Free school meals

[simmo 21,837]

5 minutes ago, HappyHeart said:

I know that an "independent" body sets MP pay. As for the rest of your post...have a word with yourself  

Is that why many have agreed it's not right and pledged to donate it to good causes? 

Well I suppose Boris is doing it tough on his low salary, he's said as much. My heart bleeds. I wonder if thats why he's doing such a shit job? Feels undervalued? 

You may want to look into salaries at local government level. A head of "diversity and inclusion" can earn more than an MP

[ramot 7,022]

1 hour ago, ali said:

I remember being the milk monitor in Infants delivering the milk to the classrooms

and It’s been downhill ever since!!! Only joking

[simmo 21,837]

1 hour ago, simmo said:

You may want to look into salaries at local government level. A head of "diversity and inclusion" can earn more than an MP

Labour mayors seem happy to feed from the trough though. Funny that.

£110,000-A-YEAR BURNHAM CLAIMS HE’S ON A “MIDDLE INCOME”

 

Embarassing gaffe from Andy Burnham today as the Manchester mayor, with a salary which puts him near the top percentile of income earners, called himself “middle income“. Man of the people…

 

“I would assume that most people, myself included, on more middle income jobs, could live on two thirds of their income.”

[FirstWorldProblems 2,058]

3 hours ago, simmo said:

MPs don't set their salary.  It's done independently. And to be fair, the salary isn't great.  Many local government positions pay more than what the PM earns.  The subsidised meals are a perk.

I have to agree with this.  Just because the salary is considerably higher than the average wage, doesn't make it a good salary.  Good surely has to be determined in context and I'd argue that jobs in the private sector with that level of responsibility would pay twice the rate an MP is paid.  Not all MP's are feckless, self-serving and lazy.  We want to pay a wage for that job that encourages highly competent, motivated individuals to undertake it.

[FirstWorldProblems 2,058]

7 hours ago, Rallyman said:

When did the school curriculum ever teach financial management unless you opted to take economics? 

This is spot on.  I believe this is one of the most valuable things we could be teaching our young.  How to live to your means, how to avoid debt, how to plan for the unexpected, how to budget and critically, how to avoid the mindset of "everyone else does it so it's ok" [in the context of credit card borrowing, running a car that's worth more than your annual salary etc].

[BacktoDemocracy 6,213]

10 hours ago, ali said:

The school is a lower socio-economic area.  She has kids who'd rather be at school than at home due to the environment they live in.  They offer an afterschool program for aboriginal students which she does twice a week offering 1:1 tuition/assistance for scholarship applications - the program always offers snacks to give them something to eat before going home.  

Good on her, a real beacon of hope in these times of stony cold heartedness

[BacktoDemocracy 6,213]

17 hours ago, newjez said:

Ok. I'm not going to get into your pre conceptions of poverty, and how people should just choose not to be poor. Let's park that for now.

Now assuming your statement above is true, then shouldn't that be a pretty damn good reason why we should feed the kids?

I'll leave you something to chew on. We give MPs a food allowance. Yep. We give free meals to MPs. Costs us about a million pounds a year. Probably more if you include the generous allowances for the house of lords.

Now, considering that, also have a think about ten billion pounds on a track and trace system that doesn't work.

A hundred million on a get ready for Brexit campaign when they knew it was going to be delayed.

A contract with a ferry company with no ferries, which resulted in us getting sued.

A contract with a PPE company that had no suitable ppe.

Consultants at seven grand a day that do what exactly?

So you're happy with all of that, but you want to draw the line at feeding hungry poor children? 

Really?

How do you sleep at night?

I hadn't planned on posting here again due to the censorship, but the comments on here from some are just unbelievable. I felt I had to respond.

Bang on, a bunch of criminal incompetents 

[BacktoDemocracy 6,213]

9 hours ago, HappyHeart said:

Again....lets look at why extremely generous subsidies exist for MPs food and drink  in the commons (who earn a great wage and have awarded themselves a nice little rise) but they're voting down and dead against a few sandwiches for some hungry disadvantaged kids in the holidays while swathes of the country are in various stages of lockdown and unpredictable incomes are a reality. It's Dickensian. Oliver! 

Nicholas Nickleby !

[BacktoDemocracy 6,213]

10 hours ago, Tulip1 said:

What you post above is true I’m sure just as what I post is true. Neither sits comfortably with me. It’s seems we cannot change either but that doesn’t change the fact that many parents chose to spend money on things far less important, in their minds, than feeding their kids. 
 

You say assuming my statement is true shouldn’t that be a good reason to feed the kids. I say yes to start with but it surely must then be followed up by the authorities taking action against the parents who are neglecting their children. I’m shocked this part is being swept under the carpet. Whilst I acknowledge that sometimes people have no choice I can never acknowledge or accept adults are choosing to spend money on non essential things which in turn means their children suffer with hunger. Does that thought sit okay with you or would you too hope and expect in a civilised country that the necessary authorities would take such things seriously and take necessary steps to ensure the welfare of children. 
 

Being poor and children starving are different things.  We live in a country that has one of the best benefit systems in the would.  No way would it leave millions of children starving. It’s how the money is spent that decides that. I’m all for feeding starving kids but the root of the problem has to be dealt with. This is 5 lunches next week we are talking about. It’s a few quid. The authorities have to look into why parents cannot make a few sandwiches for their kids. Either something is going horribly wrong with the system or parents aren’t getting it right. Either way something’s very wrong, kids are suffering and it needs sorting. Yes let’s feed the kids but let’s address the actual problems. 

Well actually we do not have the best welfare system in Europe, I could spend a page highlighting its deficiencies but I'll just post this

Quote

The report, conducted in cooperation with Llewellyn Consulting titled “Which Countries in Europe Offer Fairest Paid Leave and Unemployment Benefits”, reveal that the countries offering the most generous workplace and welfare benefits overall areDenmark, France and Spain, with Denmark and Belgium in particular offering ..

It is bad news for Britain, though. Unfortunately, the UK is in the bottom four overall taking into account factors such as maternity and paternity leave, general parental leave, paid holiday allowance, paid sick leave and unemployment benefits. Only the Swiss, the Irish and the Americans have a more frugal government policy.

https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/blog/social-benefits-europe-isnt-britain/

[HappyHeart 14,320]

1 hour ago, BacktoDemocracy said:

Nicholas Nickleby !

When life imitates art or vice versa. Visionaries! We haven't come very far have we? The workhouse still exists. 

[BacktoDemocracy 6,213]

2 hours ago, BacktoDemocracy said:

Well actually we do not have the best welfare system in Europe, I could spend a page highlighting its deficiencies but I'll just post this

Quote

The report, conducted in cooperation with Llewellyn Consulting titled “Which Countries in Europe Offer Fairest Paid Leave and Unemployment Benefits”, reveal that the countries offering the most generous workplace and welfare benefits overall areDenmark, France and Spain, with Denmark and Belgium in particular offering ..

It is bad news for Britain, though. Unfortunately, the UK is in the bottom four overall taking into account factors such as maternity and paternity leave, general parental leave, paid holiday allowance, paid sick leave and unemployment benefits. Only the Swiss, the Irish and the Americans have a more frugal government policy.

https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/blog/social-benefits-europe-isnt-britain/

It must be very troubling for people to have to deal with facts, ignoring facts seem to be stock in trade for some

[BacktoDemocracy 6,213]

1 hour ago, HappyHeart said:

When life imitates art or vice versa. Visionaries! We haven't come very far have we? The workhouse still exists. 

And the attitudes have not changed much from The poor Laws of Elizabethan times of the 1500's to the new Elizabethan times of 2020

Note particularly the Poor Law of 1834 which emphasised the deserving and the undeserving poor and saw poverty as a moral failing

And we wonder where we have seen these attitudes before

Quote

The Poor Relief Act 1601 (43 Eliz 1 c 2) was an Act of the Parliament of England. The Act for the Relief of the Poor 1601, popularly known as the Elizabethan Poor Law, "43rd Elizabeth"^[3] or the Old Poor Law^[4] was passed in 1601 and created a poor law system for England and Wales.^[5]

The Poor Relief Act 1601^[1]

Parliament of England
Long title	An Acte for the Releife of the Poore.[2]
Citation	43 Eliz 1 c 2
Territorial extent	England and Wales
Status: Repealed

It formalised earlier practices of poor relief distribution in England and Wales^[6] and is generally considered a refinement of the Act for the Relief of the Poor 1597 that established Overseers of the Poor.^[7] The "Old Poor Law" was not one law but a collection of laws passed between the 16th and 18th centuries. The system's administrative unit was the parish. It was not a centralised government policy^[6] but a law which made individual parishes responsible for Poor Law legislation. The 1601 act saw a move away from the more obvious forms of punishing paupers under the Tudor system towards methods of "correction". Several amending pieces of legislation can be considered part of the Old Poor Law.

And

Supplemented by the so-called Speenhamland system of providing allowances to workers who received wages below what was considered a subsistence level. The resulting increase in expenditures on public relief was so great that a new Poor Law was enacted in 1834, based on a harsher philosophy that regarded pauperism among able-bodied workers as a moral failing. The new law provided no relief for the able-bodied poor except employment in the workhouse, with the object of stimulating workers to seek regular employment rather than charity. The growth of humanitarian feeling in the 19th century helped to mitigate the harshness of the law in practice, and the phenomenon of industrial unemployment in the 20th century showed that poverty was more than a moral problem

[Tulip1 4,853]

4 hours ago, BacktoDemocracy said:

Well actually we do not have the best welfare system in Europe, I could spend a page highlighting its deficiencies but I'll just post this

Quote

The report, conducted in cooperation with Llewellyn Consulting titled “Which Countries in Europe Offer Fairest Paid Leave and Unemployment Benefits”, reveal that the countries offering the most generous workplace and welfare benefits overall areDenmark, France and Spain, with Denmark and Belgium in particular offering ..

It is bad news for Britain, though. Unfortunately, the UK is in the bottom four overall taking into account factors such as maternity and paternity leave, general parental leave, paid holiday allowance, paid sick leave and unemployment benefits. Only the Swiss, the Irish and the Americans have a more frugal government policy.

https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/blog/social-benefits-europe-isnt-britain/

You add a Glassdoor link from almost 5 years ago  I never said we had the best welfare system in Europe, I never even mentioned Europe. I said we have one of the best welfare systems in the world. Based on the amount of countries in the world I’d say on balance that’s a reasonable statement. 

Edited October 25, 2020 by Tulip1

[BacktoDemocracy 6,213]

1 hour ago, Tulip1 said:

You add a Glassdoor link from almost 5 years ago  I never said we had the best welfare system in Europe, I never even mentioned Europe. I said we have one of the best welfare systems in the world. Based on the amount of countries in the world I’d say on balance that’s a reasonable statement. 

Well, the last time I looked Europe is part of the world and the report specifically mentioned America which is not Europe and in the last 5 years the Conservatives have made our welfare system even less 

But to include some worldwide countries and we are 15th

Quote

 

This table lists social spending per head 2015, 2010, and 2005, in constant 2010 prices adjusted for purchasing power parity, in US dollars.^[2]

	Country	2015	2010	2005
1	Luxembourg	19,427.60	19,806.90	18,877.00
2	Norway	14,711.20	12,780.70	12,138.60
3	Denmark	12,895.20	12,308.10	10,985.60
4	Austria	11,926.20	11,592.20	10,398.20
5	Belgium	11,917.40	11,338.90	9,798.50
6	France	11,796.10	11,180.00	10,248.40
7	Sweden	11,664.10	10,929.30	10,920.60
8	Finland	11,514.60	10,601.60	9,125.20
9	Germany	10,598.70	10,347.00	9,731.60
10	United States	9,734.40	9,317.30	7,574.00
11	Italy	9,456.90	9,417.10	8,765.80
12	Ireland	9,397.80	10,638.70	7,293.50
13	Switzerland	8,649.30	7,968.90	7,791.20
14	Australia	8,328.10	6,997.00	6,713.50
15	United Kingdom	8,292.30	8,045.40	6,740.80
16	Japan	8,214.10	7,512.30	6,071.90
17	Netherlands	8,069.10	7,922.20	8,612.30
18	Spain	7,832.10	7,902.20	6,599.00
19	Canada	7,456.20	7,028.20	6,439.00
20	OECD - Average	7,071.10	7,203.40	6,289.20
21	New Zealand	6,612.50	6,416.60	5,448.00
22	Iceland	6,589.20	6,514.00	6,273.80
23	Portugal	6,418.80	6,689.80	5,947.80
24	Slovenia	6,364.50	6,495.20	5,593.00
25	Greece	6,027.60	7,001.90	5,762.20
26	Czech Republic	5,799.70	5,439.70	4,541.20
27	Hungary	5,031.10	4,965.40	4,721.00
28	Slovakia	5,005.80	4,465.70	3,129.70
29	Israel	4,852.40	4,452.30	3,905.40
30	Estonia	4,639.20	3,948.40	2,801.50
31	Lithuania	4,084.30	3,899.70	2,418.90
32	South Korea	3,493.30	2,495.80	1,563.20
33	Latvia	3,481.50	3,427.30	2,068.00
34	Turkey	2,656.90	2,131.80	1,582.40
35	Chile	2,243.10	1,894.20	1,405.60
36	Mexico	1,280.00	1,124.10	656.40
n/a	Poland	n/a	4,292.70	3,454.90

[FirstWorldProblems 2,058]

I think we need to be mindful of conflating two issues

1) providing assistance to the vulnerable - those who cannot help themselves and especially those who cannot even ask for that help. 

2) preventing those minded to cheat the welfare system from doing so. 
 

 

[Lindor 3,927]

Free school meals in 70’s UK were never provided for all pupils, only those whose parents were on low incomes or benefits and Margaret ‘milk snatcher’ Thatcher as Education Secretary stopped free milk for primary school children in 1971. The Labour government stopped free milk for secondary school children in 1968.

[Lindor 3,927]

[BacktoDemocracy 6,213]

14 hours ago, Lindor said:

Do you know that the richest charities in the UK the ones which look after donkeys and animals

We also hold the prize for the most young people held in detention in western Europe

We have a long and glorious history of under investing in our young people and we wonder why we have such a problem with gangs as we insist that locking people up works, when it is patently obvious that it doesn',  but everyone loves to copy the US even tho they are 30 years further along this road to perdition. 

Edited October 26, 2020 by BacktoDemocracy

[Parley 7,791]

On 25/10/2020 at 23:25, BacktoDemocracy said:

It must be very troubling for people to have to deal with facts, ignoring facts seem to be stock in trade for some

Is your definition of the 'best' system always that that gives the most money away ?

I would judge a range of factors.

[ali 16,504]

On 25/10/2020 at 14:10, ramot said:

and It’s been downhill ever since!!! Only joking

Ha ha ... yes, much less complicated then

[Rallyman 4,082]

[Peach 3,261]

2 hours ago, Rallyman said:

Is really hard to disagree with this.  Reminds me of Beckham bitching that he shouldn't have to spend his own money on charities to get a knighthood.

[newjez 10,751]

36 minutes ago, Peach said:

Is really hard to disagree with this.  Reminds me of Beckham bitching that he shouldn't have to spend his own money on charities to get a knighthood.

This one gets dug out all the time doesn't it. Rich people aren't allowed to encourage charity. Actually, that's rich celebrity aren't allowed to encourage charity. Obviously because they are rich. How dare they? Surely they should just give their own money. Although, that's difficult too, as Elton John discovered on this very own forum, if a rich celebrity donates to charity they are only doing it for their own selfish gain.

Just because Beckham is a turd doesn't mean Marcus is.

I really despair sometimes. 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/11878415/marcus-rashford-charity-list-man-utd-stars-generous-acts/amp/&ved=2ahUKEwi588vlxtTsAhVITRUIHQspClMQFjAMegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw2-TXdDYYWSaCMNkYdE1h8Z&ampcf=1

Edited October 27, 2020 by newjez

[Rallyman 4,082]

8 hours ago, Peach said:

Is really hard to disagree with this.  Reminds me of Beckham bitching that he shouldn't have to spend his own money on charities to get a knighthood.

Yes I remember Beckham moaning about that. 
I think it just shows the hypocrisy of the world today. 
 

[starlight7 4,199]

Sometimes the more you are helped the more you expect to be helped. Where does personal responsibility kick in and entitlement stop ? Obviously there are many who really do need to be helped but equally there are many who just need a bit of a shove to look after their own affairs and get out of the dependence cycle ( which is actually a form of abuse )