UKC

Plucky Brit Jacob fights the evil global powers trying to distort market conditions just because some children are going hungry.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/dec/17/jacob-rees-mogg-faces-bac...

Couldn't agree more.

Hunger is a great motivator. Just think of all the fantastic things these children could have achieved, if they had to claw their way out of poverty, like Jacob did.

More Tory self interest: He's worried that the UNICEF food program might make it harder for him to find a scrawny malnourished child to sweep his chimney.

Yes the urchins should know their place, and dutifully decline UNICEFS offerings, some rich tory benefactor will come along and throw them a few pennies, to be received in joyous obsequiousness.  Marking the glorious return of Christmas's from yesteryear.

JRM is an irrelevant tool, who has shone a light on wholesale national stupidity, racism, greed and a preoccupation with returning to the days when people 'knew their place'

Poor old Jacob.  He's experiencing uncomfortable and unfamiliar emotions and he's lashing out the only way he knows in self defence.  The emotions is question being vestigial hints of shame and embarrassment.

Shame this awful apology for a human being didn't choke on his silver spoon.

And you know when someone has lost an argument when they wheel out the "playing politics" jibe. What does that mean anyway, and aren't politicians doing it all the time themselves?

Is it just possible that Rees-Mogg has a point here? Is this more about Unicef pointing the political finger at the government of one of the world's wealthiest countries for allowing children to fall into relative poverty rather than directing aid where it is actually most needed. The UK situation is inexcusable, but it's not exactly Yemen.

Isn't it more the point that UNICEF shouldn't have to be pointing the finger? Or that this government shouldn't be shamed into action by a footballer? 

A finger needs pointing, but possibly not by Unicef in this way.

You are right of course about the difference.... Jacob hasn't worked out how the UK can make money quite so egregiously out of child hunger at home as it does with arms sales to the Saudis, aiding the child starvation and deaths in the war in Yemen.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/dec/17/free-school-meals-scheme-...

It does. It really does. Shameless f*cks like Mogg need their noses rubbing in it. 

I kind of think the 25000 that unicef has given is a bit of a token effort for a lot of political capital.  Considering how much aid we give and the fact that the government has put so many people on furlough I think this is political posterioring that gives them great  headlines.

Don't get me wrong I am no fan of UK foriegn policy in regards to Yemen etc but we do (or did) give a large amount of aid  all around the world. 

In terms of impact £25 000 hardly significant. I'm no tory supporter and find Mog most unpleasant but he has a point.

I'm beginning to wonder if investing in some Voodoo wax dolls and small tools might be a way of getting back at the Auton Invasion we have in charge

Not content with wrecking Britain and helping his chum Putin and supporting the policies of Trump he now has a go at United ~Nations aid organisations.

I wish him the Season's harm

You have been misinformed about the scale of this political intervention. From the link:

“In partnership with Sustain, the food and farming alliance, over £700k of Unicef UK funds is being granted to community groups around the country to support their vital work helping children and families at risk of food insecurity during the coronavirus pandemic. Unicef will continue to spend our international funding helping the world’s poorest children. We believe that every child is important and deserves to survive and thrive no matter where they are born.”

The only 'point' he has is that his statement is a sleight of hand manoeuvre that will deflect, and dismiss, the real and proper tragedy of kids going hungry. Pity his supposed Christianity and humility couldn't have expressed a 'point' along the lines of "yes, UNICEF shouldn't be doing this. That's my job, and I'm now on it."

Having walked past and spent some time contemplating memorials last winter to an immigrant who died of hunger and cold in the street in one of our great cities I think UNICEF are not wrong

£700000 I believe. 

I'd say families not having sufficient food constituted absolute poverty (not that relative poverty is beneficial or desirable either). Yes they're shining a light on our shame. Good, delivering actual aid packages is only one way to relieve suffering. UNICEF using their profile to ensure those shirking their responsibilities to protect their citizens act appropriately is far more powerful and lasting.

The bastards defending this disgusting state of affairs, resulting in large part from their callous assault on the welfare system, they should be pilloried in the neglected corners of our country where their malice and neglect is felt most keenly.

jk

I think our younger readers might need to look that up!

So you agree with Rees-Mogg and myself that this is political?

It does appear that Rees-Mogg has scored a spectacular own goal by bringing this up - it seems that Unicef's finger pointing was going largely unnoticed until he highlighted it in this way.

I agree, kids going hungry in the UK is clearly wrong but I would rather their resources went to kids in desperate need....

It is a disgusting failure that children are hungry anywhere.  

Ah I didn't see it was 700 000 that is a difference I guess. I do think it is still a political move though designed to pressure the government to do more. Based on the headlines its a fantastic bit of lobbying. but I could see how if I were in a government that has spent more on welfare in the last year then ever before I would criticize it. 

What I find mind-boggling is that 73692 people voted for him at the last election.

Good on you for backing our plucky lad. Spending more than ever before on welfare is the right way to look at this (Jacob's catholic) heaven forbid anyone notices this means more people are needy in the UK, due to tory style capitalism's unfortunate side effects, than ever before in modern times (even before covid) and how being in poverty and on UC keeps them under control and maximises gain for the economic benefits of the gig economy and entrepreneurs in our rental sector, payday loan and gambling organisations. Down with these UNICEF do-gooders. You can't help but admire a one nation party promoting a message of fairness achieving more for unbridled commerce than Maggie.

I didn't mean any of that. All I have said is that he has a point about the posturing. I was hardly advocating keeping millions in poverty. 

I spend my working day helping the most vulnerable in our society. I know exactly how hard it is for some people. 

Not sure what him being catholic has got to do with anything. 

Well yes but there are millions of kids in a far worse position than the poor here...how many kids actually starve to death in the UK. 

They whave voted for anyone with a blue rosette spouting "Get Brexit done".

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/nov/17/uk-aid-budget-fa...

And we seem to be turning our backs on those kids. But the money is meant to be spent 'on our own' isn't it?

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/deaths-nearly-200-babies-england-2163...

Let's hope 'our own money' gets well spent. I'll not hold my breath with this shower of shite in government.

Lets 'out' all those English organisations posturing on poverty as well.. all those religious groups, homeless charities, food charities, children's charities, lefty politicians (left of libertarian centrism), trade unions, etc. We know the poor need help but do these organisations have to whine so, don't they understand the coming economic miracle? The government are spending so many billions supporting the poor in the UK, why can't these organisations pull their finger out and cut such big state expense, like they do in the US.

Interesting use of the word 'posturing' there.

noun: behaviour that is intended to impress or mislead. "a masking of fear with macho posturing"

I'd think highlighting would be better suited. But yeah, political posturing. Let's deflect with that shall we.

As an atheist even I've got a general grasp of the teachings of Jesus. Help those less well off seems to be the message, not hedge fund/venture capitalism.

Starvation is either exceedingly rare/non existent in the UK? Malnutrition is disturbingly common particularly in schools in deprived areas.

Recent figures suggest that amongst hospitalised children in the UK, 16% were severely stunted, 14% wasted and 20% at of severe malnutrition

Those figures are 10 years old, I'm not sure if they will have improved in the last decade.

The level of poverty in the UK is *entirely* political. We got into the position we are in via politics and the only way out is through politics. JRM knows this, which is why he has used his privilege to become one of the gatekeepers to change. From his position he can ensure any changes that do occur benefit him and others like him. He couldn't bear the thought of changes that might mean he would have to shoulder any of the burden of relieving poverty. No wonder he finds the existence of foodbanks "uplifting".

I was making a small point on them Unicef's PR. Which I complemented as very successful. All charities need to do this.

The rest of your stuff I haven't commented about. You clearly have your views fair which is fair enough but I've hardly said anything horrid.

It's how people like Mogg subvert the discussion. Play the 'politics card' and suddenly you're going "hmm, maybe he has a point". When the natural response should be WTF? Why are we in such a state to have this even happen to us? And more to the point who is to blame? Try the government that's been in charge for the last decade. Your response came across as a bit apologist.

JRM commented that UNICEF was for countries experiencing famine and civil war. I agree with this and think that UNICEF have no place in the UK.

They are at least two weeks early.

Haven't Conservatives been keen to slash the foreign aid budget, arguing that "we need to look after our own first"? Yet when UNICEF UK "looks after its own" look what happens...

A note of caution. His supposed 'Christianity' is of the Catholic variety isn't it. Their interactions with children over time have not been of the best.

You'd any MP, even one as odious and devoid of soul as JRM, having sat down after giving a speech in Parliament which argues against an NGO feeding starving children must think "hang on, I've lost my way a bit here"?

I mean is this why he originally got in to politics, to argue against the feeding of hungry children?

Come on mate, I hate this guy with a passion but there's no need for that.  We're better than this.

Come on mate indeed.

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/09/books/review/mortal-sins-by-michael-dant...

What have we done

jk

That's very dark but it gave me a proper laugh on an otherwise pretty bleak day, thanks.

jk

Nobody’s denying that these things happened.  
 

But when you say “x crime was done by catholics, so that means all catholics are bad” You’re no better than Tommy Robinson and his band of brainless thugs trying to make out all Muslims are bad because of the crimes committed by some groups of Muslim men.

I am not defending the Tories, I'd rather cheese grate my toes than vote for them and JRM is a massive cretin but my sole point was I'd rather UNICEFs resources went towards helping kids in the Lebanon or Syria than here.... 

As a product of a Catholic upbringing (minus the sexual abuse, just the teaching kids you'll go to hell, you know, the normal healthy stuff) you might have a point. 

There shouldn't exist a way in which UNICEF 'can' play politics (as JRM put it).

That makes perfect sense.  Its absolutely wrong that children here shouldn't have enough food.  

That is, as I am sure you know, a misrepresentation of what he said.

But "uplifting"... 

It is?  I thought more of an extrapolation rather than a misrepresentation (although I only saw a short clip on the news).

To my ears he seemed to be suggesting that UNICEF was only feeding children in the UK as a political manoeuvre, and that they should be feeding children in other countries instead.

So he's saying that they shouldn't be feeding starving kids here.

So he's arguing against an NGO feeding starving kids.

Ok he doesn't say that they shouldn't be feeding starving kids at all, he just doesn't want them doing it in the country in which he happens to be a front bench MP, because y'know... embarrassing.

That is as illogical as saying "a kangaroo is not a bird. Therefore a kangaroo is not an animal".

Edit: I see you have now now edited your post and qualified what you said.

Yes sorry, I did add some extra detail.

Either way, JRM doesn't want UNICEF feeding hungry kids in this country.  And as long as we can agree there are hungry kids in this country, then that's pretty unpalatable.

If he redirected his efforts into trying to address the reasons why children are going hungry, rather than how their hunger is being addressed I might have more respect for him.  

The very definition of requiring humanitarian or development aid is basically when people are terribly poor but the government can't or won't do anything to help them. So if parts of the UK flood it isn't a humanitarian emergency as it doesn't overwhelm the UK government's capacity, whereas if that happens in Mozambique, it does. Obviously sometimes governments can do something about a disaster but choose not to do so, eg they're buying weapons, or using hunger as a weapon of war, or spending money on a space programme. In this country we can clearly afford to be in a situation in which all kids have enough to eat, as they did pre-2010, but we choose not to. And if a kid isn't getting enough when the government has failed to help - either through a lack of capacity or as a deliberate policy choice - then that's when aid agencies step in to help. Untreated malnutrition is terrible for the kid, regardless of where the kid happens to be.

I used to work in the aid sector. One thing that is depressingly common is politicians hating aid agencies for saying that their population are hungry. It's clearly a shameful thing that makes them angry and defensive and in this respect Rees Mogg is no different to the thugs in power in somewhere like South Sudan.

Great post that...

Made me think, our government is proposing to spend billions of pounds on replacing trident, whilst at the same time UNICEF feed hungry children here, in fact over 50% of children in my borough grow up in poverty.
 

Sounds not unlike the actions of some crackpot dictator in a rouge nation...

Marina Hyde has JRM in her sights this week:

As for other unenvisageable scenarios, if only the government hadn’t lost its celebrated 4D chess grandmaster Dominic Cummings. Arguably the sole benefit to Cummings was that he seemed to be able to silence Jacob Rees-Mogg. After the spectacle of Rees-Mogg lolling all over the frontbenches during a crucial Brexit debate went viral last year, Jacob had to state on Twitter that he had been forced by what he called “the powers that be” to pull out of every event he had booked to promote his abysmal book on the Victorians. This is the literary equivalent of being made to stand outside a playground wearing a sandwich board reading: “Ask me why I can’t come near this playground.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/18/christmas-conservativ...

And, from the comments, with credit to RollOutthelzal:

Jacob Rees-Mogg erst looked out
From the fields of Eton
Children starving round about
Deep in debt and beaten.

Brightly shone his gold that night
He was born to rule
When a poor child came in sight
Begging winter gruel.

Hither, Nanny, stand by me
Such oiks are repelling
Yonder peasant, how dare he?
One shall burn his dwelling.

Sire, he lives in dismal Slough
In receipt of welfare
Should sir care to feed him now
Christ would think sir’s tone fair.

Cease at once this compassion
Hark ye not the moaners
He is but a pleb, low-born
Floreat Etona.

Bring my birch and bring my wine
Bring my sharp steel hither
Thou and I shall see him whine
Nanny do not dither.

Jacob paused to stash more cash
In the Cayman Islands
He’d been taught to pay no tax
In his sunlit uplands.

In fresh-laundered cummerbund
Jacob sipped his sherry
Transferred assets to his fund
Gorged on cake and cherries. 

Striding through the snow snaked Mogg
Keen to bag tonight’s prole
When from through the evening fog 
Came threats upon his goal.

Cease your foul play, Murd’rous Mogg
Ground your whip and broadsword
Thou shalt not poor children flog
Mark me, I am Rashford.

Are you saying there were no hungry or poor children in the U.K.  before 2010??????

To me that destroys a lot of your well thought through comments. 

better  to say child poverty was reducing. But it was not zero. 

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist."

Dom Hélder Câmara a bit out of date there.  These days when you give food to the poor they call you a virtue-signalling do-gooder and accuse you of 'playing politics'.

Yep good all traditional conservative values, quiet happy to support, laud and contribute to charitable causes of their own, or others choosing, as long as amounts at their discretion...............but haven forbid should a charity question why there is the need for it in the first place. 

Joined up thinking not allowed, as it undermines the social structures that places them at the top.

It's actually quite hard to find figures on this (I did look - https://cpag.org.uk/recent-history-uk-child-poverty), but of course you are right in that yes, there were poor children in the UK before 2010.

So do excuse my slight enthusiasm for a past in which reducing child poverty was seen as an important and worthwhile endeavour - I'm sorry that for you it "destroys" my other comments, that to me seems I'm afraid illogical as the need for aid for poor British kids now is not entirely dependent on what happened then.

It says a lot about the state of mind of JRM and others that they’d complain that unicef is helping a local community, just because it may ever so slightly damage the reputation of their beloved nation....

Complete nutjobs.

You missed the point as I said it was reducing prior to 2010. Programmes like Surestart were excellent and having a real impact. 

Yes, absolutely! And now we have another large and growing cohort of poverty stricken kids. I’m not entirely sure the English particularly like children. 

I don’t think he missed your point, it’s just that your point had no bearing on his.

Agreed

I'm not sure they like their own children either. That's why they abdicate their parental duties to a succession of au pairs / wet nurses / governesses / public schools, etc.

And some don't even acknowledge their children, either...

In the case of Bojo, not even sure how many to acknowledge.