• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

It was the governments bright idea or lack of foresight to discharge thousands of patients into care homes without testing them first.
 
scaramanga said:
That's not what I'm saying at all.

What I'm saying is the I would expect the PM to delegate stuff that really isn't of much importance at all and concentrate on what matters.
Click to expand...

That is not what occurred though is it? The issue was left, it was clearly a potential hot potato (especially from a government who promised to level up). The issue built up until the PM reacted. Therefore it wasn't delegated. His team didn't address it, neither did the PM until it became a big story. Even Tory MPs are worried by how this was or wasn't dealt with. Politically this is a simple quick easy one - yet they didn't deal with it until it was biting them in the arse.
 
SpurMeUp said:
That is not what occurred though is it? The issue was left, it was clearly a potential hot potato (especially from a government who promised to level up). The issue built up until the PM reacted. Therefore it wasn't delegated. His team didn't address it, neither did the PM until it became a big story. Even Tory MPs are worried by how this was or wasn't dealt with. Politically this is a simple quick easy one - yet they didn't deal with it until it was biting them in the arse.
Click to expand...
He had delegated it. Someone, somewhere in govt had decided not to continue the free meals during the summer.

Quite rightly, it wasn't a decision taken at the highest level because it's not worth anyone's time. Unfortunately the press made it otherwise (as usual).
 
scaramanga said:
You're the one who stated 1m children going hungry.

That's the number eligible. Eligibility simply requires the family to be receiving some kind of benefit. So think carefully about what you're saying and try again. Are the children of every family on benefit in this country going to go hungry without free school lunches?
Click to expand...

They will -at the very least- suffer from malnutrition. In very many cases, that school lunch might be the only square meal they get. So think carefully about what you're saying and try again.

If interested, read up on food insecurity and the work food banks do.
 
thfcsteff said:
They will -at the very least- suffer from malnutrition. In very many cases, that school lunch might be the only square meal they get. So think carefully about what you're saying and try again.

If interested, read up on food insecurity and the work food banks do.
Click to expand...
Again, being on some form of benefits does not mean being so poor as to not afford food.

Child tax credit doesn't disappear completely until someone earns over £23.5k - that's not much of a wage but it's not starving either.
 
thfcsteff said:
What does that mean? Are you now going to regale us with your definition of poverty? I can't wait!:D
Click to expand...
As an example - taken from fullfact.org:

Relative poverty (the figure being incorrectly used to measure actual poverty in the posts I referred to) is calculated as 60% of the median income. So it tells us nothing about whether people can afford the essentials, it merely tells us how their earnings compare to others - only useful in a dingdong swinging contest.

In this case more people are in relative poverty but, under the Conservatives, the median wage has grown faster than inflation. Those in relative poverty have more spending power than they did before.

So whilst more people are in relative poverty, those that are are better off than they were a few years ago.

Relative poverty in the UK came to the fore under the one-eyed pension monster when Labour realised that raising people out of actual poverty was really really hard. What they did instead was raise the income of a lot of families by a very small (often imperceptible) amount and then claimed to have taken millions out of poverty.
 
SpurMeUp said:
That is not what occurred though is it? The issue was left, it was clearly a potential hot potato (especially from a government who promised to level up). The issue built up until the PM reacted. Therefore it wasn't delegated. His team didn't address it, neither did the PM until it became a big story. Even Tory MPs are worried by how this was or wasn't dealt with. Politically this is a simple quick easy one - yet they didn't deal with it until it was biting them in the arse.
Click to expand...

The worst thing for any gov't irrespective of country or party is to continually be reactionary which is what seems to be happening more and more. Govt's need to be ahead of the game and setting the agenda (of course you can't do it in every scenario), showing the country they're already thinking ahead. That's what will build trust when a level of competence is shown - even if the right decisions aren't being taken then people can at least see things have been fully considered.
 
P.D. said:
The worst thing for any gov't irrespective of country or party is to continually be reactionary which is what seems to be happening more and more. Govt's need to be ahead of the game and setting the agenda (of course you can't do it in every scenario), showing the country they're already thinking ahead. That's what will build trust when a level of competence is shown - even if the right decisions aren't being taken then people can at least see things have been fully considered.
Click to expand...

Yes. Having a strategy in place. Instead all we get are tactics.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
scaramanga said:
He had delegated it. Someone, somewhere in govt had decided not to continue the free meals during the summer.

Quite rightly, it wasn't a decision taken at the highest level because it's not worth anyone's time. Unfortunately the press made it otherwise (as usual).
Click to expand...

I was going to say they made the decision and changed it once Rashford lobbied for it to be changed?

So you could argue that they made the wrong initial decision if so inclined but it wasn’t ignored or passed around like a hot spud
 
awesome dawson said:
This article was written well before Boris dropped the Covid ball. Crazy numbers involved in this for a supposedly developed country.

https://theconversation.com/food-poverty-agony-of-hunger-the-norm-for-many-children-in-the-uk-116216
Click to expand...

thfcsteff said:
They will -at the very least- suffer from malnutrition. In very many cases, that school lunch might be the only square meal they get. So think carefully about what you're saying and try again.

If interested, read up on food insecurity and the work food banks do.
Click to expand...

At face value they look like large numbers BUT you would have to drill down to see how and why are some people on that list.

Some parents are plain selfish and incompetent when it comes to prioritising and nutrition, are they on that list because of that?
 
SpurMeUp said:
That is not what occurred though is it? The issue was left, it was clearly a potential hot potato (especially from a government who promised to level up). The issue built up until the PM reacted. Therefore it wasn't delegated. His team didn't address it, neither did the PM until it became a big story. Even Tory MPs are worried by how this was or wasn't dealt with. Politically this is a simple quick easy one - yet they didn't deal with it until it was biting them in the arse.
Click to expand...

I’m not defending the government but people on here talk about accuracies and this is a case here.

They had set a policy, you could have argued like Radhford it was the wrong policy but to say the decision wasn’t delegate and was passed around isn’t true.

I think they pooed the bed with the initial decision personally and good that they actually listened to Rashford and mad a change.

I prefer that method of government that the idea that people prefer a decision then stick to it like that is really in the grand scheme a better way to govern when it’s really just aesthetics

The fact summer school meals Wasn’t mentioned by yourself before Rashford anyway highlights the true reactionary
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
At face value they look like large numbers BUT you would have to drill down to see how and why are some people on that list.

Some parents are plain selfish and incompetent when it comes to prioritising and nutrition, are they on that list because of that?
Click to expand...

The stats don’t look good and I’m in no way to argue against them but I do slightly agree that within some there will always encompass variations of why there are different levels of poverty.

There is undoubtedly those that are let down by the system and that makes up the majority of the percentage no doubt so let’s clear that up before the uproar claiming I haven’t acknowledged that.

There are those that have stretched beyond their means and have then fallen into the one pay cheque to poverty, I know mates who were earning and probably still are around the 40,000 Mark who would blow any spare cash the last week before pay day. How many times have you heard people in offices two weeks after pay day say they can’t do things until next pay? There is a human budgeting issue in the U.K.

Then there are undoubtedly the selfish who are lifers on benefits, I’ve seen it living in Thurrock most of my young life and parents who would be in the pubs, smoking and recreational drug users who would lean on the benefits system, that exists in this country in a huge way and although they are not the main cause of the stats mentioned their is a comfort blanket that they are included and therefore makes for a tricky conversation
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
At face value they look like large numbers BUT you would have to drill down to see how and why are some people on that list.

Some parents are plain selfish and incompetent when it comes to prioritising and nutrition, are they on that list because of that?
Click to expand...

Without a doubt many are, you only have to go into pubs to see guys who drink/smoke most of their money away, they also find money to buy the latest boy toys ( phones, stereos etc) but skimp on the food budget.
 
Grays_1890 said:
There is a human budgeting issue in the U.K.

Then there are undoubtedly the selfish who are lifers on benefits, I’ve seen it living in Thurrock most of my young life and parents who would be in the pubs, smoking and recreational drug users who would lean on the benefits system, that exists in this country in a huge way and although they are not the main cause of the stats mentioned their is a comfort blanket that they are included and therefore makes for a tricky conversation
Click to expand...

It's little wonder really - only a handful of politicians even attempt to talk about the country as whole living within it's means, and when they do they're usually treated as if they've committed a moral outrage, and are labelled as extremists, headbangers etc. It's no surprise to see that reflected at the individual level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back