The government aren't making the argument that they have a better plan than the one Rashford and Labour are asking for: they're saying it isn't their business to be feeding poor, hungry kids when school's not in session.
The closest I've seen to a defence is that they've increased the weekly UC payment by £20. That is in no way a substitute for a properly funded program to provide free meals. Even if you're only talking about one child it's hard to feed anyone on >£3 a day. Other than that it's the same blurb about investing millions into the scheme to feed kids during the school term but I wouldn't call it a cracking success if they're doing nothing about the gaps in coverage during the holidays.
0
GumpyThere is alwaysa greater powerRegistered Userregular
The government aren't making the argument that they have a better plan than the one Rashford and Labour are asking for: they're saying it isn't their business to be feeding poor, hungry kids when school's not in session.
The closest I've seen to a defence is that they've increased the weekly UC payment by £20. That is in no way a substitute for a properly funded program to provide free meals. Even if you're only talking about one child it's hard to feed anyone on >£3 a day. Other than that it's the same blurb about investing millions into the scheme to feed kids during the school term but I wouldn't call it a cracking success if they're doing nothing about the gaps in coverage during the holidays.
Wasn't the voucher the £20 replaced worth £15?
Edit as this was a bit short: There are multiple discussions happening in parallel here:
1) Is funding meals to kids outside of term time a welfare or an education issue. This... doesn't matter to anyone outside of Government (I think people here want kids to be fed more than they care which cost code does it?) but please do pile on if the exact source of the funding is a prime concern
2) Is the £20 uplift better or worse than the £15 voucher - this can be answered with data. One will be more effective than the other at getting food to kids. I don't think the data needed to work this one through has been posted to the thread
3) Was any system effective enough to begin with? I think that this is the line you're going down, but do correct if wrong. There's still food poverty, so I'm going to go with "No" - but the current discussion is about two options to resolve and neither goes significantly further than the other.
I think I've genuinely reached a point where I can admit that I fundamentally do not understand people who are still in support of this government and its policies.
The worldview just seems entirely alien to me.
I think I support the governments position on this one.
We have kids going hungry. We should be:
A) Maximising the money available to families with kids in food poverty while other programmes are being developed that more effectively resolve the issue. If the vouchers are less than the uplift, why support the old system?
By moving away from the contract, those administrative costs can be invested in programmes that directly tackle the issues behind food poverty. The ultimate objective here is feeding kids - we should choose the approaches that are most effective at doing so.
So the uplift strengthens the plaster, but if there's robust evidence that the money isn't actually going to feeding them, other approaches need to be explored that achieve this. Kids shouldn't starve for the sake of politics.
As always, having good access to the underlying data would be immensely helpful on having an outside view of if this is the best approach, but if the evidence is robust - feed the kids.
Generally you should have your replacement ready to go before ending the current offering. Certain things just don't really have a transition period that can last more than a day or two, and eating food is definitely among them. That approach seems about as useful as a 10 month pregnancy test.
I'm seeing articles saying the new system came into place months ago, so not quite sure what you mean by a transition period for it?
The government aren't making the argument that they have a better plan than the one Rashford and Labour are asking for: they're saying it isn't their business to be feeding poor, hungry kids when school's not in session.
The closest I've seen to a defence is that they've increased the weekly UC payment by £20. That is in no way a substitute for a properly funded program to provide free meals. Even if you're only talking about one child it's hard to feed anyone on >£3 a day. Other than that it's the same blurb about investing millions into the scheme to feed kids during the school term but I wouldn't call it a cracking success if they're doing nothing about the gaps in coverage during the holidays.
Wasn't the voucher the £20 replaced worth £15?
Edit as this was a bit short: There are multiple discussions happening in parallel here:
1) Is funding meals to kids outside of term time a welfare or an education issue. This... doesn't matter to anyone outside of Government (I think people here want kids to be fed more than they care which cost code does it?) but please do pile on if the exact source of the funding is a prime concern
2) Is the £20 uplift better or worse than the £15 voucher - this can be answered with data. One will be more effective than the other at getting food to kids. I don't think the data needed to work this one through has been posted to the thread
3) Was any system effective enough to begin with? I think that this is the line you're going down, but do correct if wrong. There's still food poverty, so I'm going to go with "No" - but the current discussion is about two options to resolve and neither goes significantly further than the other.
I think I've genuinely reached a point where I can admit that I fundamentally do not understand people who are still in support of this government and its policies.
The worldview just seems entirely alien to me.
I think I support the governments position on this one.
We have kids going hungry. We should be:
A) Maximising the money available to families with kids in food poverty while other programmes are being developed that more effectively resolve the issue. If the vouchers are less than the uplift, why support the old system?
By moving away from the contract, those administrative costs can be invested in programmes that directly tackle the issues behind food poverty. The ultimate objective here is feeding kids - we should choose the approaches that are most effective at doing so.
So the uplift strengthens the plaster, but if there's robust evidence that the money isn't actually going to feeding them, other approaches need to be explored that achieve this. Kids shouldn't starve for the sake of politics.
As always, having good access to the underlying data would be immensely helpful on having an outside view of if this is the best approach, but if the evidence is robust - feed the kids.
Generally you should have your replacement ready to go before ending the current offering. Certain things just don't really have a transition period that can last more than a day or two, and eating food is definitely among them. That approach seems about as useful as a 10 month pregnancy test.
I'm seeing articles saying the new system came into place months ago, so not quite sure what you mean by a transition period for it?
The Universal Credit uplift wasn't announced as a replacement for the voucher system and treating it as such is disingenuous. The £20 uplift is by UC recipient regardless of whether you have children, but the voucher was per pupil, so would benefit households with multiple children (and are therefore at a higher risk of deprivation).
There isn't a reason not to have the UC uplift and the voucher system run in parallel, presenting them as mutually exclusive creates a false dichotomy. Besides, if there was ever a time for economic stimulus, it would be now.
+5
GumpyThere is alwaysa greater powerRegistered Userregular
The government aren't making the argument that they have a better plan than the one Rashford and Labour are asking for: they're saying it isn't their business to be feeding poor, hungry kids when school's not in session.
The closest I've seen to a defence is that they've increased the weekly UC payment by £20. That is in no way a substitute for a properly funded program to provide free meals. Even if you're only talking about one child it's hard to feed anyone on >£3 a day. Other than that it's the same blurb about investing millions into the scheme to feed kids during the school term but I wouldn't call it a cracking success if they're doing nothing about the gaps in coverage during the holidays.
Wasn't the voucher the £20 replaced worth £15?
Edit as this was a bit short: There are multiple discussions happening in parallel here:
1) Is funding meals to kids outside of term time a welfare or an education issue. This... doesn't matter to anyone outside of Government (I think people here want kids to be fed more than they care which cost code does it?) but please do pile on if the exact source of the funding is a prime concern
2) Is the £20 uplift better or worse than the £15 voucher - this can be answered with data. One will be more effective than the other at getting food to kids. I don't think the data needed to work this one through has been posted to the thread
3) Was any system effective enough to begin with? I think that this is the line you're going down, but do correct if wrong. There's still food poverty, so I'm going to go with "No" - but the current discussion is about two options to resolve and neither goes significantly further than the other.
I think I've genuinely reached a point where I can admit that I fundamentally do not understand people who are still in support of this government and its policies.
The worldview just seems entirely alien to me.
I think I support the governments position on this one.
We have kids going hungry. We should be:
A) Maximising the money available to families with kids in food poverty while other programmes are being developed that more effectively resolve the issue. If the vouchers are less than the uplift, why support the old system?
By moving away from the contract, those administrative costs can be invested in programmes that directly tackle the issues behind food poverty. The ultimate objective here is feeding kids - we should choose the approaches that are most effective at doing so.
So the uplift strengthens the plaster, but if there's robust evidence that the money isn't actually going to feeding them, other approaches need to be explored that achieve this. Kids shouldn't starve for the sake of politics.
As always, having good access to the underlying data would be immensely helpful on having an outside view of if this is the best approach, but if the evidence is robust - feed the kids.
Generally you should have your replacement ready to go before ending the current offering. Certain things just don't really have a transition period that can last more than a day or two, and eating food is definitely among them. That approach seems about as useful as a 10 month pregnancy test.
I'm seeing articles saying the new system came into place months ago, so not quite sure what you mean by a transition period for it?
It's not disingenuous - that's a core assumption behind the change. Yes, they can both run in parallel and yes, additional money gets more money into the hands of families, but if those families need an extra £15 per week, increase the uplift to £35? Why does it require a new contract and administration set up when you can fund directly?
The government aren't making the argument that they have a better plan than the one Rashford and Labour are asking for: they're saying it isn't their business to be feeding poor, hungry kids when school's not in session.
The closest I've seen to a defence is that they've increased the weekly UC payment by £20. That is in no way a substitute for a properly funded program to provide free meals. Even if you're only talking about one child it's hard to feed anyone on >£3 a day. Other than that it's the same blurb about investing millions into the scheme to feed kids during the school term but I wouldn't call it a cracking success if they're doing nothing about the gaps in coverage during the holidays.
Wasn't the voucher the £20 replaced worth £15?
Edit as this was a bit short: There are multiple discussions happening in parallel here:
1) Is funding meals to kids outside of term time a welfare or an education issue. This... doesn't matter to anyone outside of Government (I think people here want kids to be fed more than they care which cost code does it?) but please do pile on if the exact source of the funding is a prime concern
2) Is the £20 uplift better or worse than the £15 voucher - this can be answered with data. One will be more effective than the other at getting food to kids. I don't think the data needed to work this one through has been posted to the thread
3) Was any system effective enough to begin with? I think that this is the line you're going down, but do correct if wrong. There's still food poverty, so I'm going to go with "No" - but the current discussion is about two options to resolve and neither goes significantly further than the other.
I think I've genuinely reached a point where I can admit that I fundamentally do not understand people who are still in support of this government and its policies.
The worldview just seems entirely alien to me.
I think I support the governments position on this one.
We have kids going hungry. We should be:
A) Maximising the money available to families with kids in food poverty while other programmes are being developed that more effectively resolve the issue. If the vouchers are less than the uplift, why support the old system?
By moving away from the contract, those administrative costs can be invested in programmes that directly tackle the issues behind food poverty. The ultimate objective here is feeding kids - we should choose the approaches that are most effective at doing so.
So the uplift strengthens the plaster, but if there's robust evidence that the money isn't actually going to feeding them, other approaches need to be explored that achieve this. Kids shouldn't starve for the sake of politics.
As always, having good access to the underlying data would be immensely helpful on having an outside view of if this is the best approach, but if the evidence is robust - feed the kids.
Generally you should have your replacement ready to go before ending the current offering. Certain things just don't really have a transition period that can last more than a day or two, and eating food is definitely among them. That approach seems about as useful as a 10 month pregnancy test.
I'm seeing articles saying the new system came into place months ago, so not quite sure what you mean by a transition period for it?
The Universal Credit uplift wasn't announced as a replacement for the voucher system and treating it as such is disingenuous. The £20 uplift is by UC recipient regardless of whether you have children, but the voucher was per pupil, so would benefit households with multiple children (and are therefore at a higher risk of deprivation).
There isn't a reason not to have the UC uplift and the voucher system run in parallel, presenting them as mutually exclusive creates a false dichotomy. Besides, if there was ever a time for economic stimulus, it would be now.
Agreed. The UC bump was a long overdue and arguably insufficient cost of living adjustment, not a valid excuse to take away other benefits.
The government aren't making the argument that they have a better plan than the one Rashford and Labour are asking for: they're saying it isn't their business to be feeding poor, hungry kids when school's not in session.
The closest I've seen to a defence is that they've increased the weekly UC payment by £20. That is in no way a substitute for a properly funded program to provide free meals. Even if you're only talking about one child it's hard to feed anyone on >£3 a day. Other than that it's the same blurb about investing millions into the scheme to feed kids during the school term but I wouldn't call it a cracking success if they're doing nothing about the gaps in coverage during the holidays.
Wasn't the voucher the £20 replaced worth £15?
Edit as this was a bit short: There are multiple discussions happening in parallel here:
1) Is funding meals to kids outside of term time a welfare or an education issue. This... doesn't matter to anyone outside of Government (I think people here want kids to be fed more than they care which cost code does it?) but please do pile on if the exact source of the funding is a prime concern
2) Is the £20 uplift better or worse than the £15 voucher - this can be answered with data. One will be more effective than the other at getting food to kids. I don't think the data needed to work this one through has been posted to the thread
3) Was any system effective enough to begin with? I think that this is the line you're going down, but do correct if wrong. There's still food poverty, so I'm going to go with "No" - but the current discussion is about two options to resolve and neither goes significantly further than the other.
I think I've genuinely reached a point where I can admit that I fundamentally do not understand people who are still in support of this government and its policies.
The worldview just seems entirely alien to me.
I think I support the governments position on this one.
We have kids going hungry. We should be:
A) Maximising the money available to families with kids in food poverty while other programmes are being developed that more effectively resolve the issue. If the vouchers are less than the uplift, why support the old system?
By moving away from the contract, those administrative costs can be invested in programmes that directly tackle the issues behind food poverty. The ultimate objective here is feeding kids - we should choose the approaches that are most effective at doing so.
So the uplift strengthens the plaster, but if there's robust evidence that the money isn't actually going to feeding them, other approaches need to be explored that achieve this. Kids shouldn't starve for the sake of politics.
As always, having good access to the underlying data would be immensely helpful on having an outside view of if this is the best approach, but if the evidence is robust - feed the kids.
Generally you should have your replacement ready to go before ending the current offering. Certain things just don't really have a transition period that can last more than a day or two, and eating food is definitely among them. That approach seems about as useful as a 10 month pregnancy test.
I'm seeing articles saying the new system came into place months ago, so not quite sure what you mean by a transition period for it?
It's not disingenuous - that's a core assumption behind the change. Yes, they can both run in parallel and yes, additional money gets more money into the hands of families, but if those families need an extra £15 per week, increase the uplift to £35? Why does it require a new contract and administration set up when you can fund directly?
When the government announced the increase in UC, why didn't they say it was a replacement for the voucher system? If the policy change was not announced, how can you prove it was a core assumption and not your assumption? If the uplift was meant as a direct replacement, why not tie the increase to the per child portions of UC, so that it scales with the number of children In the household?
If a single mother with 3 children is losing out on £45 of vouchers for £20 of UC, is she going to be grateful that the administration costs for the government are lower? It's clearly not a straight swap, which it would be if it was a per child increase to UC rather than a flat increase to UC.
The UC increase and the vouchers weren't linked and if they were the change is fundamentally bad policy.
There's also the fact that Tories are tripping over themselves to say the quiet part loud
You had Ben Bradley claiming that a) vouchers would go to funding "prostitutes and crack dens", and b) that the head of the most deprived school in the country agreed with him that extending free school meals wasn't a good idea (which turned out to be a lie, with said head disclaiming such a view and denying any such conversation with Bradley had taken place)
Mark Jenkinson claiming that food and food vouchers would be "traded for drugs"
Selaine Saxby commenting sarcastically on FB that she is "delighted that local businesses have bounced back sufficiently after lockdown to be able to give for away for free" (and then later putting out a mewling statement about her remarks being taken out of context"
Phillip Davies writing a shitty response to a 16 year old constituent accusing her of "virtue signalling"
100 Tories (including Bradley and Jenkinson) signing a pathetically self pitying letter to Kier Starmer accusing Angela Rayner of fomenting widespread abuse of Tory MPs, because of course nobody would think ill of them absent her comment
Edit: the Selaine Saxby bit deserves quoting in full because it's psychotic in its expressed desire to punish constituents for not supporting the government line on this:
10 million is peanuts to the gov right now. But they can't help themselves but be heartless bastards, and then double down and insist they've done nothing wrong
The whole free school meals exemplifies this gov. Instinctively heartless and classist, then when called on it, prevaricating and woolly, then they double down on it and say that they've nothing wrong and there is no problem, and if you think there is you're a lefty luvvie.
Morally bankrupt, corrupt, incompetent and lacking in any kind of coherent drive. During the biggest foreign policy crisis since Suez and the biggest national public safety crisis since WWII. Tens of thousands dead, a recession and a collapse of public trust. What a time to be alive.
The government aren't making the argument that they have a better plan than the one Rashford and Labour are asking for: they're saying it isn't their business to be feeding poor, hungry kids when school's not in session.
The closest I've seen to a defence is that they've increased the weekly UC payment by £20. That is in no way a substitute for a properly funded program to provide free meals. Even if you're only talking about one child it's hard to feed anyone on >£3 a day. Other than that it's the same blurb about investing millions into the scheme to feed kids during the school term but I wouldn't call it a cracking success if they're doing nothing about the gaps in coverage during the holidays.
Wasn't the voucher the £20 replaced worth £15?
Edit as this was a bit short: There are multiple discussions happening in parallel here:
1) Is funding meals to kids outside of term time a welfare or an education issue. This... doesn't matter to anyone outside of Government (I think people here want kids to be fed more than they care which cost code does it?) but please do pile on if the exact source of the funding is a prime concern
2) Is the £20 uplift better or worse than the £15 voucher - this can be answered with data. One will be more effective than the other at getting food to kids. I don't think the data needed to work this one through has been posted to the thread
3) Was any system effective enough to begin with? I think that this is the line you're going down, but do correct if wrong. There's still food poverty, so I'm going to go with "No" - but the current discussion is about two options to resolve and neither goes significantly further than the other.
I think I've genuinely reached a point where I can admit that I fundamentally do not understand people who are still in support of this government and its policies.
The worldview just seems entirely alien to me.
I think I support the governments position on this one.
We have kids going hungry. We should be:
A) Maximising the money available to families with kids in food poverty while other programmes are being developed that more effectively resolve the issue. If the vouchers are less than the uplift, why support the old system?
By moving away from the contract, those administrative costs can be invested in programmes that directly tackle the issues behind food poverty. The ultimate objective here is feeding kids - we should choose the approaches that are most effective at doing so.
So the uplift strengthens the plaster, but if there's robust evidence that the money isn't actually going to feeding them, other approaches need to be explored that achieve this. Kids shouldn't starve for the sake of politics.
As always, having good access to the underlying data would be immensely helpful on having an outside view of if this is the best approach, but if the evidence is robust - feed the kids.
Generally you should have your replacement ready to go before ending the current offering. Certain things just don't really have a transition period that can last more than a day or two, and eating food is definitely among them. That approach seems about as useful as a 10 month pregnancy test.
I'm seeing articles saying the new system came into place months ago, so not quite sure what you mean by a transition period for it?
It's not disingenuous - that's a core assumption behind the change. Yes, they can both run in parallel and yes, additional money gets more money into the hands of families, but if those families need an extra £15 per week, increase the uplift to £35? Why does it require a new contract and administration set up when you can fund directly?
If the policy change was not announced, how can you prove it was a core assumption and not your assumption?
I was curious because it seemed nonsensical, so I asked what their thinking was. Always happy to read more informed information about the decision making process if you've got something more direct I can read through?
The reason this pisses people off so much is because for ten million pounds of tax payers money the Tories could of bought public good will, done some good and actually fulfilled the responsibilities of government. Instead they've spent political capital thumbing their noses at the electorate and let kids go hungry. They're being cruel for the sake of it.
+9
GumpyThere is alwaysa greater powerRegistered Userregular
The reason this pisses people off so much is because for ten million pounds of tax payers money the Tories could of bought public good will, done some good and actually fulfilled the responsibilities of government. Instead they've spent political capital thumbing their noses at the electorate and let kids go hungry. They're being cruel for the sake of it.
I still don't see how running this as a private sector contract is a more effective way of delivering this benefit in the long term than it being delivered by the public sector.
Welfare shouldn't be privatised - though I appreciate that's my own biases coming into play.
The reason this pisses people off so much is because for ten million pounds of tax payers money the Tories could of bought public good will, done some good and actually fulfilled the responsibilities of government. Instead they've spent political capital thumbing their noses at the electorate and let kids go hungry. They're being cruel for the sake of it.
I still don't see how running this as a private sector contract is a more effective way of delivering this benefit in the long term than it being delivered by the public sector.
Welfare shouldn't be privatised - though I appreciate that's my own biases coming into play.
I'm kind of confused by your reading of this situation? My understanding is there is a program to provide free school meals to deprived kids during school time, there was a bill proposed to extend this coverage to cover the holidays and the conservatives shot it down. They're not replacing it with a public or private alternative they're abdicating any responsibility for it at all because they don't think it's governments problem.
The government aren't making the argument that they have a better plan than the one Rashford and Labour are asking for: they're saying it isn't their business to be feeding poor, hungry kids when school's not in session.
The closest I've seen to a defence is that they've increased the weekly UC payment by £20. That is in no way a substitute for a properly funded program to provide free meals. Even if you're only talking about one child it's hard to feed anyone on >£3 a day. Other than that it's the same blurb about investing millions into the scheme to feed kids during the school term but I wouldn't call it a cracking success if they're doing nothing about the gaps in coverage during the holidays.
Wasn't the voucher the £20 replaced worth £15?
Edit as this was a bit short: There are multiple discussions happening in parallel here:
1) Is funding meals to kids outside of term time a welfare or an education issue. This... doesn't matter to anyone outside of Government (I think people here want kids to be fed more than they care which cost code does it?) but please do pile on if the exact source of the funding is a prime concern
2) Is the £20 uplift better or worse than the £15 voucher - this can be answered with data. One will be more effective than the other at getting food to kids. I don't think the data needed to work this one through has been posted to the thread
3) Was any system effective enough to begin with? I think that this is the line you're going down, but do correct if wrong. There's still food poverty, so I'm going to go with "No" - but the current discussion is about two options to resolve and neither goes significantly further than the other.
I think I've genuinely reached a point where I can admit that I fundamentally do not understand people who are still in support of this government and its policies.
The worldview just seems entirely alien to me.
I think I support the governments position on this one.
We have kids going hungry. We should be:
A) Maximising the money available to families with kids in food poverty while other programmes are being developed that more effectively resolve the issue. If the vouchers are less than the uplift, why support the old system?
By moving away from the contract, those administrative costs can be invested in programmes that directly tackle the issues behind food poverty. The ultimate objective here is feeding kids - we should choose the approaches that are most effective at doing so.
So the uplift strengthens the plaster, but if there's robust evidence that the money isn't actually going to feeding them, other approaches need to be explored that achieve this. Kids shouldn't starve for the sake of politics.
As always, having good access to the underlying data would be immensely helpful on having an outside view of if this is the best approach, but if the evidence is robust - feed the kids.
Generally you should have your replacement ready to go before ending the current offering. Certain things just don't really have a transition period that can last more than a day or two, and eating food is definitely among them. That approach seems about as useful as a 10 month pregnancy test.
I'm seeing articles saying the new system came into place months ago, so not quite sure what you mean by a transition period for it?
It's not disingenuous - that's a core assumption behind the change. Yes, they can both run in parallel and yes, additional money gets more money into the hands of families, but if those families need an extra £15 per week, increase the uplift to £35? Why does it require a new contract and administration set up when you can fund directly?
If the policy change was not announced, how can you prove it was a core assumption and not your assumption?
I was curious because it seemed nonsensical, so I asked what their thinking was. Always happy to read more informed information about the decision making process if you've got something more direct I can read through?
My position throughout has been that the government hasn't followed a decision-making process and if it had followed such a process it has still made a poor decision. As I stated previously, the original announcement from Rishi Sunak did not mention that the UC uplift was a replacement for the voucher system. Do you have anything to suggest that the government always intended for the UC uplift to replace the voucher system, let alone the decision-making process behind it?
0
GumpyThere is alwaysa greater powerRegistered Userregular
The government aren't making the argument that they have a better plan than the one Rashford and Labour are asking for: they're saying it isn't their business to be feeding poor, hungry kids when school's not in session.
The closest I've seen to a defence is that they've increased the weekly UC payment by £20. That is in no way a substitute for a properly funded program to provide free meals. Even if you're only talking about one child it's hard to feed anyone on >£3 a day. Other than that it's the same blurb about investing millions into the scheme to feed kids during the school term but I wouldn't call it a cracking success if they're doing nothing about the gaps in coverage during the holidays.
Wasn't the voucher the £20 replaced worth £15?
Edit as this was a bit short: There are multiple discussions happening in parallel here:
1) Is funding meals to kids outside of term time a welfare or an education issue. This... doesn't matter to anyone outside of Government (I think people here want kids to be fed more than they care which cost code does it?) but please do pile on if the exact source of the funding is a prime concern
2) Is the £20 uplift better or worse than the £15 voucher - this can be answered with data. One will be more effective than the other at getting food to kids. I don't think the data needed to work this one through has been posted to the thread
3) Was any system effective enough to begin with? I think that this is the line you're going down, but do correct if wrong. There's still food poverty, so I'm going to go with "No" - but the current discussion is about two options to resolve and neither goes significantly further than the other.
I think I've genuinely reached a point where I can admit that I fundamentally do not understand people who are still in support of this government and its policies.
The worldview just seems entirely alien to me.
I think I support the governments position on this one.
We have kids going hungry. We should be:
A) Maximising the money available to families with kids in food poverty while other programmes are being developed that more effectively resolve the issue. If the vouchers are less than the uplift, why support the old system?
By moving away from the contract, those administrative costs can be invested in programmes that directly tackle the issues behind food poverty. The ultimate objective here is feeding kids - we should choose the approaches that are most effective at doing so.
So the uplift strengthens the plaster, but if there's robust evidence that the money isn't actually going to feeding them, other approaches need to be explored that achieve this. Kids shouldn't starve for the sake of politics.
As always, having good access to the underlying data would be immensely helpful on having an outside view of if this is the best approach, but if the evidence is robust - feed the kids.
Generally you should have your replacement ready to go before ending the current offering. Certain things just don't really have a transition period that can last more than a day or two, and eating food is definitely among them. That approach seems about as useful as a 10 month pregnancy test.
I'm seeing articles saying the new system came into place months ago, so not quite sure what you mean by a transition period for it?
It's not disingenuous - that's a core assumption behind the change. Yes, they can both run in parallel and yes, additional money gets more money into the hands of families, but if those families need an extra £15 per week, increase the uplift to £35? Why does it require a new contract and administration set up when you can fund directly?
If the policy change was not announced, how can you prove it was a core assumption and not your assumption?
I was curious because it seemed nonsensical, so I asked what their thinking was. Always happy to read more informed information about the decision making process if you've got something more direct I can read through?
My position throughout has been that the government hasn't followed a decision-making process and if it had followed such a process it has still made a poor decision. As I stated previously, the original announcement from Rishi Sunak did not mention that the UC uplift was a replacement for the voucher system. Do you have anything to suggest that the government always intended for the UC uplift to replace the voucher system, let alone the decision-making process behind it?
Yea, I asked them. Always a fairly good way of finding out about their thinking.
I don't think it was a neat decision making process (the UC uplift sounds like it came first and was then considered when this decision was taken, though I might be wrong on timelines), but I'm very sympathetic to broadening access to singular simplified services in government if it doesn't lead to degradation of offering. We should always lean towards accessibility and transparency when designing and delivering any process.
The government aren't making the argument that they have a better plan than the one Rashford and Labour are asking for: they're saying it isn't their business to be feeding poor, hungry kids when school's not in session.
The closest I've seen to a defence is that they've increased the weekly UC payment by £20. That is in no way a substitute for a properly funded program to provide free meals. Even if you're only talking about one child it's hard to feed anyone on >£3 a day. Other than that it's the same blurb about investing millions into the scheme to feed kids during the school term but I wouldn't call it a cracking success if they're doing nothing about the gaps in coverage during the holidays.
Wasn't the voucher the £20 replaced worth £15?
Edit as this was a bit short: There are multiple discussions happening in parallel here:
1) Is funding meals to kids outside of term time a welfare or an education issue. This... doesn't matter to anyone outside of Government (I think people here want kids to be fed more than they care which cost code does it?) but please do pile on if the exact source of the funding is a prime concern
2) Is the £20 uplift better or worse than the £15 voucher - this can be answered with data. One will be more effective than the other at getting food to kids. I don't think the data needed to work this one through has been posted to the thread
3) Was any system effective enough to begin with? I think that this is the line you're going down, but do correct if wrong. There's still food poverty, so I'm going to go with "No" - but the current discussion is about two options to resolve and neither goes significantly further than the other.
I think I've genuinely reached a point where I can admit that I fundamentally do not understand people who are still in support of this government and its policies.
The worldview just seems entirely alien to me.
I think I support the governments position on this one.
We have kids going hungry. We should be:
A) Maximising the money available to families with kids in food poverty while other programmes are being developed that more effectively resolve the issue. If the vouchers are less than the uplift, why support the old system?
By moving away from the contract, those administrative costs can be invested in programmes that directly tackle the issues behind food poverty. The ultimate objective here is feeding kids - we should choose the approaches that are most effective at doing so.
So the uplift strengthens the plaster, but if there's robust evidence that the money isn't actually going to feeding them, other approaches need to be explored that achieve this. Kids shouldn't starve for the sake of politics.
As always, having good access to the underlying data would be immensely helpful on having an outside view of if this is the best approach, but if the evidence is robust - feed the kids.
Generally you should have your replacement ready to go before ending the current offering. Certain things just don't really have a transition period that can last more than a day or two, and eating food is definitely among them. That approach seems about as useful as a 10 month pregnancy test.
I'm seeing articles saying the new system came into place months ago, so not quite sure what you mean by a transition period for it?
It's not disingenuous - that's a core assumption behind the change. Yes, they can both run in parallel and yes, additional money gets more money into the hands of families, but if those families need an extra £15 per week, increase the uplift to £35? Why does it require a new contract and administration set up when you can fund directly?
If the policy change was not announced, how can you prove it was a core assumption and not your assumption?
I was curious because it seemed nonsensical, so I asked what their thinking was. Always happy to read more informed information about the decision making process if you've got something more direct I can read through?
My position throughout has been that the government hasn't followed a decision-making process and if it had followed such a process it has still made a poor decision. As I stated previously, the original announcement from Rishi Sunak did not mention that the UC uplift was a replacement for the voucher system. Do you have anything to suggest that the government always intended for the UC uplift to replace the voucher system, let alone the decision-making process behind it?
Yea, I asked them. Always a fairly good way of finding out about their thinking.
I don't think it was a neat decision making process (the UC uplift sounds like it came first and was then considered when this decision was taken, though I might be wrong on timelines), but I'm very sympathetic to broadening access to singular simplified services in government if it doesn't lead to degradation of offering. We should always lean towards accessibility and transparency when designing and delivering any process.
Right, but who did you ask, what did you ask and what was the answer? What was the timeline as you understand it? It's still a bad decision, even if it was intended from the start.
You've remained very sympathetic to this decision, despite it leading to the degradation of the offering.
0
GumpyThere is alwaysa greater powerRegistered Userregular
The government aren't making the argument that they have a better plan than the one Rashford and Labour are asking for: they're saying it isn't their business to be feeding poor, hungry kids when school's not in session.
The closest I've seen to a defence is that they've increased the weekly UC payment by £20. That is in no way a substitute for a properly funded program to provide free meals. Even if you're only talking about one child it's hard to feed anyone on >£3 a day. Other than that it's the same blurb about investing millions into the scheme to feed kids during the school term but I wouldn't call it a cracking success if they're doing nothing about the gaps in coverage during the holidays.
Wasn't the voucher the £20 replaced worth £15?
Edit as this was a bit short: There are multiple discussions happening in parallel here:
1) Is funding meals to kids outside of term time a welfare or an education issue. This... doesn't matter to anyone outside of Government (I think people here want kids to be fed more than they care which cost code does it?) but please do pile on if the exact source of the funding is a prime concern
2) Is the £20 uplift better or worse than the £15 voucher - this can be answered with data. One will be more effective than the other at getting food to kids. I don't think the data needed to work this one through has been posted to the thread
3) Was any system effective enough to begin with? I think that this is the line you're going down, but do correct if wrong. There's still food poverty, so I'm going to go with "No" - but the current discussion is about two options to resolve and neither goes significantly further than the other.
I think I've genuinely reached a point where I can admit that I fundamentally do not understand people who are still in support of this government and its policies.
The worldview just seems entirely alien to me.
I think I support the governments position on this one.
We have kids going hungry. We should be:
A) Maximising the money available to families with kids in food poverty while other programmes are being developed that more effectively resolve the issue. If the vouchers are less than the uplift, why support the old system?
By moving away from the contract, those administrative costs can be invested in programmes that directly tackle the issues behind food poverty. The ultimate objective here is feeding kids - we should choose the approaches that are most effective at doing so.
So the uplift strengthens the plaster, but if there's robust evidence that the money isn't actually going to feeding them, other approaches need to be explored that achieve this. Kids shouldn't starve for the sake of politics.
As always, having good access to the underlying data would be immensely helpful on having an outside view of if this is the best approach, but if the evidence is robust - feed the kids.
Generally you should have your replacement ready to go before ending the current offering. Certain things just don't really have a transition period that can last more than a day or two, and eating food is definitely among them. That approach seems about as useful as a 10 month pregnancy test.
I'm seeing articles saying the new system came into place months ago, so not quite sure what you mean by a transition period for it?
It's not disingenuous - that's a core assumption behind the change. Yes, they can both run in parallel and yes, additional money gets more money into the hands of families, but if those families need an extra £15 per week, increase the uplift to £35? Why does it require a new contract and administration set up when you can fund directly?
If the policy change was not announced, how can you prove it was a core assumption and not your assumption?
I was curious because it seemed nonsensical, so I asked what their thinking was. Always happy to read more informed information about the decision making process if you've got something more direct I can read through?
My position throughout has been that the government hasn't followed a decision-making process and if it had followed such a process it has still made a poor decision. As I stated previously, the original announcement from Rishi Sunak did not mention that the UC uplift was a replacement for the voucher system. Do you have anything to suggest that the government always intended for the UC uplift to replace the voucher system, let alone the decision-making process behind it?
Yea, I asked them. Always a fairly good way of finding out about their thinking.
I don't think it was a neat decision making process (the UC uplift sounds like it came first and was then considered when this decision was taken, though I might be wrong on timelines), but I'm very sympathetic to broadening access to singular simplified services in government if it doesn't lead to degradation of offering. We should always lean towards accessibility and transparency when designing and delivering any process.
Right, but who did you ask, what did you ask and what was the answer? What was the timeline as you understand it? It's still a bad decision, even if it was intended from the start.
You've remained very sympathetic to this decision, despite it leading to the degradation of the offering.
Oh, I asked one of my policy peeps on it. They think it's an improvement of the offering - which gets us into the data if we want to resolve
Also, we're now apparently hoping for a 'negotiated outcome' rather than a deal, since the latter is clearly not going to happen. I assume a memo has been sent out to make sure everyone uses the right term, much like 'Australia-style' (ie no) deal.
I assume we're going to shift to calling this a no negotiated outcome exit.
Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
0
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
The reason this pisses people off so much is because for ten million pounds of tax payers money the Tories could of bought public good will, done some good and actually fulfilled the responsibilities of government. Instead they've spent political capital thumbing their noses at the electorate and let kids go hungry. They're being cruel for the sake of it.
1) The cruelty is the point.
2) It's always projection.
3) There's always a grift.
Your conservatives are no different from American conservatives. Tories are Republicans with posher accents.
The government aren't making the argument that they have a better plan than the one Rashford and Labour are asking for: they're saying it isn't their business to be feeding poor, hungry kids when school's not in session.
The closest I've seen to a defence is that they've increased the weekly UC payment by £20. That is in no way a substitute for a properly funded program to provide free meals. Even if you're only talking about one child it's hard to feed anyone on >£3 a day. Other than that it's the same blurb about investing millions into the scheme to feed kids during the school term but I wouldn't call it a cracking success if they're doing nothing about the gaps in coverage during the holidays.
Wasn't the voucher the £20 replaced worth £15?
Edit as this was a bit short: There are multiple discussions happening in parallel here:
1) Is funding meals to kids outside of term time a welfare or an education issue. This... doesn't matter to anyone outside of Government (I think people here want kids to be fed more than they care which cost code does it?) but please do pile on if the exact source of the funding is a prime concern
2) Is the £20 uplift better or worse than the £15 voucher - this can be answered with data. One will be more effective than the other at getting food to kids. I don't think the data needed to work this one through has been posted to the thread
3) Was any system effective enough to begin with? I think that this is the line you're going down, but do correct if wrong. There's still food poverty, so I'm going to go with "No" - but the current discussion is about two options to resolve and neither goes significantly further than the other.
I think I've genuinely reached a point where I can admit that I fundamentally do not understand people who are still in support of this government and its policies.
The worldview just seems entirely alien to me.
I think I support the governments position on this one.
We have kids going hungry. We should be:
A) Maximising the money available to families with kids in food poverty while other programmes are being developed that more effectively resolve the issue. If the vouchers are less than the uplift, why support the old system?
By moving away from the contract, those administrative costs can be invested in programmes that directly tackle the issues behind food poverty. The ultimate objective here is feeding kids - we should choose the approaches that are most effective at doing so.
So the uplift strengthens the plaster, but if there's robust evidence that the money isn't actually going to feeding them, other approaches need to be explored that achieve this. Kids shouldn't starve for the sake of politics.
As always, having good access to the underlying data would be immensely helpful on having an outside view of if this is the best approach, but if the evidence is robust - feed the kids.
Generally you should have your replacement ready to go before ending the current offering. Certain things just don't really have a transition period that can last more than a day or two, and eating food is definitely among them. That approach seems about as useful as a 10 month pregnancy test.
I'm seeing articles saying the new system came into place months ago, so not quite sure what you mean by a transition period for it?
It's not disingenuous - that's a core assumption behind the change. Yes, they can both run in parallel and yes, additional money gets more money into the hands of families, but if those families need an extra £15 per week, increase the uplift to £35? Why does it require a new contract and administration set up when you can fund directly?
If the policy change was not announced, how can you prove it was a core assumption and not your assumption?
I was curious because it seemed nonsensical, so I asked what their thinking was. Always happy to read more informed information about the decision making process if you've got something more direct I can read through?
Do you have anything to suggest that the government always intended for the UC uplift to replace the voucher system, let alone the decision-making process behind it?
Ministers are now catching up and directly linking the UC uplift and investment in local programmes to replacing the voucher system on the Sunday morning news round - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54680868
The damage has already been done and I'd expect a reversal, but hopefully one that maintains the additional investments
You mean the Tories will do a u-turn because everyone is calling them out for being a bunch of callous bastards?
This happens time and time again. They bring in a policy which is clearly and obviously crap and then it causes and outcry and they start by defending it and saying no it's great, actually, and then they fold. You could set your watch to it. It's happened with free school meals twice!
The government aren't making the argument that they have a better plan than the one Rashford and Labour are asking for: they're saying it isn't their business to be feeding poor, hungry kids when school's not in session.
The closest I've seen to a defence is that they've increased the weekly UC payment by £20. That is in no way a substitute for a properly funded program to provide free meals. Even if you're only talking about one child it's hard to feed anyone on >£3 a day. Other than that it's the same blurb about investing millions into the scheme to feed kids during the school term but I wouldn't call it a cracking success if they're doing nothing about the gaps in coverage during the holidays.
Wasn't the voucher the £20 replaced worth £15?
Edit as this was a bit short: There are multiple discussions happening in parallel here:
1) Is funding meals to kids outside of term time a welfare or an education issue. This... doesn't matter to anyone outside of Government (I think people here want kids to be fed more than they care which cost code does it?) but please do pile on if the exact source of the funding is a prime concern
2) Is the £20 uplift better or worse than the £15 voucher - this can be answered with data. One will be more effective than the other at getting food to kids. I don't think the data needed to work this one through has been posted to the thread
3) Was any system effective enough to begin with? I think that this is the line you're going down, but do correct if wrong. There's still food poverty, so I'm going to go with "No" - but the current discussion is about two options to resolve and neither goes significantly further than the other.
I think I've genuinely reached a point where I can admit that I fundamentally do not understand people who are still in support of this government and its policies.
The worldview just seems entirely alien to me.
I think I support the governments position on this one.
We have kids going hungry. We should be:
A) Maximising the money available to families with kids in food poverty while other programmes are being developed that more effectively resolve the issue. If the vouchers are less than the uplift, why support the old system?
By moving away from the contract, those administrative costs can be invested in programmes that directly tackle the issues behind food poverty. The ultimate objective here is feeding kids - we should choose the approaches that are most effective at doing so.
So the uplift strengthens the plaster, but if there's robust evidence that the money isn't actually going to feeding them, other approaches need to be explored that achieve this. Kids shouldn't starve for the sake of politics.
As always, having good access to the underlying data would be immensely helpful on having an outside view of if this is the best approach, but if the evidence is robust - feed the kids.
Generally you should have your replacement ready to go before ending the current offering. Certain things just don't really have a transition period that can last more than a day or two, and eating food is definitely among them. That approach seems about as useful as a 10 month pregnancy test.
I'm seeing articles saying the new system came into place months ago, so not quite sure what you mean by a transition period for it?
It's not disingenuous - that's a core assumption behind the change. Yes, they can both run in parallel and yes, additional money gets more money into the hands of families, but if those families need an extra £15 per week, increase the uplift to £35? Why does it require a new contract and administration set up when you can fund directly?
If the policy change was not announced, how can you prove it was a core assumption and not your assumption?
I was curious because it seemed nonsensical, so I asked what their thinking was. Always happy to read more informed information about the decision making process if you've got something more direct I can read through?
My position throughout has been that the government hasn't followed a decision-making process and if it had followed such a process it has still made a poor decision. As I stated previously, the original announcement from Rishi Sunak did not mention that the UC uplift was a replacement for the voucher system. Do you have anything to suggest that the government always intended for the UC uplift to replace the voucher system, let alone the decision-making process behind it?
Yea, I asked them. Always a fairly good way of finding out about their thinking.
I don't think it was a neat decision making process (the UC uplift sounds like it came first and was then considered when this decision was taken, though I might be wrong on timelines), but I'm very sympathetic to broadening access to singular simplified services in government if it doesn't lead to degradation of offering. We should always lean towards accessibility and transparency when designing and delivering any process.
Right, but who did you ask, what did you ask and what was the answer? What was the timeline as you understand it? It's still a bad decision, even if it was intended from the start.
You've remained very sympathetic to this decision, despite it leading to the degradation of the offering.
Oh, I asked one of my policy peeps on it. They think it's an improvement of the offering - which gets us into the data if we want to resolve
Maybe your policy guy thinks it is an improvement, but 3 of the 4 nations, 2200 paediatricians, dozens of English councils and multiple local businesses and food banks seem to disagree.
As for relying on data, it will be much too late and any household economic data won't be able to strip out the effects of Covid-19 and Brexit. How much data do we need to demonstrate that investing in child nutrition improves health outcomes for the most deprived children?
You mean the Tories will do a u-turn because everyone is calling them out for being a bunch of callous bastards?
This happens time and time again. They bring in a policy which is clearly and obviously crap and then it causes and outcry and they start by defending it and saying no it's great, actually, and then they fold. You could set your watch to it. It's happened with free school meals twice!
Even if you could argue that it's smart policy in this case (I don't think you can but for the sake of argument) it's so toxic now that standing by it is just politically stupid. They should have learned this lesson in the 80's when Margaret Thatcher pulled the exact same thing with milk for school kids. Conservatives keep dying on this same fucking hill and never seem to learn from the experience. Taking food away from hungry kids makes you look like a shitheel. Taking food away from hungry kids then trying to explain to an appalled electorate that no, actually it's a good thing the children are going hungry makes you look like an even bigger shitheel.
You mean the Tories will do a u-turn because everyone is calling them out for being a bunch of callous bastards?
This happens time and time again. They bring in a policy which is clearly and obviously crap and then it causes and outcry and they start by defending it and saying no it's great, actually, and then they fold. You could set your watch to it. It's happened with free school meals twice!
Even if you could argue that it's smart policy in this case (I don't think you can but for the sake of argument) it's so toxic now that standing by it is just politically stupid. They should have learned this lesson in the 80's when Margaret Thatcher pulled the exact same thing with milk for school kids. Conservatives keep dying on this same fucking hill and never seem to learn from the experience. Taking food away from hungry kids makes you look like a shitheel. Taking food away from hungry kids then trying to explain to an appalled electorate that no, actually it's a good thing the children are going hungry makes you look like an even bigger shitheel.
For £20 million it’s an incredible own goal. Do it in the first place and then throw it in the face of Labour when they say Tories don’t care about poor people. A massive win for very little money. The fucking DUP cost a billion.
But no, fold your arms and don’t even say you can’t afford it, instead say you’re refusing to do it on ideological grounds. Now everyone thinks you’re a bunch of cunts and if you change your mind you get no credit because you’ve been dragged into doing the right thing.
Honestly its simply put. The government don't want to be ever in the position where someone who isn't 'elite think-tank' trained comes up with better ideas than they do. Especially a footballer from a deprived background.
The hill they chose to die on is the one where no matter what they cannot publicly admit to ideas outside their own.
For £20 million it’s an incredible own goal. Do it in the first place and then throw it in the face of Labour when they say Tories don’t care about poor people. A massive win for very little money. The fucking DUP cost a billion.
But no, fold your arms and don’t even say you can’t afford it, instead say you’re refusing to do it on ideological grounds. Now everyone thinks you’re a bunch of cunts and if you change your mind you get no credit because you’ve been dragged into doing the right thing.
Amazing.
I mean, they are..
0
GumpyThere is alwaysa greater powerRegistered Userregular
Despite the alleged replacement system already being in place, the government climbs down, instead of pointing to the replacement system.
To be fair, if my read of the news is right, I set out the defence in this thread a couple of days before ministers got there. Looking at ministerial and MP statements is a really limited way of understanding the actual thinking of government.
What do you think the chances are of some kind of a Brexit deal being reached before the end of October? I thought before no deal was probable, but now I see some betting odds are hovering around 50%. I'm wondering if Barnier delaying his return genuinely means something or if the papers are grasping at any excuse for hope.
What do you think the chances are of some kind of a Brexit deal being reached before the end of October? I thought before no deal was probable, but now I see some betting odds are hovering around 50%. I'm wondering if Barnier delaying his return genuinely means something or if the papers are grasping at any excuse for hope.
I think we'll get some kind of incredibly thin agreement that Boris can wave around and tout as a victory over the EU, but it'll be stretching the language to the limit to call it a 'deal'.
I think it's more posturing.
Given that one of their outs is a deal with Trump's USA (but probably not Biden's), nothing will be decided until November.
Speculation is johnonson is waiting to see which way the US election goes. He wants a trump win so he can plough on with a no-deal (sorry, 'Australia style' deal) whereas Biden and his team would not provide an easy trade deal. There's the obvious problem of the Good Friday Agreement and also the general impression that brexit, johnson and trump are all parts of the same right wing populist nonsense. They also haven't forgotten johnson's "part-Kenyan president" comments from 2016 apprently. The guardian has a pretty good rundown from various sources:
Posts
The closest I've seen to a defence is that they've increased the weekly UC payment by £20. That is in no way a substitute for a properly funded program to provide free meals. Even if you're only talking about one child it's hard to feed anyone on >£3 a day. Other than that it's the same blurb about investing millions into the scheme to feed kids during the school term but I wouldn't call it a cracking success if they're doing nothing about the gaps in coverage during the holidays.
Wasn't the voucher the £20 replaced worth £15?
Edit as this was a bit short: There are multiple discussions happening in parallel here:
1) Is funding meals to kids outside of term time a welfare or an education issue. This... doesn't matter to anyone outside of Government (I think people here want kids to be fed more than they care which cost code does it?) but please do pile on if the exact source of the funding is a prime concern
2) Is the £20 uplift better or worse than the £15 voucher - this can be answered with data. One will be more effective than the other at getting food to kids. I don't think the data needed to work this one through has been posted to the thread
3) Was any system effective enough to begin with? I think that this is the line you're going down, but do correct if wrong. There's still food poverty, so I'm going to go with "No" - but the current discussion is about two options to resolve and neither goes significantly further than the other.
I'm seeing articles saying the new system came into place months ago, so not quite sure what you mean by a transition period for it?
The Universal Credit uplift wasn't announced as a replacement for the voucher system and treating it as such is disingenuous. The £20 uplift is by UC recipient regardless of whether you have children, but the voucher was per pupil, so would benefit households with multiple children (and are therefore at a higher risk of deprivation).
There isn't a reason not to have the UC uplift and the voucher system run in parallel, presenting them as mutually exclusive creates a false dichotomy. Besides, if there was ever a time for economic stimulus, it would be now.
It's not disingenuous - that's a core assumption behind the change. Yes, they can both run in parallel and yes, additional money gets more money into the hands of families, but if those families need an extra £15 per week, increase the uplift to £35? Why does it require a new contract and administration set up when you can fund directly?
Agreed. The UC bump was a long overdue and arguably insufficient cost of living adjustment, not a valid excuse to take away other benefits.
When the government announced the increase in UC, why didn't they say it was a replacement for the voucher system? If the policy change was not announced, how can you prove it was a core assumption and not your assumption? If the uplift was meant as a direct replacement, why not tie the increase to the per child portions of UC, so that it scales with the number of children In the household?
If a single mother with 3 children is losing out on £45 of vouchers for £20 of UC, is she going to be grateful that the administration costs for the government are lower? It's clearly not a straight swap, which it would be if it was a per child increase to UC rather than a flat increase to UC.
The UC increase and the vouchers weren't linked and if they were the change is fundamentally bad policy.
You had Ben Bradley claiming that a) vouchers would go to funding "prostitutes and crack dens", and b) that the head of the most deprived school in the country agreed with him that extending free school meals wasn't a good idea (which turned out to be a lie, with said head disclaiming such a view and denying any such conversation with Bradley had taken place)
Mark Jenkinson claiming that food and food vouchers would be "traded for drugs"
Selaine Saxby commenting sarcastically on FB that she is "delighted that local businesses have bounced back sufficiently after lockdown to be able to give for away for free" (and then later putting out a mewling statement about her remarks being taken out of context"
Phillip Davies writing a shitty response to a 16 year old constituent accusing her of "virtue signalling"
100 Tories (including Bradley and Jenkinson) signing a pathetically self pitying letter to Kier Starmer accusing Angela Rayner of fomenting widespread abuse of Tory MPs, because of course nobody would think ill of them absent her comment
Edit: the Selaine Saxby bit deserves quoting in full because it's psychotic in its expressed desire to punish constituents for not supporting the government line on this:
(Screenshot from a random twitter account, the original FB post has now been deleted)
The whole free school meals exemplifies this gov. Instinctively heartless and classist, then when called on it, prevaricating and woolly, then they double down on it and say that they've nothing wrong and there is no problem, and if you think there is you're a lefty luvvie.
Morally bankrupt, corrupt, incompetent and lacking in any kind of coherent drive. During the biggest foreign policy crisis since Suez and the biggest national public safety crisis since WWII. Tens of thousands dead, a recession and a collapse of public trust. What a time to be alive.
I was curious because it seemed nonsensical, so I asked what their thinking was. Always happy to read more informed information about the decision making process if you've got something more direct I can read through?
I still don't see how running this as a private sector contract is a more effective way of delivering this benefit in the long term than it being delivered by the public sector.
Welfare shouldn't be privatised - though I appreciate that's my own biases coming into play.
I'm kind of confused by your reading of this situation? My understanding is there is a program to provide free school meals to deprived kids during school time, there was a bill proposed to extend this coverage to cover the holidays and the conservatives shot it down. They're not replacing it with a public or private alternative they're abdicating any responsibility for it at all because they don't think it's governments problem.
My position throughout has been that the government hasn't followed a decision-making process and if it had followed such a process it has still made a poor decision. As I stated previously, the original announcement from Rishi Sunak did not mention that the UC uplift was a replacement for the voucher system. Do you have anything to suggest that the government always intended for the UC uplift to replace the voucher system, let alone the decision-making process behind it?
Yea, I asked them. Always a fairly good way of finding out about their thinking.
I don't think it was a neat decision making process (the UC uplift sounds like it came first and was then considered when this decision was taken, though I might be wrong on timelines), but I'm very sympathetic to broadening access to singular simplified services in government if it doesn't lead to degradation of offering. We should always lean towards accessibility and transparency when designing and delivering any process.
Right, but who did you ask, what did you ask and what was the answer? What was the timeline as you understand it? It's still a bad decision, even if it was intended from the start.
You've remained very sympathetic to this decision, despite it leading to the degradation of the offering.
Oh, I asked one of my policy peeps on it. They think it's an improvement of the offering - which gets us into the data if we want to resolve
Hahahaha, 'could'.
Also, we're now apparently hoping for a 'negotiated outcome' rather than a deal, since the latter is clearly not going to happen. I assume a memo has been sent out to make sure everyone uses the right term, much like 'Australia-style' (ie no) deal.
I assume we're going to shift to calling this a no negotiated outcome exit.
1) The cruelty is the point.
2) It's always projection.
3) There's always a grift.
Your conservatives are no different from American conservatives. Tories are Republicans with posher accents.
I say we should be doing the left thing.
Ministers are now catching up and directly linking the UC uplift and investment in local programmes to replacing the voucher system on the Sunday morning news round -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54680868
The damage has already been done and I'd expect a reversal, but hopefully one that maintains the additional investments
This happens time and time again. They bring in a policy which is clearly and obviously crap and then it causes and outcry and they start by defending it and saying no it's great, actually, and then they fold. You could set your watch to it. It's happened with free school meals twice!
Maybe your policy guy thinks it is an improvement, but 3 of the 4 nations, 2200 paediatricians, dozens of English councils and multiple local businesses and food banks seem to disagree.
As for a timeline:
19th March: Voucher system announced by Department for Education
20th March: Chancellor announces the UC uplift.
16th June: Marcus Rashford forces the government into a U-turn for the summer holidays. Despite the alleged replacement system already being in place, the government climbs down, instead of pointing to the replacement system.
As for relying on data, it will be much too late and any household economic data won't be able to strip out the effects of Covid-19 and Brexit. How much data do we need to demonstrate that investing in child nutrition improves health outcomes for the most deprived children?
Even if you could argue that it's smart policy in this case (I don't think you can but for the sake of argument) it's so toxic now that standing by it is just politically stupid. They should have learned this lesson in the 80's when Margaret Thatcher pulled the exact same thing with milk for school kids. Conservatives keep dying on this same fucking hill and never seem to learn from the experience. Taking food away from hungry kids makes you look like a shitheel. Taking food away from hungry kids then trying to explain to an appalled electorate that no, actually it's a good thing the children are going hungry makes you look like an even bigger shitheel.
yes, well, they are. they want to do this.
But no, fold your arms and don’t even say you can’t afford it, instead say you’re refusing to do it on ideological grounds. Now everyone thinks you’re a bunch of cunts and if you change your mind you get no credit because you’ve been dragged into doing the right thing.
Amazing.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Oh except we don't want to do that, do we
The hill they chose to die on is the one where no matter what they cannot publicly admit to ideas outside their own.
To be fair, if my read of the news is right, I set out the defence in this thread a couple of days before ministers got there. Looking at ministerial and MP statements is a really limited way of understanding the actual thinking of government.
I think we'll get some kind of incredibly thin agreement that Boris can wave around and tout as a victory over the EU, but it'll be stretching the language to the limit to call it a 'deal'.
Given that one of their outs is a deal with Trump's USA (but probably not Biden's), nothing will be decided until November.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/24/johnson-will-wait-for-us-election-result-before-no-deal-brexit-decision