School Dinners
#51
While I have no intention of getting dragged back into any more extended exchanges on here, it is probably worth viewing Protheroe's contributions to this thread as those of someone who - only a few weeks back - thought it appropriate to boast about how many state-subsidised lobsters his family could consume.

And if anybody - Liquidator, just by way of an example - is tempted by the knee-jerk question, the answer is nothing. Zero. Nil.

Regards to all.
Reply
#52
This is the bizarreness of the situation Oss, I can't believe after all the money that has been chucked at different schemes the government would choose to die on this relatively cheap hill.
Reply
#53
(10-23-2020, 01:33 PM)baggy1 Wrote: This is the bizarreness of the situation Oss, I can't believe after all the money that has been chucked at different schemes the government would choose to die on this relatively cheap hill.

This is my argument.

After all the waste, all the inefficiency of spending on this pandemic. They choose this place to draw the line and say no more?
Reply
#54
Imagine having the power to feed hungry kids and choosing not to use it... Blaming the families is one thing, and for me it’s a desperate matter as it doesn’t get these kids fed any time soon.

How do some of these people sleep at night?
Reply
#55
(10-23-2020, 03:04 PM)Duffers Wrote: Imagine having the power to feed hungry kids and choosing not to use it... Blaming the families is one thing, and for me it’s a desperate matter as it doesn’t get these kids fed any time soon.

How do some of these people sleep at night?

[Image: 380546.jpg]
Reply
#56
(10-23-2020, 03:00 PM)Birdman1811 Wrote:
(10-23-2020, 01:33 PM)baggy1 Wrote: This is the bizarreness of the situation Oss, I can't believe after all the money that has been chucked at different schemes the government would choose to die on this relatively cheap hill.

This is my argument.

After all the waste, all the inefficiency of spending on this pandemic. They choose this place to draw the line and say no more?

That's what I'm trying to say, the amount of public money that's been spaffed up the wall the last few months and has had no benefit compared to something inarguably good and is an extension of something that we already have for a whole 6 weeks between now and April. What is the point in being against the latter if you're happy for the former?

(10-22-2020, 12:19 PM)The liquidator Wrote: The furlong scheme is very little???
Or am I missing something.

I wasn't referring to the furlough scheme China. I was referring to the tens of billions spent on a useless track and trace, PPE, consultancy fees and numerous other wastes of time.

The furlough scheme was one of the very few things the government did well (albeit not flawless) but, given that it was supposed to protect jobs while the economy was shut down, thanks to the numerous other failings of our inept and well out of its depth government that have extended the pandemic this has significantly reduced it's impact aside from delaying job culls.

(10-22-2020, 02:09 PM)Protheroe Wrote: I'm sorry, food price inflation has been negligible and even negative for a decade - that is a fact. Quality food has never been cheaper nor more plentiful.

I'm also struggling with the whole idea of children being hungry en mass when 20% of year 6 kids are obese, with the prevalence of obesity being twice as high in the most deprived areas. I suppose it does have relevance to affordablity if say, you buy your child a bag of crisps (40p) rather than an apple (13p).

It's been negligible as wages have outgrown food price inflation, therefore talking nonsense about the "last decade" is nonsense. Wages have decreased this year month on month while food prices were inflating, wages are going to continue to decline as companies make cuts and unemployment increases with recent trends showing that food price inflation is going to continue to rise over the next few months as it has done month on month since March 2017, and that doesn't even factor the fact we're about to put tariffs on a lot of it after December which will increase prices further. As I have said repeatedly to you yet you continue to ignore, food prices are going to continue increase relative to incomes over the next few months as they have done over the last few months which means food will be more expensive and a short term relief on some aspect of this for parents will be very welcome, including responsible parents.

And I find you're apple and crisps analogy utterly disingenuous as neither constitute a meal and neither factor in the cost of time.
Reply
#57
I
(10-23-2020, 08:59 AM)billybassett Wrote: Members dining room options this week:



I love the pricing ensures those underfed MPs can do their maths and get a 3 course meal within their allowance so they can claim it back.

On the other side of the coin if you're spending your money on fags, booze, PCP payments on a nice motor and sending your kids to school hungry....

(10-23-2020, 01:22 PM)Ossian Wrote: While I have no intention of getting dragged back into any more extended exchanges on here, it is probably worth viewing Protheroe's contributions to this thread as those of someone who - only a few weeks back - thought it appropriate to boast about how many state-subsidised lobsters his family could consume.

And if anybody - Liquidator, just by way of an example - is tempted by the knee-jerk question, the answer is nothing. Zero. Nil.

Regards to all.

Nice to have you back Oss. I said similar to Proth earlier. I think he thought it made him look sophisticated sadly it looked more like he had conducted an autopsy on a number of crustaceans.

On a wider point I think this will be this governments milk snatcher moment.
Reply
#58
(10-23-2020, 01:22 PM)Ossian Wrote: While I have no intention of getting dragged back into any more extended exchanges on here, it is probably worth viewing Protheroe's contributions to this thread as those of someone who - only a few weeks back - thought it appropriate to boast about how many state-subsidised lobsters his family could consume.

And if anybody - Liquidator, just by way of an example - is tempted by the knee-jerk question, the answer is nothing. Zero. Nil.

Regards to all.

Simply brilliant.
Reply
#59
Seems to me that elements of the Conservatives have returned to the politics of shaming the 'undeserving poor'. Worked well for them in 2010 and 2015, but is suspect now it's a dead duck of a strategy.

The last 10 years have shown us that there is probably no such thing as the undeserving poor, and with certainty we can say that policies directed at the 'undeserving poor', have actually had the effect of harming those who do work hard, do try their hardest to provide for their families.

And this is another example of this. Many parents who are financially vulnerable will move heaven and earth to ensure their children get enough to eat, even to the extent that many parents skip meals for themselves - so much for feckless parents.
Reply
#60
Thatcher: Starved the miners
Johnson: Starving the minors.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)