It is so difficult to comment on this thread without it looking political, which i prefer to do in the HofC section of Charlton life. But when those in charge say they are 'one nation', and are going to 'put their arms around' people, the hypocrisy of their stance on this matter is difficult not to see. In fact it smacks (a lot of) people square in the face.
I think the government is going to do something. It will cost them (us) more but will mean kids have access to free meals over Christmas in a different way. They feel they can't do another U turn but the bit they are bothered about most is when they are attacked by their own.
Not sure on that, Boris pretty much doubled down on his position earlier today.
That being said he’s made so many u-turns since becoming PM another one wouldn’t be a surprise!
Fortunately, it looks like there is going to be a shift with this and there has been a lot of discussions on the different reasons for children going hungry.
Whist any child going hungry is terrible, the priority for this needs to be for those whose income has dropped due to covid, for example hard working families were employed in otherwise stable jobs and made perfectly reasonable decisions based on expected salaries. They have lost significant income though unprecedented circumstances and through no fault of their own.
Where the income is stable and not affected by covid in the same way and that income is not spent on the right priorities and children are going hungry that is a different situation. Of course it still needs solutions but the causes are quite different and the solutions are very different.
I should imagine that if you're a child that's going hungry it makes no difference to you whether your parents are deemed to be "deserving poor" or "undeserving poor". Any civilised society should be sorting out the immediate need while working through the long term solutions, rather than abdicating responsibility until the long term solutions have kicked in.
Boris and his MPs continue to be caught with their trousers down. They keep referring to the £63m that the Government gave to local councils back in June but this wasn't specifically to deal with hungry children and in any event councils were told that the expectation was that this would be enough for 12 weeks.
I would turn that the other way round and say the availability of food is a way of identifying a not hungry child. We don't need to forensically test kids for levels of hunger, just make sure they can access a basic need such as food.
I'm more concerned about possible malnutrition of kids, but how do you identify that? Some really skinny kids are perfectly healthy and well fed, despite living in relative poverty.
The resources need to be put where they are most needed and for the life of me I cannot see how you do that, other than where there is obvious neglect.
Child benefit was supposed to ensure children didn't go hungry (amongst other things) but the levels of hunger that are being reported would suggest it's not working as it should. So do we just significantly increase the amount paid?
I doubt that would remove child hunger completely - so do we focus on where the need is greatest? But where is that?
I'm more concerned about possible malnutrition of kids, but how do you identify that? Some really skinny kids are perfectly healthy and well fed, despite living in relative poverty.
The resources need to be put where they are most needed and for the life of me I cannot see how you do that, other than where there is obvious neglect.
Child benefit was supposed to ensure children didn't go hungry (amongst other things) but the levels of hunger that are being reported would suggest it's not working as it should. So do we just significantly increase the amount paid?
I doubt that would remove child hunger completely - so do we focus on where the need is greatest? But where is that?
Where benefit is used for non priority items, increasing benefit would be unlikely to help. Increasing benefits does not decrease numbers in relative poverty - as the description says, it is relative, so even if everyone in the country had double the income, the same numbers would be in relative poverty, relative to the population).
Those that have had their income(s) slashed by the covid situation are, in many ways, a much more urgent priority since their circumstances have changed so dramatically unexpectedly
I reckon if you're around children enough it is possible to identify hungry ones, possibly by looking at them, but also observing behaviour and indeed listening to them. Another clue is what they will be prepared to eat. The sprout test if you want to call it that (personally I like sprouts). There are hungry children out there, not even relatively hungry, but genuinely so. The authorities say there is enough provision, but medical people, teachers, social workers, NSPCC bods, food bank volunteers, church organisations and those who spend time around children would question that, or whether provision is getting through. Why has there ever been free school meals if it hasn't been recognised as necessary?
I'm more concerned about possible malnutrition of kids, but how do you identify that? Some really skinny kids are perfectly healthy and well fed, despite living in relative poverty.
The resources need to be put where they are most needed and for the life of me I cannot see how you do that, other than where there is obvious neglect.
Child benefit was supposed to ensure children didn't go hungry (amongst other things) but the levels of hunger that are being reported would suggest it's not working as it should. So do we just significantly increase the amount paid?
I doubt that would remove child hunger completely - so do we focus on where the need is greatest? But where is that?
Where benefit is used for non priority items, increasing benefit would be unlikely to help. Increasing benefits does not decrease numbers in relative poverty - as the description says, it is relative, so even if everyone in the country had double the income, the same numbers would be in relative poverty, relative to the population).
Those that have had their income(s) slashed by the covid situation are, in many ways, a much more urgent priority since their circumstances have changed so dramatically unexpectedly
Someone who lost their job in December or January, or got sick, or has developed a mental health issue or whose relationship broke down, or took on extra caring duties or whose tenancy was ended without fault or a host of other reasons leading to severe financial difficulties is no less deserving than someone who lost their job in May. In fact maybe their need is greater as they are probably burning through whatever savings they may have had.
More importantly, your idea that their children should be treated differently because the parents don't meet your (unspecified) criteria as deserving of the same assistance as others is not a good look tbh. You don't really mean this do you?
Would like to hear peoples idea on actually solving the problem instead of just the "free meals for kids" strategy currently being banded around.
You can solve 90% of the issue quite quickly;
1. All meals in state schools become free. 5-18. 2. Sort out the benefit levels & mess. Urgent review of housing benefit levels which are almost always too low. 3. Longer term, education, education, education (appreciate its very complex but not beyond the wit of man(.
I'm more concerned about possible malnutrition of kids, but how do you identify that? Some really skinny kids are perfectly healthy and well fed, despite living in relative poverty.
The resources need to be put where they are most needed and for the life of me I cannot see how you do that, other than where there is obvious neglect.
Child benefit was supposed to ensure children didn't go hungry (amongst other things) but the levels of hunger that are being reported would suggest it's not working as it should. So do we just significantly increase the amount paid?
I doubt that would remove child hunger completely - so do we focus on where the need is greatest? But where is that?
Where benefit is used for non priority items, increasing benefit would be unlikely to help. Increasing benefits does not decrease numbers in relative poverty - as the description says, it is relative, so even if everyone in the country had double the income, the same numbers would be in relative poverty, relative to the population).
Those that have had their income(s) slashed by the covid situation are, in many ways, a much more urgent priority since their circumstances have changed so dramatically unexpectedly
Someone who lost their job in December or January, or got sick, or has developed a mental health issue or whose relationship broke down, or took on extra caring duties or whose tenancy was ended without fault or a host of other reasons leading to severe financial difficulties is no less deserving than someone who lost their job in May. In fact maybe their need is greater as they are probably burning through whatever savings they may have had.
More importantly, your idea that their children should be treated differently because the parents don't meet your (unspecified) criteria as deserving of the same assistance as others is not a good look tbh. You don't really mean this do you?
Of course there are numerous (endless) different scenarios. I said the solutions were different for the different scenarios. Children are treated differently; some already get free school dinners and other don't, some get free transport to school and/or taxis whilst others don't and some families get council or housing association accommodation and others don't, despite being more in need than those already in said accommodation, sometimes with a good income. And some families get benefits and have more income than those working. So children are treated differently already.
I would hope that the children in the scenario you describe are already getting free school dinners.
That'd be the Douglas Ross who abstained on the Free School Meal vote, although that's still one up on the 5 other Scottish Conservative MPs who all voted against.
Would like to hear peoples idea on actually solving the problem instead of just the "free meals for kids" strategy currently being banded around.
You can solve 90% of the issue quite quickly;
1. All meals in state schools become free. 5-18. 2. Sort out the benefit levels & mess. Urgent review of housing benefit levels which are almost always too low. 3. Longer term, education, education, education (appreciate its very complex but not beyond the wit of man(.
We had that promise under Tony Blair and no real improvement came of it.
100% agree with free meals to those kids in state schools.
Would like to hear peoples idea on actually solving the problem instead of just the "free meals for kids" strategy currently being banded around.
Well, the immediate "problem" is children who rely on free school meals going hungry during half term and then Christmas school holidays.
So what Rashford is proposing solves that problem as does the work by local businesses, charities and some councils.
Now, I agree there are other, longer term problems (universal credit being too little and taking too long, unemployment and under employment, low wages, a government willing to reward its donors and friends with multiple billion pound contracts for shoddy work rather than fund free school meals, etc etc,etc) but while those are being dealt with the children, through no fault of their own, are likely to have less to eat than they need.
I'm more concerned about possible malnutrition of kids, but how do you identify that? Some really skinny kids are perfectly healthy and well fed, despite living in relative poverty.
The resources need to be put where they are most needed and for the life of me I cannot see how you do that, other than where there is obvious neglect.
Child benefit was supposed to ensure children didn't go hungry (amongst other things) but the levels of hunger that are being reported would suggest it's not working as it should. So do we just significantly increase the amount paid?
I doubt that would remove child hunger completely - so do we focus on where the need is greatest? But where is that?
Where benefit is used for non priority items, increasing benefit would be unlikely to help. Increasing benefits does not decrease numbers in relative poverty - as the description says, it is relative, so even if everyone in the country had double the income, the same numbers would be in relative poverty, relative to the population).
Those that have had their income(s) slashed by the covid situation are, in many ways, a much more urgent priority since their circumstances have changed so dramatically unexpectedly
Someone who lost their job in December or January, or got sick, or has developed a mental health issue or whose relationship broke down, or took on extra caring duties or whose tenancy was ended without fault or a host of other reasons leading to severe financial difficulties is no less deserving than someone who lost their job in May. In fact maybe their need is greater as they are probably burning through whatever savings they may have had.
More importantly, your idea that their children should be treated differently because the parents don't meet your (unspecified) criteria as deserving of the same assistance as others is not a good look tbh. You don't really mean this do you?
Of course there are numerous (endless) different scenarios. I said the solutions were different for the different scenarios. Children are treated differently; some already get free school dinners and other don't, some get free transport to school and/or taxis whilst others don't and some families get council or housing association accommodation and others don't, despite being more in need than those already in said accommodation, sometimes with a good income. And some families get benefits and have more income than those working. So children are treated differently already.
I would hope that the children in the scenario you describe are already getting free school dinners.
In term time yes, we'd all HOPE THAT but the point is even if they are they don't get FSM in half term.
And to qualify for FSM the parents have to be on universal credit IIRC which can take weeks or months to be approved.
I'm more concerned about possible malnutrition of kids, but how do you identify that? Some really skinny kids are perfectly healthy and well fed, despite living in relative poverty.
The resources need to be put where they are most needed and for the life of me I cannot see how you do that, other than where there is obvious neglect.
Child benefit was supposed to ensure children didn't go hungry (amongst other things) but the levels of hunger that are being reported would suggest it's not working as it should. So do we just significantly increase the amount paid?
I doubt that would remove child hunger completely - so do we focus on where the need is greatest? But where is that?
Where benefit is used for non priority items, increasing benefit would be unlikely to help. Increasing benefits does not decrease numbers in relative poverty - as the description says, it is relative, so even if everyone in the country had double the income, the same numbers would be in relative poverty, relative to the population).
Those that have had their income(s) slashed by the covid situation are, in many ways, a much more urgent priority since their circumstances have changed so dramatically unexpectedly
Someone who lost their job in December or January, or got sick, or has developed a mental health issue or whose relationship broke down, or took on extra caring duties or whose tenancy was ended without fault or a host of other reasons leading to severe financial difficulties is no less deserving than someone who lost their job in May. In fact maybe their need is greater as they are probably burning through whatever savings they may have had.
More importantly, your idea that their children should be treated differently because the parents don't meet your (unspecified) criteria as deserving of the same assistance as others is not a good look tbh. You don't really mean this do you?
Of course there are numerous (endless) different scenarios. I said the solutions were different for the different scenarios. Children are treated differently; some already get free school dinners and other don't, some get free transport to school and/or taxis whilst others don't and some families get council or housing association accommodation and others don't, despite being more in need than those already in said accommodation, sometimes with a good income. And some families get benefits and have more income than those working. So children are treated differently already.
I would hope that the children in the scenario you describe are already getting free school dinners.
In term time yes, we'd all HOPE THAT but the point is even if they are they don't get FSM in half term.
And to qualify for FSM the parents have to be on universal credit IIRC which can take weeks or months to be approved.
Are you saying it wouldn't have been sorted out 9 or 10 months later?
Are school canteens used during school holidays at all? I would volunteer (next year when not working) to help out during the school holidays as would a lot of people
I'm more concerned about possible malnutrition of kids, but how do you identify that? Some really skinny kids are perfectly healthy and well fed, despite living in relative poverty.
The resources need to be put where they are most needed and for the life of me I cannot see how you do that, other than where there is obvious neglect.
Child benefit was supposed to ensure children didn't go hungry (amongst other things) but the levels of hunger that are being reported would suggest it's not working as it should. So do we just significantly increase the amount paid?
I doubt that would remove child hunger completely - so do we focus on where the need is greatest? But where is that?
Where benefit is used for non priority items, increasing benefit would be unlikely to help. Increasing benefits does not decrease numbers in relative poverty - as the description says, it is relative, so even if everyone in the country had double the income, the same numbers would be in relative poverty, relative to the population).
Those that have had their income(s) slashed by the covid situation are, in many ways, a much more urgent priority since their circumstances have changed so dramatically unexpectedly
Someone who lost their job in December or January, or got sick, or has developed a mental health issue or whose relationship broke down, or took on extra caring duties or whose tenancy was ended without fault or a host of other reasons leading to severe financial difficulties is no less deserving than someone who lost their job in May. In fact maybe their need is greater as they are probably burning through whatever savings they may have had.
More importantly, your idea that their children should be treated differently because the parents don't meet your (unspecified) criteria as deserving of the same assistance as others is not a good look tbh. You don't really mean this do you?
Of course there are numerous (endless) different scenarios. I said the solutions were different for the different scenarios. Children are treated differently; some already get free school dinners and other don't, some get free transport to school and/or taxis whilst others don't and some families get council or housing association accommodation and others don't, despite being more in need than those already in said accommodation, sometimes with a good income. And some families get benefits and have more income than those working. So children are treated differently already.
I would hope that the children in the scenario you describe are already getting free school dinners.
In term time yes, we'd all HOPE THAT but the point is even if they are they don't get FSM in half term.
And to qualify for FSM the parents have to be on universal credit IIRC which can take weeks or months to be approved.
Are you saying it wouldn't have been sorted out 9 or 10 months later?
Are school canteens used during school holidays at all? I would volunteer (next year when not working) to help out during the school holidays as would a lot of people
That's great.
Who pays for the staff (helping out is great but are you qualified to cook 100s of meals, the food, the cleaning, the electricity, the DBS checks?
People are still being made redundant now or being put on 2/3rds of minimum wages now. So that's four to six weeks wait. Many will have savings, many won't, some won't have mortgages, loans and other bills to pay, others will.
I'm more concerned about possible malnutrition of kids, but how do you identify that? Some really skinny kids are perfectly healthy and well fed, despite living in relative poverty.
The resources need to be put where they are most needed and for the life of me I cannot see how you do that, other than where there is obvious neglect.
Child benefit was supposed to ensure children didn't go hungry (amongst other things) but the levels of hunger that are being reported would suggest it's not working as it should. So do we just significantly increase the amount paid?
I doubt that would remove child hunger completely - so do we focus on where the need is greatest? But where is that?
Where benefit is used for non priority items, increasing benefit would be unlikely to help. Increasing benefits does not decrease numbers in relative poverty - as the description says, it is relative, so even if everyone in the country had double the income, the same numbers would be in relative poverty, relative to the population).
Those that have had their income(s) slashed by the covid situation are, in many ways, a much more urgent priority since their circumstances have changed so dramatically unexpectedly
Someone who lost their job in December or January, or got sick, or has developed a mental health issue or whose relationship broke down, or took on extra caring duties or whose tenancy was ended without fault or a host of other reasons leading to severe financial difficulties is no less deserving than someone who lost their job in May. In fact maybe their need is greater as they are probably burning through whatever savings they may have had.
More importantly, your idea that their children should be treated differently because the parents don't meet your (unspecified) criteria as deserving of the same assistance as others is not a good look tbh. You don't really mean this do you?
Of course there are numerous (endless) different scenarios. I said the solutions were different for the different scenarios. Children are treated differently; some already get free school dinners and other don't, some get free transport to school and/or taxis whilst others don't and some families get council or housing association accommodation and others don't, despite being more in need than those already in said accommodation, sometimes with a good income. And some families get benefits and have more income than those working. So children are treated differently already.
I would hope that the children in the scenario you describe are already getting free school dinners.
In term time yes, we'd all HOPE THAT but the point is even if they are they don't get FSM in half term.
And to qualify for FSM the parents have to be on universal credit IIRC which can take weeks or months to be approved.
Are you saying it wouldn't have been sorted out 9 or 10 months later?
Are school canteens used during school holidays at all? I would volunteer (next year when not working) to help out during the school holidays as would a lot of people
That's great.
Who pays for the staff (helping out is great but are you qualified to cook 100s of meals, the food, the cleaning, the electricity, the DBS checks?
People are still being made redundant now or being put on 2/3rds of minimum wages now. So that's four to six weeks wait. Many will have savings, many won't, some won't have mortgages, loans and other bills to pay, others will.
The example given was from December/January and I said I hoped any children would be getting free school dinners by now. You said there is a delay which hoped was not as long as 9 or 10 months.
Of course my scenario isn't free and I was not thinking of doing all the meals and everything else myself funnily enough as a community approach. No wonder people don't put forward suggestions or offer to volunteer if they get negative responses like this. And people bring in unnecessary comments about beneficiaries of a Tory government which is completely unnecessary.
There is too much political point scoring and sarcasm rather than looking at (just) the issues, solutions and causes. And the medium and longer-term solutions and addressing the various causes, than just throwing endless money at it.
Would like to hear peoples idea on actually solving the problem instead of just the "free meals for kids" strategy currently being banded around.
Well, the immediate "problem" is children who rely on free school meals going hungry during half term and then Christmas school holidays.
So what Rashford is proposing solves that problem as does the work by local businesses, charities and some councils.
Now, I agree there are other, longer term problems (universal credit being too little and taking too long, unemployment and under employment, low wages, a government willing to reward its donors and friends with multiple billion pound contracts for shoddy work rather than fund free school meals, etc etc,etc) but while those are being dealt with the children, through no fault of their own, are likely to have less to eat than they need.
Seldom can a Government vanity "we are in control" exercise have failed so abysmally.
It is true food of some description is available to all. If you can afford to buy it, while paying the exorbitant rent, meet winter heating bills, buy winter clothing, if you have a living wage or your specific Universal credit works.
The introduction of Universal Credit was not to designed to better serve those in need but to remove operational cost. It is not fit for purpose. Just like outsourcing the Prison Service was not fit for purpose. Just like outsourcing the Test and Trace service when there were any number of existing centres of expertise in infectious disease control.
If you believe the benefits system is open to abuse I do not disagree but if you do not think there have been any number of cost benefit analysis exercises for a more targeted granular solution you are mistaken. They do not know how to do it.
So some will profit and too many will be disadvantaged.
With respect with circa 4m heading for unemployment in the face of a global pandemic this is not the time for this debate.
it is not a matter of politics it is a matter of Executive competence.
The Government is not arguing it is not responsible for feeding starving children. In the world's 5th largest economy God forbid. It can't it is enshrined in legal statute. Child welfare has been "nationalised" for decades.
This executive is arguing about how you feed starving children.
Starve is the right descriptor. To starve is to train yourself to live without food. Starvation is debilitating. Fear of starvation is equally pernicious.
Professionals employed across medical services, in social welfare, throughout education with teachers who act "in loco parentis" fully supporting the need for change.
Mr Rashford and food charities are arguing the Government approach is too obtuse, too slow and fundamentally flawed.
They seek to pursue clear unequivocal specific point of delivery solutions for today and for the foreseeable future.
The Government response thus represents no more than a control exercise.
In many ways it reflects so much of the policy confusion surrounding the pandemic.
It almost appears it is no longer a question of actually delivering solutions but merely presenting plausible deniability when solutions are not being delivered.
I need a Stig cartoon picturing a ship wrecked captain feverishly bailing out the water, as his ship is sinking, while acclaiming " Its not my fault I did not see the rock" but just look how much water I have got rid off.
All of course in the context of Covid 19 as his passengers increasing flounder in the rising waters of new infections and collapsing finances.
Can we please stop telling people what to do, and start listening and empowering them with the resources to deliver real life real time solutions. to lead their lives in a safe and secure manner.
Every new edict devalues it's predecessor. It is like continually devaluing your currency where the entire exercise renders the whole exercise pointless.
I refuse to believe it is beyond the invention, innovation, skills and industry of the British people to manage and live with Covid 19.
I suggest empowering those seeking to feed children in distress would be a very good start.
Would like to hear peoples idea on actually solving the problem instead of just the "free meals for kids" strategy currently being banded around.
Well, the immediate "problem" is children who rely on free school meals going hungry during half term and then Christmas school holidays.
So what Rashford is proposing solves that problem as does the work by local businesses, charities and some councils.
Now, I agree there are other, longer term problems (universal credit being too little and taking too long, unemployment and under employment, low wages, a government willing to reward its donors and friends with multiple billion pound contracts for shoddy work rather than fund free school meals, etc etc,etc) but while those are being dealt with the children, through no fault of their own, are likely to have less to eat than they need.
In one of the richest countries in the world.
That is the problem.
So any ideas on how to solve it?
Yes, pay the schools and or councils to keep their kitchens open
Comments
That being said he’s made so many u-turns since becoming PM another one wouldn’t be a surprise!
Whist any child going hungry is terrible, the priority for this needs to be for those whose income has dropped due to covid, for example hard working families were employed in otherwise stable jobs and made perfectly reasonable decisions based on expected salaries. They have lost significant income though unprecedented circumstances and through no fault of their own.
Where the income is stable and not affected by covid in the same way and that income is not spent on the right priorities and children are going hungry that is a different situation. Of course it still needs solutions but the causes are quite different and the solutions are very different.
I don't know about you, but as a kid I was always hungry!
I'm more concerned about possible malnutrition of kids, but how do you identify that? Some really skinny kids are perfectly healthy and well fed, despite living in relative poverty.
The resources need to be put where they are most needed and for the life of me I cannot see how you do that, other than where there is obvious neglect.
Child benefit was supposed to ensure children didn't go hungry (amongst other things) but the levels of hunger that are being reported would suggest it's not working as it should. So do we just significantly increase the amount paid?
I doubt that would remove child hunger completely - so do we focus on where the need is greatest? But where is that?
Those that have had their income(s) slashed by the covid situation are, in many ways, a much more urgent priority since their circumstances have changed so dramatically unexpectedly
Another clue is what they will be prepared to eat. The sprout test if you want to call it that (personally I like sprouts).
There are hungry children out there, not even relatively hungry, but genuinely so.
The authorities say there is enough provision, but medical people, teachers, social workers, NSPCC bods, food bank volunteers, church organisations and those who spend time around children would question that, or whether provision is getting through.
Why has there ever been free school meals if it hasn't been recognised as necessary?
More importantly, your idea that their children should be treated differently because the parents don't meet your (unspecified) criteria as deserving of the same assistance as others is not a good look tbh. You don't really mean this do you?
1. All meals in state schools become free. 5-18.
2. Sort out the benefit levels & mess. Urgent review of housing benefit levels which are almost always too low.
3. Longer term, education, education, education (appreciate its very complex but not beyond the wit of man(.
I would hope that the children in the scenario you describe are already getting free school dinners.
We had that promise under Tony Blair and no real improvement came of it.
100% agree with free meals to those kids in state schools.
So what Rashford is proposing solves that problem as does the work by local businesses, charities and some councils.
Now, I agree there are other, longer term problems (universal credit being too little and taking too long, unemployment and under employment, low wages, a government willing to reward its donors and friends with multiple billion pound contracts for shoddy work rather than fund free school meals, etc etc,etc) but while those are being dealt with the children, through no fault of their own, are likely to have less to eat than they need.
In one of the richest countries in the world.
That is the problem.
And to qualify for FSM the parents have to be on universal credit IIRC which can take weeks or months to be approved.
Are school canteens used during school holidays at all? I would volunteer (next year when not working) to help out during the school holidays as would a lot of people
Who pays for the staff (helping out is great but are you qualified to cook 100s of meals, the food, the cleaning, the electricity, the DBS checks?
People are still being made redundant now or being put on 2/3rds of minimum wages now. So that's four to six weeks wait. Many will have savings, many won't, some won't have mortgages, loans and other bills to pay, others will.
Of course my scenario isn't free and I was not thinking of doing all the meals and everything else myself funnily enough as a community approach. No wonder people don't put forward suggestions or offer to volunteer if they get negative responses like this. And people bring in unnecessary comments about beneficiaries of a Tory government which is completely unnecessary.
There is too much political point scoring and sarcasm rather than looking at (just) the issues, solutions and causes. And the medium and longer-term solutions and addressing the various causes, than just throwing endless money at it.
So any ideas on how to solve it?
It is true food of some description is available to all. If you can afford to buy it, while paying the exorbitant rent, meet winter heating bills, buy winter clothing, if you have a living wage or your specific Universal credit works.
The introduction of Universal Credit was not to designed to better serve those in need but to remove operational cost. It is not fit for purpose. Just like outsourcing the Prison Service was not fit for purpose. Just like outsourcing the Test and Trace service when there were any number of existing centres of expertise in infectious disease control.
If you believe the benefits system is open to abuse I do not disagree but if you do not think there have been any number of cost benefit analysis exercises for a more targeted granular solution you are mistaken. They do not know how to do it.
So some will profit and too many will be disadvantaged.
With respect with circa 4m heading for unemployment in the face of a global pandemic this is not the time for this debate.
it is not a matter of politics it is a matter of Executive competence.
The Government is not arguing it is not responsible for feeding starving children. In the world's 5th largest economy God forbid. It can't it is enshrined in legal statute. Child welfare has been "nationalised" for decades.
This executive is arguing about how you feed starving children.
Starve is the right descriptor. To starve is to train yourself to live without food. Starvation is debilitating. Fear of starvation is equally pernicious.
Professionals employed across medical services, in social welfare, throughout education with teachers who act "in loco parentis" fully supporting the need for change.
Mr Rashford and food charities are arguing the Government approach is too obtuse, too slow and fundamentally flawed.
They seek to pursue clear unequivocal specific point of delivery solutions for today and for the foreseeable future.
The Government response thus represents no more than a control exercise.
In many ways it reflects so much of the policy confusion surrounding the pandemic.
It almost appears it is no longer a question of actually delivering solutions but merely presenting plausible deniability when solutions are not being delivered.
I need a Stig cartoon picturing a ship wrecked captain feverishly bailing out the water, as his ship is sinking, while acclaiming " Its not my fault I did not see the rock" but just look how much water I have got rid off.
All of course in the context of Covid 19 as his passengers increasing flounder in the rising waters of new infections and collapsing finances.
Can we please stop telling people what to do, and start listening and empowering them with the resources to deliver real life real time solutions. to lead their lives in a safe and secure manner.
Every new edict devalues it's predecessor. It is like continually devaluing your currency where the entire exercise renders the whole exercise pointless.
I refuse to believe it is beyond the invention, innovation, skills and industry of the British people to manage and live with Covid 19.
I suggest empowering those seeking to feed children in distress would be a very good start.