Tory MP quits government over refusal to extend free school meals

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

No one's talking about rewarding irresponsibility. We're just saying children shouldn't be punished for their parents' mistakes by starving. This is not a controversial opinion.

Yes they are, by throwing more money at them, or by reducing their existing costs, so they have more money for themselves.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Yes they are, by throwing more money at them, or by reducing their existing costs, so they have more money for themselves.

How is it reducing their existing costs if they're not actually feeding their children properly anyway?

---------- Post added at 09:36 ---------- Previous post was at 09:28 ----------

I think the Conservatives have made the wrong call politically on this - 71% support Marcus Rashford. They're gifting their opponents seats at the next election.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...als-drive.html

[GrimUpNorth]

The thing is we all know the government will do the right thing and do a U-turn - hopefully sooner rather than later.

All the usual suspects on here who think this government can do no wrong really should be hanging their heads in shame. Yes, there are bad parents out there but punishing their children seems so so wrong. I hope none of you ever find yourselves on your uppers or that it never happens to anyone you know or love. If it did, I'm sure you'd really enjoy someone on the internet telling you how bad a parent you are and your children going hungry is 100% your fault.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

How is it reducing their existing costs if they're not actually feeding their children properly anyway?

1) are they not feeding their children 100% of the time?
2) Not 100% of those getting the help will be not feeding their children.
3) is there actually any genuine evidence that they are not feeding their children purely because of money. Or is it just evidence of chaotic parenting. There maybe examples involving drink and/or drugs, but the children should be removed from them. The extra money they get for the children is supporting their habit. You can't get addicted to drink, drugs, or nicotine without having the money to buy them in the first place.


Just another load of nonsense that seeks to just throws money at things, rather than address the true underlying problem(s).

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

Yes, there are bad parents out there but punishing their children seems so so wrong. I hope none of you ever find yourselves on your uppers or that it never happens to anyone you know or love. If it did, I'm sure you'd really enjoy someone on the internet telling you how bad a parent you are and your children going hungry is 100% your fault.

Nailed it.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

The thing is we all know the government will do the right thing and do a U-turn - hopefully sooner rather than later.

All the usual suspects on here who think this government can do no wrong really should be hanging their heads in shame. Yes, there are bad parents out there but punishing their children seems so so wrong. I hope none of you ever find yourselves on your uppers or that it never happens to anyone you know or love. If it did, I'm sure you'd really enjoy someone on the internet telling you how bad a parent you are and your children going hungry is 100% your fault.

Didn't realise it all started in 2010 or 2019. Benefits and Tax credits are much more generous than in the past. Yet Labour didn't introduce anything before 1997, and throwing money at the alleged problem definitely hasn't solved anything. Everything becomes "Oh, the school will deal with that, or the government will deal with that".

So many other examples out there of where people are never held responsible for their actions, so never act responsibly about them. There has to be a consequence to a bad action, or the bad actions will continue indefinitely.


Regardless of extra money, feeding the children or whatever. the children will be suffering in many other ways. So WHAT THEN?

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Just another load of nonsense that seeks to just throws money at things, rather than address the true underlying problem(s).

But this government that you seem to defend in any way you can has decided the best way to deal with the issue is to not throw money at it OR to do anything to try and address the underlying problem(s). I look forward to you whataboutism reply with lots of links, bold text, capitals and rolling eyes, but it won't change that the government have got this one wrong and should be ashamed.

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

But this government that you seem to defend in any way you can has decided the best way to deal with the issue is to not throw money at it OR to do anything to try and address the underlying problem(s). I look forward to you whataboutism reply with lots of links, bold text, capitals and rolling eyes, but it won't change that the government have got this one wrong and should be ashamed.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

But this government that you seem to defend in any way you can has decided the best way to deal with the issue is to not throw money at it OR to do anything to try and address the underlying problem(s). I look forward to you whataboutism reply with lots of links, bold text, capitals and rolling eyes, but it won't change that the government have got this one wrong and should be ashamed.

l could have not said it better myself.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

But this government that you seem to defend in any way you can has decided the best way to deal with the issue is to not throw money at it OR to do anything to try and address the underlying problem(s). I look forward to you whataboutism reply with lots of links, bold text, capitals and rolling eyes, but it won't change that the government have got this one wrong and should be ashamed.

I'm not trying to defend the government, just pointing out the nonsense of it all, and that if it's supposed to be such a good idea, why hasn't it been done decades ago. I would've been saying the same things more than 10 years ago. My opinions didn't magically change in 2010, unlike for many people. Benefit levels already include money for feeding the kids. As I have to keep pointing out, Labour did trying chucking money at the alleged problem, and it hasn't worked.

If you gave these parents £1m a day, they still wouldn't take responsibility for anything. They would just hand over some money to the kids and tell them to get something themselves. Any neglect usually goes way beyond not feeding them, and has many forms.

[Mr K]

'Starve a kid for a quid' is the latest Govt. slogan.....

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

I'm not trying to defend the government, just pointing out the nonsense of it all, and that if it's supposed to be such a good idea, why hasn't it been done decades ago. I would've been saying the same things more than 10 years ago. My opinions didn't magically change in 2010, unlike for many people. Benefit levels already include money for feeding the kids. As I have to keep pointing out, Labour did trying chucking money at the alleged problem, and it hasn't worked.

If you gave these parents £1m a day, they still wouldn't take responsibility for anything. They would just hand over some money to the kids and tell them to get something themselves. Any neglect usually goes way beyond not feeding them, and has many forms.

This should not be a party political matter and 71% agreeing with Marcus Rashford suggests it's not.
No one's suggesting giving anyone £1m a day. We're just talking about feeding starving British kids living in a rich country that can well afford to do so.
That shouldn't negate from preventative measures being undertaken but savage cuts in local authority spending under the guise of austerity have put paid to many of these. You may not think you're defending the government but your omission of this crucial information and an urge to blame Labour who've not been in power since 2010 suggest otherwise.

Children's services in England are at breaking point and need a £3.1bn minimum funding boost by 2025, MPs say.
The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee said current funding levels were unsustainable.
Its report said as services tried to respond to growing demand, amid severe funding pressures, many were reliant on the goodwill of staff.
The government said £494m of funding would help children and social work improvements would reduce demand.
The MPs said overall, England's local authorities had been grappling with budget cuts of 29% since 2010.
The committee follows a long line of organisations, including councils, children's charities and economists, to raise the alarm over funding levels.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-48105787

[Pierre]

They were never going to win this or come out looking anything but a set of “see You next tuesdays”. Very poor really, pick your battles.

[Mr K]

Meanwhile back in the HOC, taxpayers are subsidising MPs meals and they're getting a £3k pay rise. Sorted.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

They were never going to win this or come out looking anything but a set of “see You next tuesdays”. Very poor really, pick your battles.

Is this a cynical "dead cat" to distract the public from the Coronavirus handling and lack of success in the Brexit talks?