UK Conservative Party Leadership Election

[ChopleyIOM]

I don't do forex trading so nope....

The point I was making is that the £ was always going to tank. No corruption to be seen here

Except no, because otherwise the market would have priced it in already, the market responded directly to Kwarteng's statement and the pound dropped by 4% in a day, the markets clearly weren't expecting the UK government to announce it would take on such much extra debt, and to do it in a way that would be both inflationary and not even generate much, if any, economic growth.

Out of interest, is there literally anything this lot could do that you wouldn't immediately jump up to defend and hand-wave away? I'm curious as to where the line might be, if indeed there is one.

 

[interlog]

Except no, because otherwise the market would have priced it in already, the market responded directly to Kwarteng's statement and the pound dropped by 4% in a day, the markets clearly weren't expecting the UK government to announce it would take on such much extra debt, and to do it in a way that would be both inflationary and not even generate much, if any, economic growth.

Out of interest, is there literally anything this lot could do that you wouldn't immediately jump up to defend and hand-wave away? I'm curious as to where the line might be, if indeed there is one.

So there was no tip off then if they only reacted when it was delivered..

"This lot" sums your agenda pretty much up

 

[dunover]

Congratulations, you must have made a fortune then!

It's slightly amusing that the Tories were telling us for a decade of austerity that government spending had to be massively slashed and taking on debt would be hugely irresponsible and the type of thing only those crazy Socialists in the Labour party would do and they'd crash the economy as a result.

Now here we are with massive amounts of fresh government debt, largely uncosted and with no plan to pay it back (except with magical unicorn growth that no serious economist believes is going to happen), and all to give a huge bung to the rich.

So it turns out the Tories do have a magical money tree after all, but only when they're making their mates richer, if it's providing stuff for normal people, then the tree strangely stops bearing fruit.

Still, I'm sure it'll all trickle down.

View attachment 173042

Didn't he even say "Please sir, can I have some more?"

The quote is meaningless without context. Was the child on a diet? If no free meals, parent(s) must be earning so what did they do with the money? Were they scagheads? Alchies? Buying cigs at £11 a box? Or did Liz Truss batter down the door to their dwelling in the night and steal all their bread and cheese, the Police following a trail of ready salted crisp crumbs back to Downing Street?

 

[ChopleyIOM]

So there was no tip off then if they only reacted when it was delivered..

"This lot" sums your agenda pretty much up

So here's the chain of events, this is a simple statement of facts, none of it can be disupted.

Odey employs Kwarteng
Odey bankrolls Brexit
Brexit destabilises UK
Kwarteng becomes Chancellor
Odey bets against GBP
Kwarteng destabilises GBP
Odey reaps enormous rewards

And you're just like, 'It's all fine, no corruption, not even a whiff of it, everything is great'.

As for referring to the current Tory administration as 'this lot', that's simply a reflection of how little regard I have for them, I was of the opinion that things couldn't go downhill from Johnson's useless cabal, but Truss is certainly doing her best to give him and his cronies a run for their money. (Well, a run for everyone else's money except their own, as it turns out.)

But hey, maybe I'm completely wrong and this economic miracle that they've bet the country on will pay off, we'll just have to wait and see.

 

[interlog]

So here's the chain of events, this is a simple statement of facts, none of it can be disupted.

Odey employs Kwarteng
Odey bankrolls Brexit
Brexit destabilises UK
Kwarteng becomes Chancellor
Odey bets against GBP
Kwarteng destabilises GBP
Odey reaps enormous rewards

And you're just like, 'It's all fine, no corruption, not even a whiff of it, everything is great'.

As for referring to the current Tory administration as 'this lot', that's simply a reflection of how little regard I have for them, I was of the opinion that things couldn't go downhill from Johnson's useless cabal, but Truss is certainly doing her best to give him and his cronies a run for their money. (Well, a run for everyone else's money except their own, as it turns out.)

But hey, maybe I'm completely wrong and this economic miracle that they've bet the country on will pay off, we'll just have to wait and see.

Well that is what traders do, speculate on what may happen and hope to make dosh on it. It was well predicted borrowing was going to increase.

You're accusing corruption without any shred of evidence.

Your opinion of it has has as much value as mine or the next person putting their 2p in.

 

[dunover]

Well that is what traders do, speculate on what may happen and hope to make dosh on it. It was well predicted borrowing was going to increase.

You're accusing corruption without any shred of evidence.

Your opinion of it has has as much value as mine or the next person putting their 2p in.

Well he is getting desperate now - take the meaningless quote about the alleged Lewisham schoolchild, where the inference is that somehow a capitalist cabal/Johnson/Truss/Brexit/King Charles/ have conspired to empty their lunchbox. So we are to take it without proof, on trust, that this is wholly the govts. doing and nothing to do with parent(s) decision making or the household the child lives in?? Even for desperate @ChopleyIOM that post is disingenuous, like what you'd expect to see in the Graudina or Mirror.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Well he is getting desperate now - take the meaningless quote about the alleged Lewisham schoolchild, where the inference is that somehow a capitalist cabal/Johnson/Truss/Brexit/King Charles/ have conspired to empty their lunchbox. So we are to take it without proof, on trust, that this is wholly the govts. doing and nothing to do with parent(s) decision making or the household the child lives in?? Even for desperate @ChopleyIOM that post is disingenuous, like what you'd expect to see in the Graudina or Mirror.

Tell me again about those Labour Marxist Republicans and the national anthem, because that was an absolute shocker, I'm still reeling from it, in honesty.

 

[goatwack]

Whilst I don't disbelieve the Lewisham school kid's story, it's worth bearing in mind that less 'well-to-do' families have always been around, certainly in the associated South-East boroughs.

Lewisham has a strong ethnic makeup and predominantly black, underprivileged, lower income families, and I don't see anything having changed in the 35 years I've known it. It was a stone's throw from Blackheath, not to mention that I've lived there, had friends there and worked in many of its 'delectable' outlets.

The tale of how one child's been thrust into hunger and abandonment strikes me as odd, were it not for how kids ate badly all throughout my school dinner days, and that saving face amongst one's peers aka 'styling it' is nothing new either.

You'd think then that having been in the opulence of Blackheath that I'd somehow be enjoying my 'privilege' and lording it over my contemporaries.....

Except no, we were poor as sin, "Mama" (single mum of course) cooked and improvised, forewent excess vices and 'got by'. School dinners were never the mainstay of anyone's diet, and those reliant on them ought to cast a glance at their parents' lifestyle choices, if that article's to be fully believed.

I knew kids from Lewisham from single parent backgrounds, where the mother of two/ three / four kids would still ensure their kids ate properly. So whilst not true for everyone, I'd hope people could maybe look past the hyperbolic stories and perhaps acknowledge that the UK's Benefits system is beyond compare and more than generous in keeping people - at the very least - well-fed.

Fact is these SE locales have been left to rot for the longest time, abandoned by the elites, so you can count Lewisham, Deptford, Woolwich etc in amongst those. And yes, those elites include Labour politicians, as these areas are Labour-run.

Anyone thinking the Downing St. posse care one jot for anyone but themselves, and wish to attain the betterment of all and sundry as part of an Aspiration Nation, well, you know what to do. Give your head a wobble. C'mon! Wobble wobble!

 

[dunover]

Whilst I don't disbelieve the Lewisham school kid's story, it's worth bearing in mind that less 'well-to-do' families have always been around, certainly in the associated South-East boroughs.

Lewisham has a strong ethnic makeup and predominantly black, underprivileged, lower income families, and I don't see anything having changed in the 35 years I've known it. It was a stone's throw from Blackheath, not to mention that I've lived there, had friends there and worked in many of its 'delectable' outlets.

The tale of how one child's been thrust into hunger and abandonment strikes me as odd, were it not for how kids ate badly all throughout my school dinner days, and that saving face amongst one's peers aka 'styling it' is nothing new either.

You'd think then that having been in the opulence of Blackheath that I'd somehow be enjoying my 'privilege' and lording it over my contemporaries.....

Except no, we were poor as sin, "Mama" (single mum of course) cooked and improvised, forewent excess vices and 'got by'. School dinners were never the mainstay of anyone's diet, and those reliant on them ought to cast a glance at their parents' lifestyle choices, if that article's to be fully believed.

I knew kids from Lewisham from single parent backgrounds, where the mother of two/ three / four kids would still ensure their kids ate properly. So whilst not true for everyone, I'd hope people could maybe look past the hyperbolic stories and perhaps acknowledge that the UK's Benefits system is beyond compare and more than generous in keeping people - at the very least - well-fed.

Fact is these SE locales have been left to rot for the longest time, abandoned by the elites, so you can count Lewisham, Deptford, Woolwich etc in amongst those. And yes, those elites include Labour politicians, as these areas are Labour-run.

Anyone thinking the Downing St. posse care one jot for anyone but themselves, and wish to attain the betterment of all and sundry as part of an Aspiration Nation, well, you know what to do. Give your head a wobble. C'mon! Wobble wobble!

No, you're missing the narrative here - Quasi Quarterback and Liz Trump STOLE that kid's food and gave it as 'seconds' to the more prosperous kids who had already stuffed themselves with smuggled-in takeaways and industrial-sized bags of Haribo.

It probably never contained food anyway, but a selection of clingwrapped 'street merchandise' disguised in a medium-sliced bread bag. On his way home he peeled off a tenner and treated himself to a large kebab with fries.

I think part two there was what our chopley conveniently missed. If he carries on like that, he'll end up as a BBC journalist or Gradinua columnist.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

The point is, surely, that there's a hungry child, and that's the problem that needs to be fixed. I don't much care the why or the how, we can look at that later, for now the problem is the hungry child, so let's make sure the child eats. Maybe the parents are feckless layabouts, but that's not the child's fault, 'Hey there young lad, your parents are a bit crap, so you go hungry today, sorry! Be sure to concentrate on your lessons this afternoon whilst all you can think about is how hungry you are'.

I did my Monty Python Yorkshiremen post here - General Election 2019 thread - Page 48 - Casinomeister Forum

So I know all too well what it's like to be skint as fuck, but when I hear about hungry children here in the year 2022 my response to that is 'Well for fuck's sake, let's feed the hungry children then, and how the fuck do we have hungry children in one of the wealthiest countries on earth'.

In this scenario the victim is the child, so we make things better for the child, we can sort out why the child is in that situation in the first place as a follow-on task.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

What this budget is though, is kick ass bold IMO. Like going all in on a game of poker, betting your house and not entirely confident you are going to win when the cards are turned over.

That's the problem with gambles, sometimes you lose them.



And all that new government debt Kwarteng took on to give to the rich, it's getting a lot more expensive, in real time.

 

[paul7388]

The point is, surely, that there's a hungry child, and that's the problem that needs to be fixed. I don't much care the why or the how, we can look at that later, for now the problem is the hungry child, so let's make sure the child eats. Maybe the parents are feckless layabouts, but that's not the child's fault, 'Hey there young lad, your parents are a bit crap, so you go hungry today, sorry! Be sure to concentrate on your lessons this afternoon whilst all you can think about is how hungry you are'.

I did my Monty Python Yorkshiremen post here - General Election 2019 thread - Page 48 - Casinomeister Forum

So I know all too well what it's like to be skint as fuck, but when I hear about hungry children here in the year 2022 my response to that is 'Well for fuck's sake, let's feed the hungry children then, and how the fuck do we have hungry children in one of the wealthiest countries on earth'.

In this scenario the victim is the child, so we make things better for the child, we can sort out why the child is in that situation in the first place as a follow-on task.

How do you go about feeding hungry children tho. Sounds good to do it in principle .

But sadly the fault with majority of hungry children is the parents.

Parents on benefits may not be rich. But then taking into account what they actually receive they are no worse off than lower income working families. I have never been rich myself and had many a bad day when money was so tight, that's if I even had any but you know what never once did my boys go without food.

But it is the culture today in this country. Everyone pleads poverty and wants more. Fair enough don't we all.

But problem arises in most cases as most on benefits put themselves first. You notice most of the poorer people drink and smoke. I see it all the time. They are skint and cannot feed kids while getting emergency food delivered and going to food banks. Yet they can certainly go down to shops and get 20 fags and a drink.

Take Saturday when I was at a shop. A young boy asked his mum for a drink. He got a mouthful about how skint she was and he could wait till later when home. She then brought 20 fags and a tenner in scratchcards. And that's the normal for many.

Do I feel sorry for hungry kids. Yes as not their fault. But the solution is what. Yes some poor parents put children first. These are the ones that will not go hungry. So many don't tho. So no idea how you can end child poverty with the way many parents are.

You give them another 2 hundred quid a week. You think the children will get the money that is meant for them. No chance it means the parents will be able to buy more drugs. Buy dearer booze instead of cheapest piss while now affording an extra few takeaways. Where the kids will still go to school hungry.

 

[pinnit2014]

How do you go about feeding hungry children tho. Sounds good to do it in principle .

But sadly the fault with majority of hungry children is the parents.

Parents on benefits may not be rich. But then taking into account what they actually receive they are no worse off than lower income working families. I have never been rich myself and had many a bad day when money was so tight, that's if I even had any but you know what never once did my boys go without food.

But it is the culture today in this country. Everyone pleads poverty and wants more. Fair enough don't we all.

But problem arises in most cases as most on benefits put themselves first. You notice most of the poorer people drink and smoke. I see it all the time. They are skint and cannot feed kids while getting emergency food delivered and going to food banks. Yet they can certainly go down to shops and get 20 fags and a drink.

Take Saturday when I was at a shop. A young boy asked his mum for a drink. He got a mouthful about how skint she was and he could wait till later when home. She then brought 20 fags and a tenner in scratchcards. And that's the normal for many.

Do I feel sorry for hungry kids. Yes as not their fault. But the solution is what. Yes some poor parents put children first. These are the ones that will not go hungry. So many don't tho. So no idea how you can end child poverty with the way many parents are.

You give them another 2 hundred quid a week. You think the children will get the money that is meant for them. No chance it means the parents will be able to buy more drugs. Buy dearer booze instead of cheapest piss while now affording an extra few takeaways. Where the kids will still go to school hungry.

It's why i bring you Yum Yum's now and then from Greggs- doing my socialist part - gotta feed the hungry Scots

Does Housing Benefit still get paid direct to the person to pay on? IMO that was one of the silliest things in recent years that was agreed - Rent Arrears shooting up as a result. Yet, to some people it was a surprise. Sure, some probably seen getting the money direct as a way of going to the supermarket etc if struggling but a decent chunk would have diverted it away by some 'less responsible' folk.

 

[megadam]

How do you go about feeding hungry children tho. Sounds good to do it in principle .

But sadly the fault with majority of hungry children is the parents.

Parents on benefits may not be rich. But then taking into account what they actually receive they are no worse off than lower income working families. I have never been rich myself and had many a bad day when money was so tight, that's if I even had any but you know what never once did my boys go without food.

But it is the culture today in this country. Everyone pleads poverty and wants more. Fair enough don't we all.

But problem arises in most cases as most on benefits put themselves first. You notice most of the poorer people drink and smoke. I see it all the time. They are skint and cannot feed kids while getting emergency food delivered and going to food banks. Yet they can certainly go down to shops and get 20 fags and a drink.

Take Saturday when I was at a shop. A young boy asked his mum for a drink. He got a mouthful about how skint she was and he could wait till later when home. She then brought 20 fags and a tenner in scratchcards. And that's the normal for many.

Do I feel sorry for hungry kids. Yes as not their fault. But the solution is what. Yes some poor parents put children first. These are the ones that will not go hungry. So many don't tho. So no idea how you can end child poverty with the way many parents are.

You give them another 2 hundred quid a week. You think the children will get the money that is meant for them. No chance it means the parents will be able to buy more drugs. Buy dearer booze instead of cheapest piss while now affording an extra few takeaways. Where the kids will still go to school hungry.

And that's the problem with @ChopleyIOM 's ideological socialist fantasy is that just because everybody gets the same or we give out even more help that all of a sudden people will start behaving or acting the same or being more fair. It won't happen as pointed above, some will use the money wisely, a majority of people won't because we have such deep-rooted fundamental issues with addiction, accessible drugs and other societal problems that fundamentally people will never escape from or get the support for.

Ultimately my belief if we want to start helping people more is to actually invest more in health and support services to help with the problems I noted above. Heck even fiscal responsibility is something that really should be consciously taught as part of an education given the times we're headed into :/

 

[ChopleyIOM]

And that's the problem with @ChopleyIOM 's ideological socialist fantasy is that just because everybody gets the same or we give out even more help that all of a sudden people will start behaving or acting the same or being more fair. It won't happen as pointed above, some will use the money wisely, a majority of people won't because we have such deep-rooted fundamental issues with addiction, accessible drugs and other societal problems that fundamentally people will never escape from or get the support for.

Ultimately my belief if we want to start helping people more is to actually invest more in health and support services to help with the problems I noted above. Heck even fiscal responsibility is something that really should be consciously taught as part of an education given the times we're headed into :/

It's why i bring you Yum Yum's now and then from Greggs- doing my socialist part - gotta feed the hungry Scots

Does Housing Benefit still get paid direct to the person to pay on? IMO that was one of the silliest things in recent years that was agreed - Rent Arrears shooting up as a result. Yet, to some people it was a surprise. Sure, some probably seen getting the money direct as a way of going to the supermarket etc if struggling but a decent chunk would have diverted it away by some 'less responsible' folk.

How do you go about feeding hungry children tho. Sounds good to do it in principle .

But sadly the fault with majority of hungry children is the parents.

Parents on benefits may not be rich. But then taking into account what they actually receive they are no worse off than lower income working families. I have never been rich myself and had many a bad day when money was so tight, that's if I even had any but you know what never once did my boys go without food.

But it is the culture today in this country. Everyone pleads poverty and wants more. Fair enough don't we all.

But problem arises in most cases as most on benefits put themselves first. You notice most of the poorer people drink and smoke. I see it all the time. They are skint and cannot feed kids while getting emergency food delivered and going to food banks. Yet they can certainly go down to shops and get 20 fags and a drink.

Take Saturday when I was at a shop. A young boy asked his mum for a drink. He got a mouthful about how skint she was and he could wait till later when home. She then brought 20 fags and a tenner in scratchcards. And that's the normal for many.

Do I feel sorry for hungry kids. Yes as not their fault. But the solution is what. Yes some poor parents put children first. These are the ones that will not go hungry. So many don't tho. So no idea how you can end child poverty with the way many parents are.

You give them another 2 hundred quid a week. You think the children will get the money that is meant for them. No chance it means the parents will be able to buy more drugs. Buy dearer booze instead of cheapest piss while now affording an extra few takeaways. Where the kids will still go to school hungry.

Yeah that's all cool, but the child is still hungry. We haven't fixed that that.

Free school dinners for those who need them, so every child gets at least one decent hot meal per day, and we carry on doing it in the holidays too.

Yeah OK it's gonna cost a few quid, however, no one ever gets to say 'Oh but who's going to pay for it', or 'Yeah OK Mr Socialist Utopia but we can't afford it' ever again.

If a Conservative chancellor can load up hundreds of billions of pounds of fresh government debt onto the UK taxpayer to give a massive handout to the already wealthy and massive corporations, on the off chance it might lead to some economic growth, don't anyone even dare to suggest that we can't afford to feed hungry children.

We can look at the root causes afterwards, better health care, better mental health services, better support structures, whatever it may be to get the parents into a more stable place, but for now we just feed the hungry children, and we absolutely can afford it.

The Tories had a magic money tree all along, they just weren't prepared to give it a shake if the fruits were going to fall into the hands of the less well off.

 

[paul7388]

Yeah that's all cool, but the child is still hungry. We haven't fixed that that.

Free school dinners for those who need them, so every child gets at least once decent hot meal per day, and we carry on doing it in the holidays too.

Yeah OK it's gonna cost a few quid, however, no one ever gets to say 'Oh but who's going to pay for it', or 'Yeah OK Mr Socialist Utopia but we can't afford it' ever again.

If a Conservative chancellor can load up hundreds of billions of pounds of fresh government debt onto the UK taxpayer to give a massive handout to the already wealthy and massive corporations, on the off chance it might lead to some economic growth, don't anyone even dare to suggest that we can't afford to feed hungry children.

We can look at the root causes afterwards, better health care, better mental health services, better support structures, whatever it may be to get the parents into a more stable place, but for now we just feed the hungry children, and we absolutely can afford it.

The Tories had a magic money tree all along, they just weren't prepared to give it a shake if the fruits were going to fall into the hands of the less well off.

Okay take Scotland. Every primary school child is entitled to free meals.

Even during school holidays the parents were gave vouchers to make sure kids were fed. You know what many sold them at discount prices to spend money on other things.

Sorry it is easy to report what you read online or view on certain media sources.

You yourself admit to like myself coming from a poor background. Difference is I still stay in a deprived city housing scheme. No offence but I see daily all the things you mention. People using food banks. Hungry kids . People having no power etc.

And you know what. Yes some do put kids first. Those are the ones that the kids will get fed no matter what. Like I always made sure my kids came first in bad days.

But sorry it might be hard to understand as you do not see it first hand. But for a simple fact. In my area alone I would guess that only say 1 out of 10 poor families actually use money to put kids first. The rest of them their money can buy fags drink or spend £20 plus a day on green yet they can't afford to eat.

So even if the government gave all these families a hundred pound extra every week on benefits do you really believe most of the hungry kids will get fed. Sorry but in reality they should but they will not.

Many parents would automatically buy dearer booze than the cheap piss they drink at moment. They would also squander the money then complain days later they were skint.

And as for people needing food banks like you have mentioned before. But sorry unless you see it every day first hand then you will never truly understand the reality. Maybe if you could go back to your roots for a year you would see. Some families desperately need money for kids through no fault of own. I would say more the working families that can not cope with bills and get no help.

The ones on benefits that use them. Well this is not a minority I am talking the majority. They are families that smoke. Drink and squander money. Many get their benefits and first thing they have to do is pay there tick bill for all the green they have ticked. They then get their drink and smoke every day. Then complain they have no money for essentials. Sorry that is so wrong.

So handing more money to people like that is a waste of time and funds.

You know only way you can make sure kids are fed and have power etc. Well only way is a way that would never be allowed . Instead of giving people hundreds a week in benefits. Do it in a way that helps them. Make sure so much can only be used on power. So much can only be used on food In their name. You get the drift. Make sure everything people needs is paid for the. And anything left they can squander. Yes it will never happen and never be allowed. Nor should it but in reality it is only way to guarantee benefits are used for the reason they are given.

 

[TheAddict]

So you expect to fix every single case of a child going hungry with the click of a few buttons and exchanges of numbers in bank accounts? jeez.

The mother of my neice is a degenerate whore who pops prescription pills, steals, lies, various illegsl drugs, strong cheap ass lager forthe afternoon is normal, and not only does she get alot of money in support due to having a child, she also has had her weekly shopping paid for and delivered, by my brother (her ex, who is now fighting for custody, which should have been an quickly open and shut case. But no, not in this clown world) so as to keep his child healthy when that degenerate c*** ran out of money, time and time again. It became fairly obvious that even by doing the fkng shopping and loading it in the useless c***s fridge, it mewnt she knew she could keep back more of her other benefits for herself.

You make it sound like they could have fixed everyones problems so quickly, Chop. My brother does more than throw money at her, he takes the food and puts it in the fridge. Other ths tie her up and feed them both, please tell me how much money and food is enough before she is satisfied with her take of it and there would also still be enough left for my neice to not go without. I'd appreciate it.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

But I'm not suggesting giving these people more money, I'm saying have the schools provide a decent hot meal to any child who needs one, and to also do that during the holidays.

No extra money changes hands so no opportunity for anything to get spent in the 'wrong way', child goes to school, child gets a decent hot meal. The service is also run during the holidays, so as a simple baseline, every child gets a proper meal at least once per day.

All the other (many) problems in society are far bigger fish to fry, and they absolutely should be addressed, and they need to be addressed, I'm talking specifically about getting a proper meal into the mouths of hungry children at least once per day, which is all the more important if their parents are pissed and stoned at home, spunking their money away on a load of shit.

The children didn't do anything wrong, they should still get their chance at a decent life, whatever the sins of their parents, a decent meal once per day won't fix everything, but it's a start, it's something.

 

[dunover]

So you expect to fix every single case of a child going hungry with the click of a few buttons and exchanges of numbers in bank accounts? jeez.

The mother of my neice is a degenerate whore who pops prescription pills, steals, lies, various illegsl drugs, strong cheap ass lager forthe afternoon is normal, and not only does she get alot of money in support due to having a child, she also has had her weekly shopping paid for and delivered, by my brother (her ex, who is now fighting for custody, which should have been an quickly open and shut case. But no, not in this clown world) so as to keep his child healthy when that degenerate c*** ran out of money, time and time again. It became fairly obvious that even by doing the fkng shopping and loading it in the useless c***s fridge, it mewnt she knew she could keep back more of her other benefits for herself.

You make it sound like they could have fixed everyones problems so quickly, Chop. My brother does more than throw money at her, he takes the food and puts it in the fridge. Other ths tie her up and feed them both, please tell me how much money and food is enough before she is satisfied with her take of it and there would also still be enough left for my neice to not go without. I'd appreciate it.

Well, that's socialism for you. In chopley's idealistic world everyone is equal and of equal ability so if wealth was shared equally 100% of the population would be happy. (Yes, we know the concept has starved and killed 100,000,000 people in just over a century, but they of flat-earth politics like him and Corbyn deny the history of failure and misery, Venezuela being the lastest example of a rich country descending into death, famine and deprivation under Corbyn's old pal Chavez.)

Socialism needs to take responsibility from people to function, and that goes against basic human nature. Of course, the unambitious, ignorant and lazy will love it as the state takes their decision-making and responsibility away from them, gives them their utopia. Alas it's doomed to failure as once this insiduous form of state control and power (always the objective of socialist politicians, making a majority of the citizens dependent) gets embedded, the irony becomes apparent immediately - those whom are able, have ideas, create and invent are dulled when the wealth they could have created never comes to fruition and the inevitable decline and impoverishment of socialism occurs.

There is of course one exception - when a country has natural resources to plunder and plug the wealth loss mentioned above - until they haven't.

The depressing thing about people like chopley is that there is no ethos in the modern history of mankind that has such numerous examples of failure - what is the saying again? Ah, those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Yet still they blather on, always failing to win control as fortunately the majority of people are aware of this litany of failure.

He only has to go back 50 years when we had inefficient nationalised industries producing mainly crap nobody wanted, a 90% super-tax on the wealthy so they became tax exiles instead of bringing their money into the UK and spending it, inventors and businessmen didn't create wealth here, they fled abroad in the so-called 'brain drain'. People wouldn't invest here from abroad. The worker had to pay a 33% basic rate of tax. The list could go on...

I suppose you liken it to the comprehensive education ideals - the fantasy was it would improve lower-ability kids to compete with the more able, when all it did mostly was bring the more able ones down a level. Same as socialism does. When these ideas are mooted and enacted, 'gravity' always wins and standards fall for everyone.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Well, that's socialism for you. In chopley's idealistic world everyone is equal and of equal ability so if wealth was shared equally 100% of the population would be happy. (Yes, we know the concept has starved and killed 100,000,000 people in just over a century, but they of flat-earth politics like him and Corbyn deny the history of failure and misery, Venezuela being the lastest example of a rich country descending into death, famine and deprivation under Corbyn's old pal Chavez.)

Socialism needs to take responsibility from people to function, and that goes against basic human nature. Of course, the unambitious, ignorant and lazy will love it as the state takes their decision-making and responsibility away from them, gives them their utopia. Alas it's doomed to failure as once this insiduous form of state control and power (always the objective of socialist politicians, making a majority of the citizens dependent) gets embedded, the irony becomes apparent immediately - those whom are able, have ideas, create and invent are dulled when the wealth they could have created never comes to fruition and the inevitable decline and impoverishment of socialism occurs.

There is of course one exception - when a country has natural resources to plunder and plug the wealth loss mentioned above - until they haven't.

The depressing thing about people like chopley is that there is no ethos in the modern history of mankind that has such numerous examples of failure - what is the saying again? Ah, those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Yet still they blather on, always failing to win control as fortunately the majority of people are aware of this litany of failure.

He only has to go back 50 years when we had inefficient nationalised industries producing mainly crap nobody wanted, a 90% super-tax on the wealthy so they became tax exiles instead of bringing their money into the UK and spending it, inventors and businessmen didn't create wealth here, they fled abroad in the so-called 'brain drain'. People wouldn't invest here from abroad. The worker had to pay a 33% basic rate of tax. The list could go on...

I suppose you liken it to the comprehensive education ideals - the fantasy was it would improve lower-ability kids to compete with the more able, when all it did mostly was bring the more able ones down a level. Same as socialism does. When these ideas are mooted and enacted, 'gravity' always wins and standards fall for everyone.

Literally all I'm advocating for here is feeding hungry children.

Meanwhile, in other news.

All that fresh government debt is getting very, very expensive.

 

[pinnit2014]

FSM during holidays? I seen that last year - a cash payment here in Scotland. The State's now a Corporate Parent - joyous days, indeed.

Think we'll leave it there - certainly this site, amongst people advocate for responsibility for gambling addictions or otherwise and the same can be said for Parenthood.

 

[Siohmy]

Have to say (as a lifetime Tory voter) the horseshit emanating from the current Government - no more windfall taxes, ridiculous borrowing, shoving more money and tax cuts at already rich folk - is somewhat dispiriting. All very reckless, and against the national interest. Putting future unborn generations into crippling debt.

They won't get the "growth" they are looking for because the structure of the economy is moribund and the people tired, mostly broke and unmotivated. They'll just add fuel to inflation and pad some peoples' bank accounts.

But the answer isn't useless Labour. I'll die before I ever vote for a woke red rosette.

Officially politically homeless now.

Pretty much sums up my position as well. The economic line being taken is appalling but have also never felt more powerless to do anything about it.

 

[goatwack]

Pardon my insolence but I'm still stuck on the Lewisham schoolkid story, like Frogger going side-to-side on the first log.

Going by that article's meagre context, families have to qualify to be in receipt of free school meals (seen it, done it) after which they're handed a glorified 'stub' to redeem at the till. This entitles one to a pretty reasonably sized main, with even a dessert of sorts (usually whatever they've cobbled up, aka sponge cake plonked amidst a sea of cold lumpy custard).

So if not eligible for the free school meal, then it would stand to reason that the parents are of a suitably adequate income to provide their kids with meals for the day? And yet, going by the Lewisham tale, the kid went 'hungry' regardless, which, let it be said, is not of his own making, but his parents'.

Seemingly the narrative appears to be 'screw personal accountability, the state owes me <something>' and the general feeling that schools and governments not only 'parent' children, but provide their daily sustenance too!

I'd wager in a case as 'severe' as the kid simulating eating out of an empty lunchbox the school would more than likely provide food, and dinner ladies have been known to give out the day's remains at the end, as opposed to chucking them anyway.

The whole notion that children in this country are impoverished and starved by the state is complete tripe, and the construct of some Guardian blogger's mind after having read about it on Wikipedia

 

[pinnit2014]

GIRFEC, a scheme proposed by the Scottish Government was scrapped several years ago - basically the kid would have, essentially, a corporate parent in a public sector body (yes, even as i write this, is sounds insane) - but that's what IMO FSM in summer time (here's me thinking, as i sat here, i have a responsibility to feed my kid, not the taxpayers of the country)

On another note - millions was poured into this by a Socialist Government who didn't even think to double check it with the ECHR

An interesting quote by one of the groups that brought the legal challenge was that 'the responsibility for monitoring the childs wellbeing is a role for the parent, not the state' - something that is lost within the blinkered in this thread.

 

[dunover]

Pardon my insolence but I'm still stuck on the Lewisham schoolkid story, like Frogger going side-to-side on the first log.

Going by that article's meagre context, families have to qualify to be in receipt of free school meals (seen it, done it) after which they're handed a glorified 'stub' to redeem at the till. This entitles one to a pretty reasonably sized main, with even a dessert of sorts (usually whatever they've cobbled up, aka sponge cake plonked amidst a sea of cold lumpy custard).

So if not eligible for the free school meal, then it would stand to reason that the parents are of a suitably adequate income to provide their kids with meals for the day? And yet, going by the Lewisham tale, the kid went 'hungry' regardless, which, let it be said, is not of his own making, but his parents'.

Seemingly the narrative appears to be 'screw personal accountability, the state owes me <something>' and the general feeling that schools and governments not only 'parent' children, but provide their daily sustenance too!

I'd wager in a case as 'severe' as the kid simulating eating out of an empty lunchbox the school would more than likely provide food, and dinner ladies have been known to give out the day's remains at the end, as opposed to chucking them anyway.

The whole notion that children in this country are impoverished and starved by the state is complete tripe, and the construct of some Guardian blogger's mind after having read about it on Wikipedia

You lucky sod! Beats my pigeon gruel with lumpy mash and afters cold blancmange drowning in a pool of subliming powder-jelly. On Fridays a bowl of semolina which resembled anaemic vomit but you would eat the miniscule dollop of strawberry jam splodged into the centre.

Probably helped explain why fat kids when I went to both primary and secondary school were as rare as Bonanza 1000x's