Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson

199100102104105135

Comments

  • Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Agreed that the vote wasn't "we'll starve children", rather it was "we won't spend a few quid to make sure that starving kids get some food". The effect seems pretty similar to me though.

    The government voted for the parents to take responsibility for feeding them. At the same time, those on benefits were given extra money.

    That’s not how it will be remembered.

    Almost two decades after she ended free school milk Margaret Thatcher still recoiled at memory of the political storm she unleashed. As Education Secretary in Edward Heath’s government her decision in 1971 to stop the provision of milk for junior school pupils prompted the playground taunt “Thatcher, Thatcher, milk snatcher”. Still remembered to this day.
    I agree that it was not a wise move
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Agreed that the vote wasn't "we'll starve children", rather it was "we won't spend a few quid to make sure that starving kids get some food". The effect seems pretty similar to me though.

    The government voted for the parents to take responsibility for feeding them. At the same time, those on benefits were given extra money.

    Not that I can find. UC has been increased by £20 a week during the pandemic but I can't find anything about an increase to cover this particular gap.

    Responsibility is irrelevant; hungry people should be fed.
    Who would feed them at the weekend ?

    Feeding children for seven days costs more than two. This isn't rocket science.

    The strange thing is that before this year, even in the previous eras of large unemployment, it was not an issue. Parents gave their children priority.

    You do know what "laid off", "business closed" and "furloughed on 80% of the minimum wage I was already on" actually mean don't you? But it's so much easier for the hard of empathy to stick the knife into struggling parents, isn't it?

    When ignorance is your best defence against a conclusion of empathy failure you're in a bad place.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Feeding children for seven days costs The strange thing is that before this year, even in the previous eras of large unemployment, it was not an issue. Parents gave their children priority.
    You admitted in the thread in Purgatory that they still do. So what is the point of saying this? How does it contribute to the conversation?
    Because nobody voted to starve children.
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Agreed that the vote wasn't "we'll starve children", rather it was "we won't spend a few quid to make sure that starving kids get some food". The effect seems pretty similar to me though.

    The government voted for the parents to take responsibility for feeding them. At the same time, those on benefits were given extra money.

    That’s not how it will be remembered.

    Almost two decades after she ended free school milk Margaret Thatcher still recoiled at memory of the political storm she unleashed. As Education Secretary in Edward Heath’s government her decision in 1971 to stop the provision of milk for junior school pupils prompted the playground taunt “Thatcher, Thatcher, milk snatcher”. Still remembered to this day.
    I agree that it was not a wise move
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Agreed that the vote wasn't "we'll starve children", rather it was "we won't spend a few quid to make sure that starving kids get some food". The effect seems pretty similar to me though.

    The government voted for the parents to take responsibility for feeding them. At the same time, those on benefits were given extra money.

    Not that I can find. UC has been increased by £20 a week during the pandemic but I can't find anything about an increase to cover this particular gap.

    Responsibility is irrelevant; hungry people should be fed.
    Who would feed them at the weekend ?

    Feeding children for seven days costs more than two. This isn't rocket science.

    The strange thing is that before this year, even in the previous eras of large unemployment, it was not an issue. Parents gave their children priority.

    You do know what "laid off", "business closed" and "furloughed on 80% of the minimum wage I was already on" actually mean don't you? But it's so much easier for the hard of empathy to stick the knife into struggling parents, isn't it?

    When ignorance is your best defence against a conclusion of empathy failure you're in a bad place.
    I live in Sheffield. Why do you think that it's a bad place ?

    I do not lack empathy.
  • In previous periods of high unemployment, we didn't have so much underemployment (zero hours wasn't a thing in 2008), and further back, such a gulf between income on benefits and the amount of money required to pay essential bills and for food and transport, given that housing costs as a percentage of income have risen so much in the last couple of decades.
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    Now if the Tory MPs had instead voted for raising UC to an amount that is enough to live on
    Voting for a universal credit system that didn't require claimants to jump through hoops for several weeks to get any money at all, and didn't turn off at a moment's notice like the heating on an ancient shower, would be more constructive.
    Yes, that too. We need a benefits system that's easy to access, rather than one apparently designed to make it impossible to claim. We need a system that pays those in need on timescales appropriate to there needs, so they have money when they need it rather than weeks later. And, one that pays out enough that people do not remain in need even on benefits.

    Couple that to good wages and conditions for those in work such that a full time job doesn't still leave one needing benefits or reliant on food banks. And, then we might not be embarrassed to live in a nation that leaves people to die from something as easily fixed as insufficient income.
  • Telford wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Feeding children for seven days costs The strange thing is that before this year, even in the previous eras of large unemployment, it was not an issue. Parents gave their children priority.
    You admitted in the thread in Purgatory that they still do. So what is the point of saying this? How does it contribute to the conversation?
    Because nobody voted to starve children.
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Agreed that the vote wasn't "we'll starve children", rather it was "we won't spend a few quid to make sure that starving kids get some food". The effect seems pretty similar to me though.

    The government voted for the parents to take responsibility for feeding them. At the same time, those on benefits were given extra money.

    That’s not how it will be remembered.

    Almost two decades after she ended free school milk Margaret Thatcher still recoiled at memory of the political storm she unleashed. As Education Secretary in Edward Heath’s government her decision in 1971 to stop the provision of milk for junior school pupils prompted the playground taunt “Thatcher, Thatcher, milk snatcher”. Still remembered to this day.
    I agree that it was not a wise move
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Agreed that the vote wasn't "we'll starve children", rather it was "we won't spend a few quid to make sure that starving kids get some food". The effect seems pretty similar to me though.

    The government voted for the parents to take responsibility for feeding them. At the same time, those on benefits were given extra money.

    Not that I can find. UC has been increased by £20 a week during the pandemic but I can't find anything about an increase to cover this particular gap.

    Responsibility is irrelevant; hungry people should be fed.
    Who would feed them at the weekend ?

    Feeding children for seven days costs more than two. This isn't rocket science.

    The strange thing is that before this year, even in the previous eras of large unemployment, it was not an issue. Parents gave their children priority.

    You do know what "laid off", "business closed" and "furloughed on 80% of the minimum wage I was already on" actually mean don't you? But it's so much easier for the hard of empathy to stick the knife into struggling parents, isn't it?

    When ignorance is your best defence against a conclusion of empathy failure you're in a bad place.
    I live in Sheffield. Why do you think that it's a bad place ?

    I do not lack empathy.

    Firstly, you knew exactly what I meant, unless you dumped one of the threes you rolled in the great character generation of real life into Intelligence.

    Secondly, rither you dumped another three in Charisma, or else got an 18 because that's a blindingly good Deception attempt you've been pulling. In the first case bad luck with those dice; in the second why have you been hiding this amazing talent for so long.

    Tl;dr version - don't pretend to be an idiot, and you could have fooled me over your empathy.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Feeding children for seven days costs The strange thing is that before this year, even in the previous eras of large unemployment, it was not an issue. Parents gave their children priority.
    You admitted in the thread in Purgatory that they still do. So what is the point of saying this? How does it contribute to the conversation?
    Because nobody voted to starve children.
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Agreed that the vote wasn't "we'll starve children", rather it was "we won't spend a few quid to make sure that starving kids get some food". The effect seems pretty similar to me though.

    The government voted for the parents to take responsibility for feeding them. At the same time, those on benefits were given extra money.

    That’s not how it will be remembered.

    Almost two decades after she ended free school milk Margaret Thatcher still recoiled at memory of the political storm she unleashed. As Education Secretary in Edward Heath’s government her decision in 1971 to stop the provision of milk for junior school pupils prompted the playground taunt “Thatcher, Thatcher, milk snatcher”. Still remembered to this day.
    I agree that it was not a wise move
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Agreed that the vote wasn't "we'll starve children", rather it was "we won't spend a few quid to make sure that starving kids get some food". The effect seems pretty similar to me though.

    The government voted for the parents to take responsibility for feeding them. At the same time, those on benefits were given extra money.

    Not that I can find. UC has been increased by £20 a week during the pandemic but I can't find anything about an increase to cover this particular gap.

    Responsibility is irrelevant; hungry people should be fed.
    Who would feed them at the weekend ?

    Feeding children for seven days costs more than two. This isn't rocket science.

    The strange thing is that before this year, even in the previous eras of large unemployment, it was not an issue. Parents gave their children priority.

    You do know what "laid off", "business closed" and "furloughed on 80% of the minimum wage I was already on" actually mean don't you? But it's so much easier for the hard of empathy to stick the knife into struggling parents, isn't it?

    When ignorance is your best defence against a conclusion of empathy failure you're in a bad place.
    I live in Sheffield. Why do you think that it's a bad place ?

    I do not lack empathy.

    Firstly, you knew exactly what I meant, unless you dumped one of the threes you rolled in the great character generation of real life into Intelligence.

    Secondly, rither you dumped another three in Charisma, or else got an 18 because that's a blindingly good Deception attempt you've been pulling. In the first case bad luck with those dice; in the second why have you been hiding this amazing talent for so long.

    Tl;dr version - don't pretend to be an idiot, and you could have fooled me over your empathy.

    I have rtead your post 3 times and I still don't know what you are on about. Not agreeing with you does not make one an idiot.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    The strange thing is that before this year, even in the previous eras of large unemployment, it was not an issue. Parents gave their children priority.
    You admitted in the thread in Purgatory that they still do. So what is the point of saying this? How does it contribute to the conversation?
    Because nobody voted to starve children.
    What is it about the fact that parents gave their children priority in the past that you think is relevant to whether anybody voted to starve children now?

    I also asked you:
    And when you say that the government has given families with children extra money to what exactly are you referring?
    Do you mean the £20 increase in universal credit from last April that the MPs have not committed to renewing and that misses a lot of people who don't qualify for universal credit because they're on older benefits or have only recently lost their jobs?
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    The strange thing is that before this year, even in the previous eras of large unemployment, it was not an issue. Parents gave their children priority.
    You admitted in the thread in Purgatory that they still do. So what is the point of saying this? How does it contribute to the conversation?
    Because nobody voted to starve children.
    What is it about the fact that parents gave their children priority in the past that you think is relevant to whether anybody voted to starve children now?
    You repeat the lie about voting to starve children.

    Once we have cleared that up, I will look at the rest of your post

  • Disagreeing with me does not make you stupid. This response:
    When ignorance is your best defence against a conclusion of empathy failure you're in a bad place.
    I live in Sheffield. Why do you think that it's a bad place ?

    however, means one of:

    1. I'm thick as mince;
    2. I'm trying to be cute (and failing dismally) by pretending to be as thick as mince;
    3. I'll try to derail this by pretending to be thick as mince.

    Your form makes me suspect 3, to be honest.

    The rest was an allusion to the best known tabletop RPG. You should try it; forcing oneself to think creatively in a very different situation to ones own can be illuminating.
  • On the subject of parents taking responsibility for supporting their children, did anyone read Boris' sister Rachel Johnson's whinge about it being not fair that dog owners such as herself should have to take responsibility for their dogs?

    She ran over her own dog, fracturing its pelvis. She didn't have insurance and the vet's bill was eye-watering. Apparently it's not fair that dog insurance is so high, and it's even less fair that owners who haven't insured their dogs should have to pay high vets bills.
  • I wonder how much support de Pfeffel’s own various children get from their absent father?
  • Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Agreed that the vote wasn't "we'll starve children", rather it was "we won't spend a few quid to make sure that starving kids get some food". The effect seems pretty similar to me though.

    The government voted for the parents to take responsibility for feeding them. At the same time, those on benefits were given extra money.

    That’s not how it will be remembered.

    Almost two decades after she ended free school milk Margaret Thatcher still recoiled at memory of the political storm she unleashed. As Education Secretary in Edward Heath’s government her decision in 1971 to stop the provision of milk for junior school pupils prompted the playground taunt “Thatcher, Thatcher, milk snatcher”. Still remembered to this day.
    I agree that it was not a wise move
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Agreed that the vote wasn't "we'll starve children", rather it was "we won't spend a few quid to make sure that starving kids get some food". The effect seems pretty similar to me though.

    The government voted for the parents to take responsibility for feeding them. At the same time, those on benefits were given extra money.

    Not that I can find. UC has been increased by £20 a week during the pandemic but I can't find anything about an increase to cover this particular gap.

    Responsibility is irrelevant; hungry people should be fed.
    Who would feed them at the weekend ?

    Feeding children for seven days costs more than two. This isn't rocket science.

    The strange thing is that before this year, even in the previous eras of large unemployment, it was not an issue. Parents gave their children priority.

    This isn't true. There have been charities like Make Lunch feeding kids in the holidays for decades now. Marcus Rashford is campaigning on this issue precisely because he went hungry as a child.

    Just because something is not an 'issue' in the press or public consciousness, does not mean it wasn't an issue previously.
  • The novelty isn't that there aren't families struggling to feed children during the school holidays, but that the charities that have been providing those meals are struggling - mainly because they can't hold the activities that are usually part of these programmes (even getting a few people into a kitchen to cook food) because of the necessity to maintain social distancing.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    The strange thing is that before this year, even in the previous eras of large unemployment, it was not an issue. Parents gave their children priority.
    You admitted in the thread in Purgatory that they still do. So what is the point of saying this? How does it contribute to the conversation?
    Because nobody voted to starve children.
    What is it about the fact that parents gave their children priority in the past that you think is relevant to whether anybody voted to starve children now?
    You repeat the lie about voting to starve children.

    Once we have cleared that up, I will look at the rest of your post
    No I didn't. I asked you questions. Answering those questions is how we clear that up.
    You don't get to insist everyone agrees with you before you defend your position. That's not how debate works.

    Now, once more:

    What is it about the fact that parents gave their children priority in the past that you think is relevant to whether anybody voted to starve children now?

    And when you say that the government has given families with children extra money to what exactly are you referring?
    Do you mean the £20 increase in universal credit from last April that the MPs have not committed to renewing and that misses a lot of people who don't qualify for universal credit because they're on older benefits or have only recently lost their jobs?


  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    On the subject of parents taking responsibility for supporting their children, did anyone read Boris' sister Rachel Johnson's whinge about it being not fair that dog owners such as herself should have to take responsibility for their dogs?

    She ran over her own dog, fracturing its pelvis. She didn't have insurance and the vet's bill was eye-watering. Apparently it's not fair that dog insurance is so high, and it's even less fair that owners who haven't insured their dogs should have to pay high vets bills.

    I was wondering if his sister had run over any of his children, and if so, what injuries they has sustained.
  • Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Agreed that the vote wasn't "we'll starve children", rather it was "we won't spend a few quid to make sure that starving kids get some food". The effect seems pretty similar to me though.

    The government voted for the parents to take responsibility for feeding them. At the same time, those on benefits were given extra money.

    That’s not how it will be remembered.

    Almost two decades after she ended free school milk Margaret Thatcher still recoiled at memory of the political storm she unleashed. As Education Secretary in Edward Heath’s government her decision in 1971 to stop the provision of milk for junior school pupils prompted the playground taunt “Thatcher, Thatcher, milk snatcher”. Still remembered to this day.
    I agree that it was not a wise move
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Agreed that the vote wasn't "we'll starve children", rather it was "we won't spend a few quid to make sure that starving kids get some food". The effect seems pretty similar to me though.

    The government voted for the parents to take responsibility for feeding them. At the same time, those on benefits were given extra money.

    Not that I can find. UC has been increased by £20 a week during the pandemic but I can't find anything about an increase to cover this particular gap.

    Responsibility is irrelevant; hungry people should be fed.
    Who would feed them at the weekend ?

    Feeding children for seven days costs more than two. This isn't rocket science.

    The strange thing is that before this year, even in the previous eras of large unemployment, it was not an issue. Parents gave their children priority.

    Firstly, benefits have been cut in relation to earnings over the last 40 years. Secondly, what makes you think children never went hungry in the past?
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    They did indeed go hungry. Why, IIRC even @Telford admits that the best meal he had, at one time, was his school dinner!

    Alas, I doubt if this ever applied to Boris Bog-Brush and his mates, so they have no empathy whatsoever with those who are struggling against dreadful odds to feed, clothe, and bring up their children as best they can.

  • Telford wrote: »

    The strange thing is that before this year, even in the previous eras of large unemployment, it was not an issue. Parents gave their children priority.

    'Eras of large unemployment' are barely comparable to what has been happening in recent decades and especially to what is happening at the moment. Up until the disintegration of Britain's major production industries and large-scale retail and service networks etc, there was generally always work for those leaving school at secondary level, seeking apprenticeships, or that kind of work which was less skilled and/or simply lower paid, but plentifully available.

    Things have changed radically and quite quickly in the past thirty years alone. When I was leaving school in the 80's, unbelievably and misleadingly careers officers were still trying to feed us into banks and factories as 'jobs for life'. Even while UB40 sung about their 'One in Ten' and countless tens of thousands of young people signed on the 'broo'! Since then the workforce has always continued to be there, but the work not so much, if at all in some areas. Whereas today's situation is simply off the scale in terms of employment misery.

    Also, learning the lesson from previous eras we should remember the rickets, scurvy, TB, severe malnutrition, infant mortality and infirmity rates children suffered, from what are now well controlled or even almost eliminated health conditions brought about by poverty, even in households with employed parents. I personally think most parents still do give their children priority. I don't see the evidence that this isn't the case as much now - with all the NHS, charitable and welfare state resources - as back in the times when working class households had to make a decision about paying either for a doctor's visit for a sick child or paying the rent or the food bills.

    There are parents, of course, who will not seek to take proper care of their children, who will put self before their own kids. (And let's be clear, we live in a society where the underfunded, welfare-dependent parent who refuses to subsidise his/her offspring because of their drug habit is always going to be somehow more shocking to the public's middle-class sensibilities than, say, some rich guy who has had a number of kids with various wives, mistresses and girlfriends but who has the lawyers and the dosh to make those little problems 'go away'.) But if that's the bottom line for some children then they are in particular need of attention and support because of what must be considered an abusive home situation. Their parents' selfishness shouldn't be used as an excuse to shrug off compassion and care for the children themselves. However, I repeat that I think most parents, so far as I can see in my own limited way, are genuinely trying to do the best they can.

    Speaking personally, I find it repugnant for certain fabulously well-heeled politicians to pontificate on how the underclass and working class (as well as the newly unemployed) should be disposing of their own scant and fast disappearing resources while at the same time sending out messages that essentially say 'if you're having problems finding food it's because you're a moral shame'.

    And just an aside - why the hell is the taxpayer subsidising the Houses of Parliament bars and restaurants? I'd much rather see any number of kids getting free meals handed to them, even should their parents be proved to be total wasters, than to see one MP sitting down to scarf his dirt cheap sirloin, Scottish salmon, and bottle of Merlot at the expense of the public purse. By all means reward and properly remunerate hard work and achievement. But we seem to have a nasty tendency in this country of seeing it as a kind of virtue that the rich should be continuously further enriched, whereas those who work to live, to pay bills, to eat are expected to knuckle down, sacrifice and get their wrists slapped when they struggle or fail to find the means to earn this living.

  • Or as we clueless idealistic lefties used to parody right wing thinking - "to get the rich to work harder you pay them more. To get the poor to work harder you pay them less."
  • Anselmina wrote: »
    And just an aside - why the hell is the taxpayer subsidising the Houses of Parliament bars and restaurants?
    It's a sort of throw-back to a by-gone era. Anyone remember the days of the staff canteen, with hearty meals for the workers subsidised by the company? In a way, the Parliamentary restaurants are similar (except, being publicly funded it's the tax-payer who does the subsidy). If we still had subsidised staff canteens it would make some sort of sense for MPs to have the same ... but, the staff canteen has passed into folklore (or, simply been 'outsourced' to some private profit-making machine who replaced the kitchen with a delivery area for packaged meals made somewhere else for prices that makes the local restaurants look cheap).
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Yes charities have covered meals through school holidays for a number of years. Also parents prioritised children by not eating themselves. They go hungry to feed their children. There are schools that not only provide meals but washing machines for families to use.
    No no one voted to starve children. That was not how the bill was presented. In reality that is what has happened. The government said clearly that it had given local authorities money to look after this kind of thing. Local authorities are still cash strapped.
  • It's galling that decent people are having to subsidise the government twice. Once, for their meals, and secondly, for the meals we offer to others. If we had a proper tax system, both would be dealt with.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    This.

    @Hugal said: No no one voted to starve children. That was not how the bill was presented. In reality that is what has happened.

    I think it was I who suggested that the *government* voted to starve children, thereby rousing Telford's righteous wrath.

    Apologies for the possibly unfortunate rhetoric, but it seems that many people agree that the effect was the same.

    Given that Lockdown Mk2 in *England* may last into 2021 (in time to combine with Brexshit to provide a really Happy New Year - Not™), I wonder what will be done over the next few weeks/months to ameliorate the lot of the indigent poor, who clearly are unable or unwilling to cope, even with the generous bounty handed out to them by our paternal *government*?
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    'Voted not to get food to children whose parents are unable to afford to feed them properly' is much longer to type than 'voted to starve children' and I think the latter falls well within the bounds of acceptable exaggeration. Swift would have suggested the government voted to eat children.
  • This.

    @Hugal said: No no one voted to starve children. That was not how the bill was presented. In reality that is what has happened.

    I think it was I who suggested that the *government* voted to starve children, thereby rousing Telford's righteous wrath.

    Apologies for the possibly unfortunate rhetoric, but it seems that many people agree that the effect was the same.

    Well, it's just my personal opinion but it strikes me that if you're voting Conservative - especially over the past thirty years or so, you know you're voting for profit over people, de-regulation and lowering of the bar in the areas of industrial standards, environment, health and safety, and worker security (including pensions and banking protections for those on a national working wage). Pure Christian Socialism is perhaps pie in the sky. And it's arguable there's ever been a truly alternative government to the basic 'rich getting richer, poor getting poorer' pattern of the UK, whoever's been in charge. But the Conservative manifesto is pretty explicit in its preference for wealth accumulation for the wealthy, and stripped to the bone remuneration for the rest.

    The pandemic has challenged that to a certain extent. But it would probably take more than even this to revolutionise our current relationship with capitalism in a way that could be described as fair or sustainable.
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    'Voted not to get food to children whose parents are unable to afford to feed them properly' is much longer to type than 'voted to starve children' and I think the latter falls well within the bounds of acceptable exaggeration. Swift would have suggested the government voted to eat children.

    So he might. And he would have mentioned the fact that Roast (or Boiled, or Fried) Child was available in the subsidised H of C restaurant...

    I really must recalibrate my Satire-O-Meter...

  • Anselmina wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »

    The strange thing is that before this year, even in the previous eras of large unemployment, it was not an issue. Parents gave their children priority.

    'Eras of large unemployment' are barely comparable to what has been happening in recent decades and especially to what is happening at the moment. Up until the disintegration of Britain's major production industries and large-scale retail and service networks etc, there was generally always work for those leaving school at secondary level, seeking apprenticeships, or that kind of work which was less skilled and/or simply lower paid, but plentifully available.

    Things have changed radically and quite quickly in the past thirty years alone. When I was leaving school in the 80's, unbelievably and misleadingly careers officers were still trying to feed us into banks and factories as 'jobs for life'. Even while UB40 sung about their 'One in Ten' and countless tens of thousands of young people signed on the 'broo'! Since then the workforce has always continued to be there, but the work not so much, if at all in some areas. Whereas today's situation is simply off the scale in terms of employment misery.

    Also, learning the lesson from previous eras we should remember the rickets, scurvy, TB, severe malnutrition, infant mortality and infirmity rates children suffered, from what are now well controlled or even almost eliminated health conditions brought about by poverty, even in households with employed parents. I personally think most parents still do give their children priority. I don't see the evidence that this isn't the case as much now - with all the NHS, charitable and welfare state resources - as back in the times when working class households had to make a decision about paying either for a doctor's visit for a sick child or paying the rent or the food bills.

    There are parents, of course, who will not seek to take proper care of their children, who will put self before their own kids. (And let's be clear, we live in a society where the underfunded, welfare-dependent parent who refuses to subsidise his/her offspring because of their drug habit is always going to be somehow more shocking to the public's middle-class sensibilities than, say, some rich guy who has had a number of kids with various wives, mistresses and girlfriends but who has the lawyers and the dosh to make those little problems 'go away'.) But if that's the bottom line for some children then they are in particular need of attention and support because of what must be considered an abusive home situation. Their parents' selfishness shouldn't be used as an excuse to shrug off compassion and care for the children themselves. However, I repeat that I think most parents, so far as I can see in my own limited way, are genuinely trying to do the best they can.

    Speaking personally, I find it repugnant for certain fabulously well-heeled politicians to pontificate on how the underclass and working class (as well as the newly unemployed) should be disposing of their own scant and fast disappearing resources while at the same time sending out messages that essentially say 'if you're having problems finding food it's because you're a moral shame'.

    And just an aside - why the hell is the taxpayer subsidising the Houses of Parliament bars and restaurants? I'd much rather see any number of kids getting free meals handed to them, even should their parents be proved to be total wasters, than to see one MP sitting down to scarf his dirt cheap sirloin, Scottish salmon, and bottle of Merlot at the expense of the public purse. By all means reward and properly remunerate hard work and achievement. But we seem to have a nasty tendency in this country of seeing it as a kind of virtue that the rich should be continuously further enriched, whereas those who work to live, to pay bills, to eat are expected to knuckle down, sacrifice and get their wrists slapped when they struggle or fail to find the means to earn this living.

    What an excellent post.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Disagreeing with me does not make you stupid. This response:
    When ignorance is your best defence against a conclusion of empathy failure you're in a bad place.
    I live in Sheffield. Why do you think that it's a bad place ?

    however, means one of:

    1. I'm thick as mince;
    2. I'm trying to be cute (and failing dismally) by pretending to be as thick as mince;
    3. I'll try to derail this by pretending to be thick as mince.

    Your form makes me suspect 3, to be honest.

    The rest was an allusion to the best known tabletop RPG. You should try it; forcing oneself to think creatively in a very different situation to ones own can be illuminating.

    I haven't derailed anything. Having a different perspective appears to have stimuated conversation.

    I made the response to your nastgy accusations the way I did rather than telling you all about my personal circumstances.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    The strange thing is that before this year, even in the previous eras of large unemployment, it was not an issue. Parents gave their children priority.
    You admitted in the thread in Purgatory that they still do. So what is the point of saying this? How does it contribute to the conversation?
    Because nobody voted to starve children.
    What is it about the fact that parents gave their children priority in the past that you think is relevant to whether anybody voted to starve children now?
    You repeat the lie about voting to starve children.

    Once we have cleared that up, I will look at the rest of your post
    No I didn't. I asked you questions. Answering those questions is how we clear that up.
    You don't get to insist everyone agrees with you before you defend your position. That's not how debate works.
    I never insist that everyone agrees with me. I just have different opinions. That's how debate works

    If you want a thread where everyone appears to have the same opinions, there's a thread with my name on you can use.


  • Telford wrote: »
    I never insist that everyone agrees with me. I just have different opinions. That's how debate works

    No, debate works when you give a reason for your opinions. You don't. You just drop hand grenades on threads and watch them explode. It's very tiresome.
  • Fuck me it's like playing chess with a pigeon.
  • Now where have I heard that expression before?
    :scream:

    Leaving aside the random shite produced by our local Pigeon, has anyone else noticed the Blissful Words of our Great Leader, to the effect that the lockdown will end on December 2nd *without a shred of doubt*?

    Quite - but what ghastly further Fun awaits us on December 3rd?
    :scream: :scream:
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    I never insist that everyone agrees with me. I just have different opinions. That's how debate works

    No, debate works when you give a reason for your opinions. You don't. You just drop hand grenades on threads and watch them explode. It's very tiresome.

    I often give personal opinions. I explain them whenever possible. By the way, this thread has not exploded.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    I never insist that everyone agrees with me.
    Glad to hear it. Then you'll be happy to explain your personal opinions by answering my questions:

    What is it about the fact that parents gave their children priority in the past that you think is relevant to whether anybody voted to starve children now?

    When you say that the government has given families with children extra money to what exactly are you referring?
    Do you mean the £20 increase in universal credit from April that the MPs have not committed to renewing and that misses a lot of people who don't qualify for universal credit because they're on older benefits or have only recently lost their jobs?
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    I never insist that everyone agrees with me.
    Glad to hear it. Then you'll be happy to explain your personal opinions by answering my questions:

    What is it about the fact that parents gave their children priority in the past that you think is relevant to whether anybody voted to starve children now?.
    Once again you are refering to a vote to starve children. There was no vote to starve children.



  • That this government is willing to allow parents to live in poverty such that they're unable to feed their children is even more offensive.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    What is it about the fact that parents gave their children priority in the past that you think is relevant to whether anybody voted to starve children now?.
    Once again you are refering to a vote to starve children. There was no vote to starve children.
    I am not referring. I am asking a question that you haven't answered yet.

    What is it about the fact that parents gave their children priority in the past that you think is relevant to whether anybody voted to starve children now?

    When you say that the government has given families with children extra money to what exactly are you referring?
    Do you mean the £20 increase in universal credit from April that the MPs have not committed to renewing and that misses a lot of people who don't qualify for universal credit because they're on older benefits or have only recently lost their jobs?


  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    Anselmina wrote: »
    This.

    @Hugal said: No no one voted to starve children. That was not how the bill was presented. In reality that is what has happened.

    I think it was I who suggested that the *government* voted to starve children, thereby rousing Telford's righteous wrath.

    Apologies for the possibly unfortunate rhetoric, but it seems that many people agree that the effect was the same.

    Well, it's just my personal opinion but it strikes me that if you're voting Conservative - especially over the past thirty years or so, you know you're voting for profit over people, de-regulation and lowering of the bar in the areas of industrial standards, environment, health and safety, and worker security (including pensions and banking protections for those on a national working wage). Pure Christian Socialism is perhaps pie in the sky. And it's arguable there's ever been a truly alternative government to the basic 'rich getting richer, poor getting poorer' pattern of the UK, whoever's been in charge. But the Conservative manifesto is pretty explicit in its preference for wealth accumulation for the wealthy, and stripped to the bone remuneration for the rest.

    The pandemic has challenged that to a certain extent. But it would probably take more than even this to revolutionise our current relationship with capitalism in a way that could be described as fair or sustainable.



    Yes the Conservatives have it is their way. New Labour to a much lesser extent. Let’s face it this government got in on Brexit. At the time nothing mattered to those who voted for them as much as that did. Records in government, trust worthiness of the PM and Dominic Rabe, policies in the Conservative manifesto all ignored for the great God Brexit. Now we are paying the price.

  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    Sorry to double post. England deserves better
  • [
    That this government is willing to allow parents to live in poverty such that they're unable to feed their children is even more offensive.

    This government, which I did not vote for, spends billions on benefits. It is reasonable for them to assume that they will use the money to feed their children.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    [
    That this government is willing to allow parents to live in poverty such that they're unable to feed their children is even more offensive.

    This government, which I did not vote for, spends billions on benefits. It is reasonable for them to assume that they will use the money to feed their children.

    The amount of money is irrelevant if it is not enough to live on.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    Hugal wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    [
    That this government is willing to allow parents to live in poverty such that they're unable to feed their children is even more offensive.

    This government, which I did not vote for, spends billions on benefits. It is reasonable for them to assume that they will use the money to feed their children.

    The amount of money is irrelevant if it is not enough to live on.

    You still need to prioritise your spending. For instance I would always feed my children before I fed myself.

  • Telford wrote: »
    [
    That this government is willing to allow parents to live in poverty such that they're unable to feed their children is even more offensive.

    This government, which I did not vote for, spends billions on benefits. It is reasonable for them to assume that they will use the money to feed their children.

    Not if their rent, council tax, utilities etc. are sufficiently high that there isn't enough money left.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Now where have I heard that expression before?
    :scream:

    Leaving aside the random shite produced by our local Pigeon, has anyone else noticed the Blissful Words of our Great Leader, to the effect that the lockdown will end on December 2nd *without a shred of doubt*?

    Quite - but what ghastly further Fun awaits us on December 3rd?
    :scream: :scream:
    Why should you or anyone else take this statement seriously. When else has he ever kept his word or recognised any obligation to do so?

    Incidentally, slob-features has started referring to moral duty/obligation again. I, for one, am not prepared to listen to him invoking morality to tell me or anyone else what to do or why I should obey him.

    I'm prepared to comply with Tier 4, but because it may mitigate the pandemic, and the government may punish me if I don't, not because slob-features says I've a moral duty to.

  • This government invests approximately £100b per year on benefits (over the last couple of years - 2020 will obviously be an anomaly), about a third of that for disability, sickness and incapacity supporting those unable to work or work as fully as they'd like. About a third in tax credits, topping up low incomes. That's clearly not working - partly because the government has deliberately starved the economy of investment putting pressure on wages and employment (more people on low income/unemployed -> more people claiming benefits), and suppressed tax income that would pay for more benefits. Also, reduced benefits payments increases cost elsewhere, especially for the health services (people who can't afford to eat properly or heat their homes in winter -> worse health) and also the criminal justice system (people in desperation turning to crime, or seeking solace in alcohol or drugs - Proverbs 31:6-7). Cutting benefits is a false economy - boost the income of the poorest (through benefits or increasing minimum wage, or a UBI) and they will spend that fuelling the economy far more effectively than cutting taxes for the wealthy.

    And, there's no denying that the money is there. The government will flush £200b away on Brexit by the time the transition period ends - and, even more than that year after year as the economy is suppressed more and the additional costs of customs etc kick in more fully.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    Telford wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    [
    That this government is willing to allow parents to live in poverty such that they're unable to feed their children is even more offensive.

    This government, which I did not vote for, spends billions on benefits. It is reasonable for them to assume that they will use the money to feed their children.

    The amount of money is irrelevant if it is not enough to live on.

    You still need to prioritise your spending. For instance I would always feed my children before I fed myself.

    People do this all the time. Funnily enough, some of us think they shouldn't have to.

    You seem to be saying that the government didn't vote to starve children, but their parents. I have no idea why you think that makes things any better.

    And you wonder why people question your empathy.
  • Telford wrote: »
    Once again you are refering to a vote to starve children. There was no vote to starve children.

    This is Sophistry of the first order.

    Are there families that struggle and fail to feed their children?

    Yes.

    Is there an acute problem because of the economic effects of Covid?

    Yes.

    Do free school meals provide a vital remedy?

    Yes.

    Are there families who are totally dependent on this to stop their children from being undernourished?

    Yes.

    Would extending free school meals in this extraordinary situation prevent children from starving?

    Yes.

    So when MPs vote in a way that has a totally foreseeable consequence that children will go hungry when this is avoidable (and they have done nothing else to mitigate this problem) it is a totally fair and accurate description to say they voted to starve children. They did.

    I can't help that you're in denial about this and have made a stupid fuss about the phrase. Unfortunately the facts are not on your side.

    AFZ
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    [
    That this government is willing to allow parents to live in poverty such that they're unable to feed their children is even more offensive.

    This government, which I did not vote for, spends billions on benefits. It is reasonable for them to assume that they will use the money to feed their children.

    The amount of money is irrelevant if it is not enough to live on.

    You still need to prioritise your spending. For instance I would always feed my children before I fed myself.

    People do this all the time. Funnily enough, some of us think they shouldn't have to.

    You seem to be saying that the government didn't vote to starve children, but their parents. I have no idea why you think that makes things any better.
    The government didn't vote to starve anyone.
    And you wonder why people question your empathy.
    I don't wonder about it at all. It's easy to make allegations that I can only trully answer by boasting

  • Telford wrote: »
    Once again you are refering to a vote to starve children. There was no vote to starve children.

    This is Sophistry of the first order.

    Are there families that struggle and fail to feed their children?

    Yes.

    Is there an acute problem because of the economic effects of Covid?

    Yes.

    Do free school meals provide a vital remedy?

    Yes.

    Are there families who are totally dependent on this to stop their children from being undernourished?

    Yes.

    Would extending free school meals in this extraordinary situation prevent children from starving?

    Yes.

    So when MPs vote in a way that has a totally foreseeable consequence that children will go hungry when this is avoidable (and they have done nothing else to mitigate this problem) it is a totally fair and accurate description to say they voted to starve children. They did.

    I can't help that you're in denial about this and have made a stupid fuss about the phrase. Unfortunately the facts are not on your side.

    AFZ

    The fact is that you and others have felt the need to exaggerate to prove your case.

    Do I think that the government were wrong? Yes. It was a silly decision.

    Do I think that there should be free school meals when schools are closed ? Yes. I have already said this on other threads. School kitchens should also be open 365/6 days a year.



  • So just say that !
Sign In or Register to comment.