fought progress.

Post edited at 07:42
 Greenbanks 26 Oct 2020
In reply to Ciro:

https://helpoutwhenschoolsout.co.uk/
 

Has this been posted yet??

In reply to Greenbanks:

"Eat nowt to help out" was a banner that caught my attention...

 mondite 28 Oct 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

> "Eat nowt to help out" was a banner that caught my attention...


I prefer "Starve a kid to save a quid".

 Lord_ash2000 29 Oct 2020
In reply to EddInaBox:

> Have you considered a change of career, you would fit right in as a Conservative M.P.

Well you know, £80k+ a year is a tidy little salary around here, it's not to be sniffed at. 

But I take it you disagree with my general statement though? Can you give me a scenario where an otherwise well meaning parent who prioritizes their children's welfare genuinely can't afford to feed them repeatedly? 

The way I see it, any parent with a child is going to be given benefits if not working or on a low income. Now the amount will vary depending on the situation but they will always get some money. However much you get if you're on a tight budget then the first 20,30,40 quid a week or whatever goes on food for your children, that's priority one. After that rent, bills etc can be looked at. We can go into the detail of budgeting and living costs for a sustainable life on a low income if you want but as far as this goes the food gets covered, everything else is secondary.

Even if you do screw up, fail to plan or budget , get sanctioned or whatever and can't get those last few dinners before your next payday there are options, hardship loans, charities, food banks etc, beg on the streets if needed. No food charity is going to turn away a mother with a hungry child.

The bottom line is if a child is left hungry for any length of time, there is no excuse it is willful neglect by those responsible for them. 

13
 EddInaBox 30 Oct 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Children are going hungry, lots of children.  The government should do whatever it takes to bring that number down to nearly zero, they are not doing enough. 

There are a small number of uncaring parents but if the state does not help feed their children, in order to punish those parents, it will not work because they do not care.

There are many parents who do not have enough money to feed their children, if the state does not help then the children go hungry and it doesn't matter how bad it makes the parents feel, that won't put food in the children.

It is not about the parents, it is about hungry children.

> The bottom line is if a child is left hungry for any length of time, there is no excuse it is willful neglect by those responsible for them. 

Society has a responsibility, that resposibility is delegated to the government.  As you say, wilful neglect.

2
baron 30 Oct 2020
In reply to EddInaBox:

What happens if the government gives money to local councils to look after starving children but somehow the money gets spent elsewhere?

 Jack 30 Oct 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Its a bit early i know but, are there no prisons? And the work houses? Are they still in operation?

 MG 30 Oct 2020
In reply to baron:

No one is proposing that.

In reply to baron:

> What happens if the government gives money to local councils to look after starving children but somehow the money gets spent elsewhere?

Do you have evidence of that happening?

Do you have evidence that the government is actually giving money to local councils for that reason?

There is already an established scheme to provide vouchers to feed children. Why waste further money setting up another, parallel system just to cover school holidays? That isn't an efficient use of taxpayers money. You are in favour of efficient use of taxpayers money, aren't you? Or do you want to waste taxpayers money on unnecessary duplication? Or maybe it should be outsourced to your mates at £50 per meal? To someone whose experience is in, say, beancounting? And I don't mean baked beans.

1
baron 31 Oct 2020
In reply to MG:

> No one is proposing that.

The government says that it has already provided money to councils some of which was to look after children.

My local council received £29 million.

Now they want the government to give them more money so they can look after children with no explanation as to what’s happened to the money they previously received.

3
baron 31 Oct 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

> > What happens if the government gives money to local councils to look after starving children but somehow the money gets spent elsewhere?

> Do you have evidence of that happening?

> Do you have evidence that the government is actually giving money to local councils for that reason?

> There is already an established scheme to provide vouchers to feed children. Why waste further money setting up another, parallel system just to cover school holidays? That isn't an efficient use of taxpayers money. You are in favour of efficient use of taxpayers money, aren't you? Or do you want to waste taxpayers money on unnecessary duplication? Or maybe it should be outsourced to your mates at £50 per meal? To someone whose experience is in, say, beancounting? And I don't mean baked beans.

See my reply to MG.

 Niall_H 31 Oct 2020
In reply to baron:

> My local council received £29 million.

> Now they want the government to give them more money

You've neglected to say how many children needed looking after and how long ago that money arrived.

1
baron 31 Oct 2020
In reply to Niall_H:

> You've neglected to say how many children needed looking after and how long ago that money arrived.

£29 million is a shed load of money.

We’ve become so used to huge figures being thrown around that we seem to forget that.

The money arrived at the beginning of the crisis. Since then I’m presuming that more money has arrived given that Wirral is in the Liverpool City Region and they’ve had over £60 million allocated to them.

Trying to find out how the money has been spent is, at the moment, impossible but given that the Children’s Services department of Wirral Council has been in special measures for years and the council itself in disarray that’s hardly surprising.

The money was to help councils through the Covid crisis not to replace all of its normal funding. So only a small proportion of it would be needed to help feed needy children during the school holidays.

Maybe the council found something else to spend the money on besides feeding the starving children but nobody that I’ve spoken to seems to know what extra things the council has done besides cutting back on many of its services.
My feeling and it’s only a feeling is that the council has done its usual trick of wasting half of the money and then gone back to the government to ask for more.

3
 stevieb 31 Oct 2020
In reply to baron:

Which £29m do you mean? If this is the tier 3 money then this is specifically allocated for business and employment support, so cannot be used directly for feeding kids. The same is true of the £7m tier 2 support. And £14m has been provided for local test and trace, because the £12000m on the serco test and trace has been lost down the back of the sofa. 

1
baron 31 Oct 2020
In reply to stevieb:

> Which £29m do you mean? If this is the tier 3 money then this is specifically allocated for business and employment support, so cannot be used directly for feeding kids. The same is true of the £7m tier 2 support. And £14m has been provided for local test and trace, because the £12000m on the serco test and trace has been lost down the back of the sofa. 

It was £29million allocated in March so not part of the tier 3 money.

1
 marsbar 31 Oct 2020
In reply to baron:

I could be wrong, but I think I read somewhere that there was a September deadline for spending the money given in March.  

baron 31 Oct 2020
In reply to marsbar:

I think you’re right, something like ‘it is envisaged that the money will be spent by September’.

My point was that the local council could/should have envisaged the crisis extending past the September deadline and made some provision for needy children.
Instead they appear to have done what many organisations do when faced with similar cut off points and just spent all the money on who knows what in the hope that the government will give them more. Which they will.

Actually, having just typed that, I am wondering why I ever thought that, based on past performance, my inept council could ever formulate and put into practice any efficient plan for the welfare of needy children.

All this extra money doesn’t fit in with the ‘uncaring government who are happy to see children starve‘ sentiment which seems to be prevalent.

3
 The New NickB 31 Oct 2020
In reply to baron:

> It was £29million allocated in March so not part of the tier 3 money.

It was money to support businesses and individuals through lockdown. Councils were promised and spent more than they actually received.

1
baron 31 Oct 2020
In reply to The New NickB:

> It was money to support businesses and individuals through lockdown. Councils were promised and spent more than they actually received.

So how much of the £29 million allocated to Wirral did they not receive?

1
 The New NickB 31 Oct 2020
In reply to baron:

> So how much of the £29 million allocated to Wirral did they not receive?

I don't know the details of the discussions between Wirral and government, but they have administered £47m of business support grants, very little of that would have been optional.

 Root1 31 Oct 2020
In reply to Ciro:

Its ok to pay a footballer millions of pounds a year, its ok for the captains  of industry to get tens sometimes hundreds of millions a year, yet its wrong to pay a little extra for poor families to feed their children.

Somethings seriously wrong in our society.

Post edited at 09:59
 The New NickB 31 Oct 2020
In reply to baron:

No comment on the £47m that Wirral had to spend on behalf of the Government on Covid related business support of out the generous Government settlement of £29m?

1

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...