National News End Child Food Poverty

Why are the kids hungry ? Is it more a lack of understanding how to run a household, cook , not waste money on non essentials ? Surely this shows also that a family with both parents is something to strive for as that mitigates against the poverty line . No one obviously would want kids to go hungry but much more info about who this is about required so an actual long term solution can be invested in .
 
People go hungry because they don't have enough money.

Yes lets invest.
Pay decent wages,. Build social housing so vast sums don't go to private landlords.
Make sure ev eryone has access to decent broadband so they can still learnwhen they have to stay home from school
At the moment it's particuarly bad because there's a pandemic on.


 
Why are the kids hungry ? Is it more a lack of understanding how to run a household, cook , not waste money on non essentials ? Surely this shows also that a family with both parents is something to strive for as that mitigates against the poverty line . No one obviously would want kids to go hungry but much more info about who this is about required so an actual long term solution can be invested in .
Sorry that is just an over simplification. You think everybody has your logic, they don't, most have real issues. It might be that simply in your idyllic world but go try it in the real world. Try it, live a month with no income, no support, no help try having to prostitute yourself to feed your kids or get addicted to any class 1 drug of your choice or if that's a bit hard, try committing suicide. If you survive I might treat the post with slightly more respect. Very few actually choose Sky TV over bread. Many people cannot cope with life so do you discard them or help them. That is why Rashford speaks from that position of knowledge and an amazing bravery to admit to it.
Sorry that may be a bit harsh.
 
Why are the kids hungry ? Is it more a lack of understanding how to run a household, cook , not waste money on non essentials ? Surely this shows also that a family with both parents is something to strive for as that mitigates against the poverty line . No one obviously would want kids to go hungry but much more info about who this is about required so an actual long term solution can be invested in .

It depends on your political bend.

If you’re right-leaning, it’s the feckless, lazy parents who have too many children and then waste their small amounts of money on tattoos, booze and Sky packages.

If you’re left-leaning, everyone is a victim of a callous government where the most vulnerable are left behind. No one is to blame but the heartless bastards in power.

In truth, you could find examples to support both sides of you go looking for them. For every Romanian migrant getting £30k in benefits reported in the Daily Mail, there will be a Jack Monroe detailing the pittance she genuinely had to live on in the Guardian.

For me, it’s a pandemic, many have lost of will lose their jobs due to measures that have been taken to control or stem the spread of the virus. Even if FSM are offered as a temporary measure for the holidays for the time being, that seems to me the right thing to do for now. You put a plaster over a cut to deal with the immediate issue. You don’t let it bleed out blaming the knife that cut you.

@Essexyellows does make a very good point about education to ensure future parents know how to budget correctly. It’s not just a concern for the poorest but for every generation. I’m staggered by intelligent people who don’t know about changing their energy supplier for example and end up overpaying on standard tariffs or people not realising that buying a mobile handset outright with a cheap SIM is nearly always cheaper than a contract deal over the two year lifespan of the phone. Martin Lewis does his best to educate of course but a basic ‘household costs’ course open to school pupils and adults would create a generation of far savvier people with basic spending.
 
Swedish School Meals system.
Home economics education.
Living within a budget with lessons if needed.
A safety net for all based on need (UC?)
I would throw a guaranteed minimum income in the mix, but I know from experience money goes further in "the North" than it does in Oxford/London so that becomes very complex very quickly.
 
Sorry that is just an over simplification. You think everybody has your logic, they don't, most have real issues. It might be that simply in your idyllic world but go try it in the real world. Try it, live a month with no income, no support, no help try having to prostitute yourself to feed your kids or get addicted to any class 1 drug of your choice or if that's a bit hard, try committing suicide. If you survive I might treat the post with slightly more respect. Very few actually choose Sky TV over bread. Many people cannot cope with life so do you discard them or help them. That is why Rashford speaks from that position of knowledge and an amazing bravery to admit to it.
Sorry that may be a bit harsh.

You will respect him if he tries to commit suicide and survives? Or prostitutes himself for crack? Can he not just go to work and moan about it like every one else?
 
@Essexyellows does make a very good point about education to ensure future parents know how to budget correctly. It’s not just a concern for the poorest but for every generation. I’m staggered by intelligent people who don’t know about changing their energy supplier for example and end up overpaying on standard tariffs or people not realising that buying a mobile handset outright with a cheap SIM is nearly always cheaper than a contract deal over the two year lifespan of the phone. Martin Lewis does his best to educate of course but a basic ‘household costs’ course open to school pupils and adults would create a generation of far savvier people with basic spending
Not to detract from the thread too much, but I’ve long since been fully in favour of a subject at school that is essentially called Life. For years I’ve felt that part of the curriculum, even just one hour per week for the last year or two prior to leaving, should be put in place. Teach kids everything they need to know about things like tax and PAYE deductions and how it works / what it means / where it goes, household budgeting and maintenance, utilities services - anything at all that is simply part of being an adult human being who (hopefully) has a job and has bills to pay. What is the process of buying and moving into a house? What is negative equity? What is council tax? There are lots of little things that most of us on here will know all about, or at least know enough about, that we had to learn as we went. It would be the ‘subject’ that universally affected everybody in the room. Yes, you could argue that such things should be taught in the home, but you can start drawing the line all over the place if you want to go down that route. I think it would be infinitely more beneficial than most subjects, and it’s only one hour per week. Why not?

And then to get back on topic - I don’t see how starving kids can just be wafted away with a limp hand. Clearly we do need to work to find solutions to this and prevent it needing fixing in the longer term, but in the meantime you feed hungry children in one of the world’s most developed and richest half a dozen nations. For now you feed a child that needs to be fed. I find it difficult to see arguments against that, which seem to amount to a form of social cleaning in some quarters. Whenever some maniac on social media says something like “Only people who can afford kids should have them” it’s like watching the scene where English talk about breeding out the Scots in bloody Braveheart. What f*****g year is this? Honestly. Talk about intentionally oversimplifying a complex issue in the most disgusting of ways. And anyway, if you want to be cynical and completely ruthless about it, the way that capitalism works is that countries need constant growth, so you need the population to go up because the child will put more into the pot in its working life than it takes out before then. So if you want to break it down to nothing more than economics and put a value on a human life, it’s in your best interests to feed the thing, keep it alive and get it into a job. Even if the state paid for three square meals a day every day from birth to 16, it would be a fraction of the tax and NI that person would generate from 16-retirement, plus they’d be having money spent on them and spending money themselves on other things that garner tax and VAT revenues along the way. So let’s take that approach - they’re better off for the country economically by being healthy and alive than starving or not being born at all. Glad we cleared that up. Now we can stop pretending it’s about money and just admit that it’s an argument between people who don’t want kids to starve and those who don’t care if they do.

Lastly, Marcus Rashford is employing people to work on this campaign with him, because he can’t do it all on his own and has a job playing football. So when people say he should put his money where his mouth is, he is. He is spending his own money on this issue, plus he’s helping to raise millions in donations as well as giving the issue a platform that hardly anyone else could, which in turn leads to genuine change. What do they want? Do they want to see him driving around like Postman Pat (Jesse Lingard can be the cat), handing out bags of cash to people’s front door and then jollily waving as he goes? How would that be more beneficial than affecting real, genuine change on a national level that goes right to the heart of government? If we want to talk about virtue signalling, that would be virtue signalling. He’s trying to help fix the leak in the boat rather than scooping the water out pointlessly. Yeah, it might look like he’s putting a real shift in, but it would ultimately do nothing to change things. He’s done more for this issue and potentially millions of people for decades to come than any amount of his own cash being dropped on the doorstep could’ve.

Much love xoxo
 
Not to detract from the thread too much, but I’ve long since been fully in favour of a subject at school that is essentially called Life. For years I’ve felt that part of the curriculum, even just one hour per week for the last year or two prior to leaving, should be put in place. Teach kids everything they need to know about things like tax and PAYE deductions and how it works / what it means / where it goes, household budgeting and maintenance, utilities services - anything at all that is simply part of being an adult human being who (hopefully) has a job and has bills to pay. What is the process of buying and moving into a house? What is negative equity? What is council tax? There are lots of little things that most of us on here will know all about, or at least know enough about, that we had to learn as we went. It would be the ‘subject’ that universally affected everybody in the room. Yes, you could argue that such things should be taught in the home, but you can start drawing the line all over the place if you want to go down that route. I think it would be infinitely more beneficial than most subjects, and it’s only one hour per week. Why not?


I remember in the 80s we had a subject called "Social Studies" which was kind of like what you are talking about. Probably not to such detail but some of that stuff was covered iirc.
 
It depends on your political bend.

If you’re right-leaning, it’s the feckless, lazy parents who have too many children and then waste their small amounts of money on tattoos, booze and Sky packages.

If you’re left-leaning, everyone is a victim of a callous government where the most vulnerable are left behind. No one is to blame but the heartless bastards in power.

In truth, you could find examples to support both sides of you go looking for them. For every Romanian migrant getting £30k in benefits reported in the Daily Mail, there will be a Jack Monroe detailing the pittance she genuinely had to live on in the Guardian.

For me, it’s a pandemic, many have lost of will lose their jobs due to measures that have been taken to control or stem the spread of the virus. Even if FSM are offered as a temporary measure for the holidays for the time being, that seems to me the right thing to do for now. You put a plaster over a cut to deal with the immediate issue. You don’t let it bleed out blaming the knife that cut you.

@Essexyellows does make a very good point about education to ensure future parents know how to budget correctly. It’s not just a concern for the poorest but for every generation. I’m staggered by intelligent people who don’t know about changing their energy supplier for example and end up overpaying on standard tariffs or people not realising that buying a mobile handset outright with a cheap SIM is nearly always cheaper than a contract deal over the two year lifespan of the phone. Martin Lewis does his best to educate of course but a basic ‘household costs’ course open to school pupils and adults would create a generation of far savvier people with basic spending.
But whether the parents are feckless wasters or not and what they should or shouldn't do has nothing to do with their children. The point of feeding the children is simply to make sure the children are fed. I'd have thought that left or right, we'd all agree with that!
 
But whether the parents are feckless wasters or not and what they should or shouldn't do has nothing to do with their children. The point of feeding the children is simply to make sure the children are fed. I'd have thought that left or right, we'd all agree with that!

If the parents are getting enough to be feckless wasters then giving them more will not change the feckless waster bit.
Take the kids and feed them by all means, but the "parents" need educating........or punishment......... its a fine line.
 
If the parents are getting enough to be feckless wasters then giving them more will not change the feckless waster bit.
Take the kids and feed them by all means, but the "parents" need educating........or punishment......... its a fine line.
A lot is being made about these 'feckless wasters' but how many of the families having financial problems in these days of furlough and zero hours contracts actual fall into this bracket? Sounds like more gas-lighting to me.
 
Of course some will think that it serves parents right. They should have known that a virus would make them lose their jobs , only receive a Proportion of the Minimum wage or become dependent on universal credit which only supports two children in a family. What should People with more than two children have done I wonder?

the nerve of accusing people of feckless wasters. I doubt that there’s a benefit claimant out there whose been more of a feckless Easter than our current Prime Minister. In any case the children need feeding.

and for those saying we need long term solutions the Conservative Party has governed for 10 years now. Time to come up with some.
 
Shall I help this hungry child or shall I punish the parents and let it go hungry?

it’s a fine line....
 
A lot is being made about these 'feckless wasters' but how many of the families having financial problems in these days of furlough and zero hours contracts actual fall into this bracket? Sounds like more gas-lighting to me.

Furlough has paid between 80% and 60% of peoples wages and doesn`t end until next week, plus the extension of the other schemes to support the employed.
UC has remained as is and is flexible related to income or furlough.
Child benefit etc has remained consistent.

I understand there are people who work in low income jobs, who get supported by the state, which is the whole purpose of UC.
The financial incentive to be "feckless" remains such that working simply doesn't pay for some people especially once you put children in the mix.
 
Shall I help this hungry child or shall I punish the parents and let it go hungry?

it’s a fine line....

Feed the child, educate the parents.
If they don`t want education punish them.

Make them learn their responsibilities for their children.
 
Of course some will think that it serves parents right. They should have known that a virus would make them lose their jobs , only receive a Proportion of the Minimum wage or become dependent on universal credit which only supports two children in a family. What should People with more than two children have done I wonder?

the nerve of accusing people of feckless wasters. I doubt that there’s a benefit claimant out there whose been more of a feckless Easter than our current Prime Minister. In any case the children need feeding.

and for those saying we need long term solutions the Conservative Party has governed for 10 years now. Time to come up with some.

Remind me what Labour did between 1997-2010?
 
Back
Top Bottom