National News End Child Food Poverty

What would you consider to be a non-essential item or luxury that people choose to spend money on over feeding their kids?

Not a loaded question - I am genuinely interested. Mainly because Iā€™ve seen a lot of nonsense from people saying things like, ā€œI bet they have the Internet thoughā€ as though the Internet isnā€™t an essential utility in 2021. Also their kids need it to stand any chance of learning right now, as well as some sort of laptop or computer that those same people also think is some sort of P**s take for them to have. Iā€™ve also seen people saying, ā€œHuh, got mobile phones to take pictures on before posting them online though havenā€™t they?!ā€ Probably the same people who donā€™t realise that having a landline phone costs more in rental charges in a year than a cheap handset and a few top ups, which in year two becomes even cheaper still as the handset is a one off purchase while the landline charges never end.

Iā€™m just genuinely unsure as to what people think is going on and what they think people have that they shouldnā€™t, or what it is that they should be giving up. I grew up very poor (especially until the age of about 10) just as it seems you did, so itā€™s something I take an interest in. While we donā€™t always agree I like to think that you might be able to provide me with some genuine insight into things that parents are spaffing their kidsā€™ food money on that arenā€™t the things Iā€™ve already mentioned above. I am fully aware that some parents are more responsible than others and donā€™t doubt for a second that there are some out there who simply fail their children through bad choices, but I would like to try to understand more about what those choices are.

Booze & fags would be my list topper.
Based on my own experience, although some years ago, neither Mum or Dad smoked and "couldn`t afford" to go to the pub except for a treat.

I should have worded it better that people should be educated to live within their means, something sorely lacking in education since the demise of Home Economics type lessons.

I`m sure someone will now take one line out of a paragraph and say "Ah yes but if you are on a zero hours contract etc etc". The only person who can solve that one is the individual themselves.
When it comes to fuel poverty then a robust form of capping needs to be in place so that folk on PAYG Gas & Electric aren`t having the a**e torn out of them through no fault of their own other than circumstance. Yes, been there, done that one as well in the early days of living alone.
So you have:
A roof - rent/mortgage.
Food.
Transport
Utilities.(Gas, Electric, Water) - probably add Internet as a utility these days.
Council Tax
Pretty much in that order

I`m no Dickensian mine owner but folk shouldn`t be encouraged to rely on the state as a way of life or career choice so the safety net also has to come with escape ladders. The idea behind UC offering a top up to working people is great, its functionality leaves a lot to be desired.

If not UC then what? Maybe a fixed minimum income guarantee?
 
I`m sure someone will now take one line out of a paragraph and say "Ah yes but if you are on a zero hours contract etc etc". The only person who can solve that one is the individual themselves.
Wrong re ZHC! The government could solve it by outlawing zero hour contracts but seeing as its rich mates are the main beneficiaries it won't.


I`m no Dickensian mine owner but folk shouldn`t be encouraged to rely on the state as a way of life or career choice so the safety net also has to come with escape ladders.
You are so full of contradictions! It's Dickensian zero hour contracts that are at the root of many people's financial problems!

The sad thing is you believe your own B*****s.
 
Wrong re ZHC! The government could solve it by outlawing zero hour contracts but seeing as its rich mates are the main beneficiaries it won't.



You are so full of contradictions! It's Dickensian zero hour contracts that are at the root of many people's financial problems!

The sad thing is you believe your own B*****s.

Way back when people had the choice to have full time, part time or casual work.
Casual work was just that.... you had no employment rights or the like.

For some people ZHC "work" they fit in with how they live.

2.8% of people in work are on ZHC, so 97.2% are not.
Surely any system has to have a flexible option?

Iā€™ve been a UBI advocate for a couple of years now. Slap a tinfoil hat on me and spank my bare a**e.

Finland tried it but the general consensus is the trial was to limited and doomed to fail.

I`m on my way with Bacofoil and a wet fish........
 
For some people ZHC "work" they fit in with how they live
Yep you use a few students who do bar work as a justification to screw people who want job security so they don't have to rely on the state (something you despise so much).

Are you sure it's only Jacob Rees-Mogg's lies that you swallow??
 
Yep you use a few students who do bar work as a justification to screw people who want job security so they don't have to rely on the state (something you despise so much).

Are you sure it's only Jacob Rees-Mogg's lies that you swallow??

Better brush up on your maths.
ZHC account for around 2.8% of the employed workforce, which is around 900k people.
There are around 2.4 million students in the UK.

Or maybe you need to accept that, for some people, flexible working on such contracts works for them?
Not everyone can commit to do Mon - Fri 9 till 5.

Finally it has to be better to have protected casual work than the dark world of cash in hand and corners being cut?
 
Wrong re ZHC! The government could solve it by outlawing zero hour contracts but seeing as its rich mates are the main beneficiaries it won't.



You are so full of contradictions! It's Dickensian zero hour contracts that are at the root of many people's financial problems!

The sad thing is you believe your own B*****s.

In 1995 Tony Blair promised to ban zero hours contracts, perhaps you should be blaming the Labour party for failing to deliver.
 
Better brush up on your maths.
ZHC account for around 2.8% of the employed workforce, which is around 900k people.
There are around 2.4 million students in the UK.

Or maybe you need to accept that, for some people, flexible working on such contracts works for them?
Not everyone can commit to do Mon - Fri 9 till 5.

Finally it has to be better to have protected casual work than the dark world of cash in hand and corners being cut?
Fixed hours doesn't mean the same hours everyday it means a guaranteed number of hours a week. You know that and you are just trying to gaslight.

It never ceases to amaze me how people such as yourself, employees who benefit from permanent, secure work, who have the peace of mind of a monthly credit to their bank account brings, side with a policy that almost exclusively benefits the employer at great detriment to many employees. Why are you so maliciously selfish?
 
The Bootstrap Chef was on the radio yesterday kicking the government in the balls and basically going, ā€œJust feed the kids, you psychopaths!ā€ I saw them being held up as a reason why kids donā€™t need feeding by the state earlier in this thread, so I found it rather ironic for them to pop up on the other side of the aisle.
 
The Bootstrap Chef was on the radio yesterday kicking the government in the balls and basically going, ā€œJust feed the kids, you psychopaths!ā€ I saw them being held up as a reason why kids donā€™t need feeding by the state earlier in this thread, so I found it rather ironic for them to pop up on the other side of the aisle.
I'd like to ask all those who believe kids should go hungry - what should taxes we all pay be used for instead?
 
The Bootstrap Chef was on the radio yesterday kicking the government in the balls and basically going, ā€œJust feed the kids, you psychopaths!ā€ I saw them being held up as a reason why kids donā€™t need feeding by the state earlier in this thread, so I found it rather ironic for them to pop up on the other side of the aisle.
Jack is definitely very committed to the cause as this has been her "thing" for many years (living and eating on almost no money), and was quite rightly pissed off when during Lockdown 1, Channel 4 I think decided to get Jamie Oliver to present a series of "storecupboard" cooks.

What happens though if you live in a village where for instance the only shop has everything at double the price of a supermarket, but you can't get to a supermarket to find the bargains?
 
Ah Jamie Oliver..... he was going to "fix" school dinners wasn`t he?

I can remember back in 2003/4 he was punting around suppliers to provide "quality" food to the schools as long as it was within budget.

Following the airing of the programme in 2005 he lost interest. He couldn`t do it, couldn`t change the mindset of "pizza and chips".

Oliver has since said that his push to improve nutrition for children didnā€™t work because eating well is still seen as a ā€œposh and middle-classā€ concern.

Everyone loves an Indy link.
 
Ah Jamie Oliver..... he was going to "fix" school dinners wasn`t he?

I can remember back in 2003/4 he was punting around suppliers to provide "quality" food to the schools as long as it was within budget.

Following the airing of the programme in 2005 he lost interest. He couldn`t do it, couldn`t change the mindset of "pizza and chips".

Oliver has since said that his push to improve nutrition for children didnā€™t work because eating well is still seen as a ā€œposh and middle-classā€ concern.

Everyone loves an Indy link.
Is this just a history lesson or are you having a pop at JO (someone who got off his a**e to try and chance things for the better)?
 
When I worked for a Council in social services finance, I took right umbrage with a Social worker who was moaning about Asylum seekers having mobile phones. She didn't like it when challenged and I pointed out that they'll be PAYG and it is the only way they could get contacted to get work to supplement the meagre amount they received to feed/support themselves while living in generally substandard accommodation. The mobile phone argument was crap then and still is now. Agree with the rest as well.

I was under the impression that asylum seekers were not allowed to work in the U.K. whilst there circumstances were being reviewed?

I could be wrong though.
 
Is this just a history lesson or are you having a pop at JO (someone who got off his a**e to try and chance things for the better)?

FFS it`s a real experience of how hard it is to get those less fortunate to change their mindset.

Considering I was supplying him with products I would consider that to be "getting off ones posterior" and doing something you of course won`t play the ball.

The nub of it is people must want to change, as soon as the TV cameras fudged off it went straight back to how it was.

Whilst you may berate INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILTY ... that is what it boils down too no matter how much celebs or the state intervene.
 
FFS it`s a real experience of how hard it is to get those less fortunate to change their mindset.

Considering I was supplying him with products I would consider that to be "getting off ones posterior" and doing something you of course won`t play the ball.

The nub of it is people must want to change, as soon as the TV cameras fudged off it went straight back to how it was.

Whilst you may berate INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILTY ... that is what it boils down too no matter how much celebs or the state intervene.
Fair dos re JO.

Where or when have I berated individual responsibility???
 
Fair dos re JO.

Where or when have I berated individual responsibility???

You appear to believe that only state intervention (money or food) can fix the problem for the kids but it is the parents responsibility to "muck in" to sort their problems out.
I would throw in mandatory household/budgeting/cooking and similar life education lessons for the parents of the kids that are eligible.

Probably be called "socially divisive" and "poor shaming" these days.... :rolleyes:
 
Back
Top Bottom