Marcus Rashford launches petition to urge immediate Government action on child poverty

Leeds_Addick said:

PrincessFiona said:

se9addick said:

PrincessFiona said:

se9addick said:

PrincessFiona said:

1989cafc said:

PrincessFiona said:

Addick Addict said:

ValleyGary said:

Addick Addict said:

se9addick said:

ValleyGary said:

Addick Addict said:

The Government spent £400 million on the "eat out to help out" scheme. How much would paying for free meals cost for starving children cost? £10m? £20m?

One thing that can be guaranteed is that more people will have contracted Covid as a result of the "eat out to help out scheme". Though more children will go hungry without the free meals. 

I thought the idea of the EOTHO scheme was to assist the hospitality industry. Considering that employs millions of waiting staff, chefs, kitchen porters, cleaners etc all on low income, they will have quite a struggle feeding their kids without a job. 

The way things are going at the moment it’ll cost a lot more than £20m to put food on the table across the country for everybody.

That said, I am in full support of children in need being feed 365 days a year whatever the means.

I think the EOHO scheme actually only operated for 13 days. And cost about half a million pounds.

Half a billion not half a million and it ran from the 3rd to 31st August

But only Monday to Wednesday 

Good point. At least if the Government fed the starving children from Monday to Wednesday they might only be starving for half the week!

My understanding is that this is not about cost but responsibility.

The government are not responsible for feeding children, their parent(s) are.

That said, there should be some way of identifying and helping truly destitute families

I hate this view of parental responsibility especially at a time like this.  Responsible parents are losing their jobs daily.  They have paid into the tax system and yet the government has decided their children will starve this half-term and Christmas.  A child does not choose to be born into poverty or to even the parents they are born too. The way I understand it, it is a question of humanity.

But these are not the parents I am talking about. The government is not deciding and some children may be going hungry (not starving).  I hate this use of emotive language, as it is not strictly correct. Lets find a way to help those genuinely in financial difficulty (not mismanaging income).

How is child benefit calculated and how far does it go to feeding and clothing each child (the highest priorities after accommodation and heating)

But none of that was in the proposition of Tuesday night. MPs were asked to vote on whether to feed hungry children or not. That’s it. The weren’t asked to whether to feed hungry children or not to feed hungry children but provide some alternative miraculous training course for parents who don’t realise that need to actually feed their kids. 

If you were an MP on the Commons on Tuesday, faced with the actual choice they had to make, how would you have voted?

They weren't asked to 'feed hungry children' as such. Again, emotive language (at least not using the work starving'

If I were an MP, I would be campaigning for, amongst other things, action to avoid children being in the position of being hungry (as well as going cold and inadequately dressed). And for identifying families in genuine need (as opposed to mis-prioritisation of income). And maybe how to provide a meal in the meantime for those where the income is not being prioritised with a corresponding reduction in child benefit or equivalent.

If I had any influence (as an MP or otherwise) I would be campaigning to reduce why it happens. If I owned a football club and we weren't getting the results, I wouldn't just keep  buying new players but look at the reasons why and what I could change

How would you have voted on Tuesday? 

I am not sure. It would depend if I were able to speak to on the wider issue and if this action was just a stop gap until longer-term policies. And a policy to help those in genuine need (and not those mis-prioritising)

Another concern is what is next, clothing and heating bills?

“If we stop the kids starving then we might have to make sure they’re not freezing as well”

Going hungry not starving. If they are starving they probably need to consider them being taken into care.

No one wants to see any child go hungry. We just have different beliefs on how best to go about it.

se9addick said:

The argument that children should be punished with hunger if their parents are irresponsible seems like something from a Dickens novel. 

Sadly, it is a view held by many in this country as this thread shows. It is fair enough that we should look at reasons why, and there are genuinely feckless parents out there, as well as good ones down on their luck or ill, but kids shouldn't go hungry to serve them right.

The suggestion that hungry kids won't eat the food given to them is insulting and disgusting in the extreme.

Well done dodging the question on how you would have voted on Tuesday PrincessFiona.

You also mentioned about educating rather than just feeding hungry children. Are you aware that studies have been done which categorically prove that hungry children struggle more with education than those who aren't hungry? So if you want to educate them, then it is probably a good idea that they aren't hungry to begin with.

Furthermore, you said that you want to treat the cause rather than a symptom, yet in many cases you have to treat symptoms before you can treat the cause. 

You're coming across, perhaps unintentionally, as someone who would be happy to see children go hungry because you want to deal with the parents. These children don't have any say in the situation that they have come into, why do you want to punish them for it, because regardless of what you say you are doing, by leaving them hungry you are punishing them?

Jdredsox said:

Well done dodging the question on how you would have voted on Tuesday PrincessFiona.

You also mentioned about educating rather than just feeding hungry children. Are you aware that studies have been done which categorically prove that hungry children struggle more with education than those who aren't hungry? So if you want to educate them, then it is probably a good idea that they aren't hungry to begin with.

Furthermore, you said that you want to treat the cause rather than a symptom, yet in many cases you have to treat symptoms before you can treat the cause. 

You're coming across, perhaps unintentionally, as someone who would be happy to see children go hungry because you want to deal with the parents. These children don't have any say in the situation that they have come into, why do you want to punish them for it, because regardless of what you say you are doing, by leaving them hungry you are punishing them?

Consequences not symptoms

I don't want any child to go hungry.  I don't have the answers and am just discussing the situation on a forum. I am not expecting everyone to agree

PrincessFiona said:

Vincenzo said:

Whether to feed kids whose parents can't afford to during a pandemic should not even be a question. 

We pay to subsidise the meals in the Members Dining Rooms ffs. Whose responsibility is it to make sure people on £80k a year get a decent lunch? 

But which kid's parents 'can't afford to'  that is part of the discussion. There is a difference between can't afford and chose not to. 

My comment about heating and clothing - should the state pay for that too? Maybe in extreme cases/circumstances but not when the income is not prioritised  - where would you stop and where would dependency on the state end?

Personally I think if income isn't prioritised, some should go direct to where it needs to and the income reduced accordingly. But that is a wider discussion. Unsurprisingly, I don't fully agree with housing benefit going to people to pay landlords etc. themselves. Yes, it helps give a sense of responsibility (which I truly believe needs to be encouraged and  developed) but I think that once 3 moths or more behind on the rent, it needs to revert to going direct.

It does (if requested by either the landlord or the claimant). There are also a number of other options and advice available to help people who genuinely want to budget properly but can't. As I have said before, most people receiving Universal Credit are also getting monthly wages as well.

All this really goes to show is that the minimum "living wage" is not actually anything of the sort.

iainment said:

Poverty is relative and I know there are countries that are in way worse situation than the UK, but we are a first world, rich country that can afford to look after itself.

I had free school meals all through school. We had vouchers for school uniforms. My mum struggled and did really well with what she had. We were in that position because my mum was divorced by my father when I was 5 in 1960.

I never minded any of that but what was worse was the way some people would make value judgements and look down on my family.

It’s what some ignorant people are doing here. No one chooses to be poor, no one chooses a life on benefits unless circumstances force them to it. The circumstances being no work, poorly paid work, medical issues, mental health issues and so on.

I have worked with families in various settings and I have yet to meet parents who didn’t want life for their kids to be better than their own.

There are short term things that deal with child hunger such as free meals.

There are long term things such as better education, more jobs that pay a decent wage.

If we choose to consciously let children go hungry then this country is beneath contempt.

And anyone advocating letting children go hungry as a way to “educate” their parents is even worse.

I agree with a lot of this but disagree that no one chooses a life on benefits (unfortunately). Some because they are actually better off. You have to admire those who chose to work despite being worse off, in many cases considerably worse off.

I am not aware of anyone advocating letting children go hungry as a way to “educate” their parents. How ever much education will help though.

cafc999 said:

soapboxsam said:

se9addick said:

KentishAddick said:

At the risk of being shot down is it not the parents job to ensure their kids are suitably looked after? My parents were never well off and we always struggled when I was younger, but they always ensured we had food. Don't see why the government is expected to bail everyone out if I'm being honest

If someone could enlighten me on this then I'm willing to listen

They aren’t bailing the parents out, they’re bailing the kids out.

Hard to argue with this point and Marcus Rashford is a fine ambassador and  spokesperson for the kids.

I made the decision to just have 2 kids: nature decided and we had two healthy kids. My wife then wanted more, but I wasn't certain about my future so two it was ! I had two cash streams, one stressful and one was boring. No way did I want or expect the state to pay for my kids or have to feed them, unless through sickness or an accident which meant I couldn't work.

I agree let's make sure no kids go hungry But why did Marcus's mum keep having children when according to Rashford, his dad kept going AWOL ?

I have advocated for years that the state gives good child benefits for the first two children. Then how about Birth control ?

What happens when someone has triplets?

Funny you should say that as I'm the third born in a triple birth ?

I was the one on the bottle 

https://twitter.com/larryandpaul/status/1319345275593347077?s=20

PrincessFiona said:

iainment said:

Poverty is relative and I know there are countries that are in way worse situation than the UK, but we are a first world, rich country that can afford to look after itself.

I had free school meals all through school. We had vouchers for school uniforms. My mum struggled and did really well with what she had. We were in that position because my mum was divorced by my father when I was 5 in 1960.

I never minded any of that but what was worse was the way some people would make value judgements and look down on my family.

It’s what some ignorant people are doing here. No one chooses to be poor, no one chooses a life on benefits unless circumstances force them to it. The circumstances being no work, poorly paid work, medical issues, mental health issues and so on.

I have worked with families in various settings and I have yet to meet parents who didn’t want life for their kids to be better than their own.

There are short term things that deal with child hunger such as free meals.

There are long term things such as better education, more jobs that pay a decent wage.

If we choose to consciously let children go hungry then this country is beneath contempt.

And anyone advocating letting children go hungry as a way to “educate” their parents is even worse.

I agree with a lot of this but disagree that no one chooses a life on benefits (unfortunately). Some because they are actually better off. You have to admire those who chose to work despite being worse off, in many cases considerably worse off.

I am not aware of anyone advocating letting children go hungry as a way to “educate” their parents. How ever much education will help though.

Sorry, but haven't you been doing something similar. Ok, to be fair, maybe you have a magic bullet idea that by starving children, parents that can do more will. There are all sorts of reasons why people are poor. You can have drug addict parents, mentally ill parents, and parents that have had bad luck. Ultimately, if you have no sympathy for them, you can't want to live in a society that is happy to step away from their needy kids.

The issue is quite simple as Rashford has highlighted. Kids are starving now in particularly difficult times, and free school meals are not a bonus but are essential to them.

PrincessFiona said:

Addick Addict said:

PrincessFiona said:

Addick Addict said:

ValleyGary said:

Addick Addict said:

se9addick said:

ValleyGary said:

Addick Addict said:

The Government spent £400 million on the "eat out to help out" scheme. How much would paying for free meals cost for starving children cost? £10m? £20m?

One thing that can be guaranteed is that more people will have contracted Covid as a result of the "eat out to help out scheme". Though more children will go hungry without the free meals. 

I thought the idea of the EOTHO scheme was to assist the hospitality industry. Considering that employs millions of waiting staff, chefs, kitchen porters, cleaners etc all on low income, they will have quite a struggle feeding their kids without a job. 

The way things are going at the moment it’ll cost a lot more than £20m to put food on the table across the country for everybody.

That said, I am in full support of children in need being feed 365 days a year whatever the means.

I think the EOHO scheme actually only operated for 13 days. And cost about half a million pounds.

Half a billion not half a million and it ran from the 3rd to 31st August

But only Monday to Wednesday 

Good point. At least if the Government fed the starving children from Monday to Wednesday they might only be starving for half the week!

My understanding is that this is not about cost but responsibility.

The government are not responsible for feeding children, their parent(s) are.

That said, there should be some way of identifying and helping truly destitute families

But the Government has a duty of care to look after neglected children too. If parent(s) cannot afford to do so then surely that responsibility passes onto them.

The paint job on Boris's plane cost almost a million. That money could have been re-directed to a more worthy cause couldn't it? 

As I said previously, I don't think it is about affordability. And sadly there are countless examples of where funds could re re-directed. It could even be deducted from the cost of child benefit for children in the relevant age groups.

As many commented, the issue is not with parents not being able to afford to do so. This may be the case in a small minority of cases - how to identify and help these children.

The best way to help neglected children is through education and enabling the current and future generations of parents.

And what about children who are going cold or inadequately dressed?

We buy them shoes and coats out of own pocket. Some parents cannot or will not. Sometimes you have to do what is right regardless of who is at "fault". 

seth plum said:

Here is a Tory MP making Angela Rayners point for her.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-54660719

How pathetic of Morgan and just shows how petty and spiteful they are.

'We got called a name so in response we'll make sure innocent kids go hungry in revenge'.

Such a low class of people.

seth plum said:

This is the response of a Tory MP when contacted by a constituent and asked why he voted 'no' in the vote to help children not to go hungry.

Still, Diane Abbott eh?

Right, because food poverty began in March...