Clearly he misses out the fact - cheap food = full of sugar and other crap to keep costs down.
The only difference between now and the 19th century is that then cheap food was poor quality and often featured things that weren't food (so you were under weight). Now it contains calories that aren't easy to burn off.
Anna Soubry ran into a similar controversy when she was public health minister - people could see the point she was trying to make, but the image of going around eyeing constituents and classifying them as poor by being fat haunted her for some time.
She had the ability to 'rub people up the wrong way' but the underlying point was right.
Almost half of the fast-food outlets in England are in the most deprived parts of the country, figures show, raising fresh concerns about child obesity in poorer areas.
The most affluent 10% of England is home to just 3% of fast-food restaurants, chip shops and burger bars, and the poorest decile has 17%, according to the data from Public Health England (PHE).
Of the 51,460 fast-food outlets in England, 24,072 (47%) are in the poorest 30% of the country.
In light of the disparity, the health agency has called on local authorities to consider restricting the growth of fast-food outlets near schools, parks and other places where children gather, citing concerns about child obesity in deprived areas.
Much of the food eaten in deprived areas is neither good quality nor cheap.
People probably wont believe this, but my girlfriend, who was on FSM growing up, works at a school where 88% of the kids are on them, and cant believe the way middle class dupes fall for the poverty porn. The kids all have the latest phones and spend every lunchtime at the chicken shop - Tories should be worried about being shamed into falling for the craftiness of some unscrupulous "poor" people, that the job of soppy lefties
Suppose you are right. So what? Should the government spend six months and millions of pounds setting up more and more sophisticated means tests, or just listen to Marcus and spend probably less money and certainly less time extending FSM?
I don't consider your two options the only choices - Mine would be to make these people aware that you can feed a family of three well for less than £30 a week
There is certainly an argument for teaching cooking in *all* schools but I guess they are frightened of the cost and the knives. Even on pb, people have posted "simple" recipes which were straightforward in terms of technique but needed more ingredients than Jamie Oliver keeps at home. In any case, that is for the long term. In the short term, which is now, extend FSM vouchers. In the medium term, if you must send out Compass boxes, maybe include recipe suggestions rather than treat it as an episode of Ready Steady Cook but without the competitors being experienced restaurant chefs.
Theres only one explanation - Boris knows there are a bunch more catastrophes coming up in thsr department, and is hoping he can keep Williamson in place long enough that all the problems get fixed on him. And not the man who keeps him there.
No doubt they will come up with some more War on Woke nonsense to distract the masses while they cut their pay and conditions.
I am a bit wary about this.
Starmer has quite sensibly voted for the Brexit Deal so Brexit has been completed and avoided getting drawn too much into Wokery, the problem is with Brexit now done and Corbyn gone Labour voters who switched to the Tories in 2019 may well go back to Labour now if they see the Tories as not pushing an agenda for them.
Policies like scrapping the 48 hour week may go down well with the Tory core vote in the South of England but they will not go down well with ex Labour voters in the North and Midlands and Wales ie the RedWall.
By all means we don't want the disaster of the 35 hour week the French have had but I have no great issue with a 48 hour week.
Has the 35 hour week been a disaster in France? Like all things it may not have achieved all its objectives, but I also don't think it has been a disaster, probably demonstrated by the fact that it is 21 years old now and has only had minor amendments.
Are you just assuming it is a disaster because you don't like the idea or because it has actually been a disaster?
Christ...hardly recognisable...more seriously though, after Boris week long being a fatty is bad against covid, that message has totally gone by the wayside, a guess like a lot of people lockdown fitness routine. I am not massively into the nanny state, regulate our food, but we do need a much bigger push on hiw being over weight is really bad for you and end of this nonsense that you can be and still fit and healthy.
Well done him. If we could get the rest of the over weight population to do the same... Hence my advocacy of a Vitality style rewards-for-exercise0and-fitness program.
Clearly he misses out the fact - cheap food = full of sugar and other crap to keep costs down.
The only difference between now and the 19th century is that then cheap food was poor quality and often featured things that weren't food (so you were under weight). Now it contains calories that aren't easy to burn off.
If you were a one parent family with say two kids and struggling financially this would seem a cheap way to feed the family for three or four dinners
500g of pasta, one tin of tomatoes and 1kg of chicken is not going to provide 12 dinners, unless they are all for Tiny Tim. What planet are you on?
Two tins of tomatoes.
I am on planet normal - that could easily make one adult and two kids half a weeks dinners
It works out at about 300 calories per meal for 12 meals. An adult needs 2000-2500 calories per day and a child aged 6-12 needs 1600-2200. So 300 for your main meal of the day looks pretty inadequate. I shop and cook for a family of five and I can tell you that your meal would do us for about one dinner, maybe with a bit left over. Our kids are far from fat (in fact most clothes don't fit them because they are too skinny) so we are definitely not overfeeding them.
Fair enough, let them buy double what I suggested - three or four meals for less than £12
I think there is general agreement that people can just about afford to eat a decent diet on benefits as long as they don't buy anything else. Unfortunately people also need to pay for clothes, transport, heating, etc. Some people compound their difficulties by not knowing how to cook (a widespread problem not only affecting the poor; not helped by schools no longer teaching home economics). Some people working long hours and shifts don't have time to cook. Some people don't have the equipment. I just find all this smug wisdom being dispensed by well off people a bit too Marie Antoinette* for my liking. (*I know she was misquoted).
Theres only one explanation - Boris knows there are a bunch more catastrophes coming up in thsr department, and is hoping he can keep Williamson in place long enough that all the problems get fixed on him. And not the man who keeps him there.
Williamson currently holds the coveted and hotly contested title of Most Incompetent Minister. If he went then the title would pass to Boris, so he won't be going anytime soon.
Theres only one explanation - Boris knows there are a bunch more catastrophes coming up in thsr department, and is hoping he can keep Williamson in place long enough that all the problems get fixed on him. And not the man who keeps him there.
Why would Labour want Williamson to resign? He embarrasses the government every time he opens his mouth and pisses off parents and teachers alike with great facility. Labour are struggling to make an impact right now. Removing one of the easier targets and having him replaced by someone competent would not assist. Sting but don't kill would be my advice.
Clearly he misses out the fact - cheap food = full of sugar and other crap to keep costs down.
The only difference between now and the 19th century is that then cheap food was poor quality and often featured things that weren't food (so you were under weight). Now it contains calories that aren't easy to burn off.
Anna Soubry ran into a similar controversy when she was public health minister - people could see the point she was trying to make, but the image of going around eyeing constituents and classifying them as poor by being fat haunted her for some time.
She had the ability to 'rub people up the wrong way' but the underlying point was right.
Almost half of the fast-food outlets in England are in the most deprived parts of the country, figures show, raising fresh concerns about child obesity in poorer areas.
The most affluent 10% of England is home to just 3% of fast-food restaurants, chip shops and burger bars, and the poorest decile has 17%, according to the data from Public Health England (PHE).
Of the 51,460 fast-food outlets in England, 24,072 (47%) are in the poorest 30% of the country.
In light of the disparity, the health agency has called on local authorities to consider restricting the growth of fast-food outlets near schools, parks and other places where children gather, citing concerns about child obesity in deprived areas.
Much of the food eaten in deprived areas is neither good quality nor cheap.
People probably wont believe this, but my girlfriend, who was on FSM growing up, works at a school where 88% of the kids are on them, and cant believe the way middle class dupes fall for the poverty porn. The kids all have the latest phones and spend every lunchtime at the chicken shop - Tories should be worried about being shamed into falling for the craftiness of some unscrupulous "poor" people, that the job of soppy lefties
Suppose you are right. So what? Should the government spend six months and millions of pounds setting up more and more sophisticated means tests, or just listen to Marcus and spend probably less money and certainly less time extending FSM?
I don't consider your two options the only choices - Mine would be to make these people aware that you can feed a family of three well for less than £30 a week
There is certainly an argument for teaching cooking in *all* schools but I guess they are frightened of the cost and the knives. Even on pb, people have posted "simple" recipes which were straightforward in terms of technique but needed more ingredients than Jamie Oliver keeps at home. In any case, that is for the long term. In the short term, which is now, extend FSM vouchers. In the medium term, if you must send out Compass boxes, maybe include recipe suggestions rather than treat it as an episode of Ready Steady Cook but without the competitors being experienced restaurant chefs.
Absolutely - one problem is cooking snobbery.
So anything less than hand raising your own tomatoes (a mix of rare breeds) in compost you made in your own garden, hand skinned and pulped by Oompa Loompas of the right tribe, at the correct phase of the moon...
In reality a tin of chopped tomatoes is not actually a crime against humanity. Nor is using a pre-made sauce from a bottle.
Clearly he misses out the fact - cheap food = full of sugar and other crap to keep costs down.
The only difference between now and the 19th century is that then cheap food was poor quality and often featured things that weren't food (so you were under weight). Now it contains calories that aren't easy to burn off.
If you were a one parent family with say two kids and struggling financially this would seem a cheap way to feed the family for three or four dinners
I think you underestimating the dislike of the new, of changing habits. Something you haven't done before. Without knowing the details here, my guess is that PB is biased towards the "self-starting" group. That is, people whose reaction to a problem, a challenge or something new is to roll their sleeves up, say "right" and give it a go.
A large part of the population doesn't have that mental model. This isn't because they are bad people or useless. Partly it is innate attitude - but a major component is education and training for it.
Otherwise the attitude of "I don't know about that", "It's not for the likes of us", "that looks odd/funny" is the cocoon that it is easy to retreat to when confronted with a change.
A simple example...
Marcus Rashford revealed that when he was young, his mum told him if he was hungry, have a bowl of cereal. He said he used to eat 7-8 bowls of sugary cereal a day, until his coaches told him that was very bad idea. Not only unhealthy, very expensive.
In comparison, Mrs U and I make overnight oats. Costs pennies, extremely filling. There are always containers in the fridge, as if we got into the routine of if we are making a coffee or whatever, we have all the raw ingredients to hand and just refill. Takes a couple of minutes. Habit formed. You can flavour them any which way you like from chocolatey via cocao powder to fruity.
You and Mrs U "make overnight oats"? Too much detail, surely?
Clearly he misses out the fact - cheap food = full of sugar and other crap to keep costs down.
The only difference between now and the 19th century is that then cheap food was poor quality and often featured things that weren't food (so you were under weight). Now it contains calories that aren't easy to burn off.
If you were a one parent family with say two kids and struggling financially this would seem a cheap way to feed the family for three or four dinners
500g of pasta, one tin of tomatoes and 1kg of chicken is not going to provide 12 dinners, unless they are all for Tiny Tim. What planet are you on?
Two tins of tomatoes.
I am on planet normal - that could easily make one adult and two kids half a weeks dinners
It works out at about 300 calories per meal for 12 meals. An adult needs 2000-2500 calories per day and a child aged 6-12 needs 1600-2200. So 300 for your main meal of the day looks pretty inadequate. I shop and cook for a family of five and I can tell you that your meal would do us for about one dinner, maybe with a bit left over. Our kids are far from fat (in fact most clothes don't fit them because they are too skinny) so we are definitely not overfeeding them.
Fair enough, let them buy double what I suggested - three or four meals for less than £12
I think there is general agreement that people can just about afford to eat a decent diet on benefits as long as they don't buy anything else. Unfortunately people also need to pay for clothes, transport, heating, etc. Some people compound their difficulties by not knowing how to cook (a widespread problem not only affecting the poor; not helped by schools no longer teaching home economics). Some people working long hours and shifts don't have time to cook. Some people don't have the equipment. I just find all this smug wisdom being dispensed by well off people a bit too Marie Antoinette* for my liking. (*I know she was misquoted).
Jack seems to think it is a goer but as you have pointed out, and certainly looking at the illustrations, this does seem to require (quite?) some cooking skills.
Clearly he misses out the fact - cheap food = full of sugar and other crap to keep costs down.
The only difference between now and the 19th century is that then cheap food was poor quality and often featured things that weren't food (so you were under weight). Now it contains calories that aren't easy to burn off.
If you were a one parent family with say two kids and struggling financially this would seem a cheap way to feed the family for three or four dinners
500g of pasta, one tin of tomatoes and 1kg of chicken is not going to provide 12 dinners, unless they are all for Tiny Tim. What planet are you on?
Two tins of tomatoes.
I am on planet normal - that could easily make one adult and two kids half a weeks dinners
It works out at about 300 calories per meal for 12 meals. An adult needs 2000-2500 calories per day and a child aged 6-12 needs 1600-2200. So 300 for your main meal of the day looks pretty inadequate. I shop and cook for a family of five and I can tell you that your meal would do us for about one dinner, maybe with a bit left over. Our kids are far from fat (in fact most clothes don't fit them because they are too skinny) so we are definitely not overfeeding them.
Fair enough, let them buy double what I suggested - three or four meals for less than £12
I think there is general agreement that people can just about afford to eat a decent diet on benefits as long as they don't buy anything else. Unfortunately people also need to pay for clothes, transport, heating, etc. Some people compound their difficulties by not knowing how to cook (a widespread problem not only affecting the poor; not helped by schools no longer teaching home economics). Some people working long hours and shifts don't have time to cook. Some people don't have the equipment. I just find all this smug wisdom being dispensed by well off people a bit too Marie Antoinette* for my liking. (*I know she was misquoted).
How do you know who is well off and who isn't? My family, and my girlfriend's, all grew up in council houses - in fact, out of all of her family, and all of mine, My son and I are the only two not to have lived in social housing. Probably the reason that they are able to see when other people in that situation are conning the state
It isn't smug wisdom to point out that you can feed a family of three for 3 or 4 days for less than a tenner, it just doesn't sit well with poverty porn addicts and soppy bleeding hearts
You obviously missed Newsnight last night that ran a piece all about how the government were f##king up and did they need to rethink the whole programme.
Whoever Trump selects to be his legal team I expect the impeachment vote to go largely along party lines still anyway.
That means it will still be difficult to get the 2/3 majority to convict him, though a simple majority to disbar him from running for public office in the future might be possible
That means the first 100 days of Biden's Presidency, when he was the political capital to get things done, end up being all about his predecessor and the Senate arguing about that instead of getting to grips with Covid and the other issues facing the United States quite apart from re-engaging with the rest of the world.
Yes, I think the Democrats should play it long, can't see any advantage in letting it dominate the early days of Biden. Under US law, can people represent themselves? I can see Trump quite fancying that.Otherwise, I hope he gets reasonable representation - everyone's entitled to it, and I imagine there are plenty of ambitious young barristers who'd be glad to make a name as willing to tackle even the hardest cases.
Like that pupil barrister Keir Starmer who helped out on McLibel; whatever happened to him?
Christ...hardly recognisable...more seriously though, after Boris week long being a fatty is bad against covid, that message has totally gone by the wayside, a guess like a lot of people lockdown fitness routine. I am not massively into the nanny state, regulate our food, but we do need a much bigger push on hiw being over weight is really bad for you and end of this nonsense that you can be and still fit and healthy.
Well done him. If we could get the rest of the over weight population to do the same... Hence my advocacy of a Vitality style rewards-for-exercise0and-fitness program.
He does however look 20 years older.....
And Mr Johnson was - belatedly, rather too long after his bout with covid - trumpeting an obesity programme last summer. Seems to have done a Boris Island or even Garden Bridge?
Christ...hardly recognisable...more seriously though, after Boris week long being a fatty is bad against covid, that message has totally gone by the wayside, a guess like a lot of people lockdown fitness routine. I am not massively into the nanny state, regulate our food, but we do need a much bigger push on hiw being over weight is really bad for you and end of this nonsense that you can be and still fit and healthy.
Well done him. If we could get the rest of the over weight population to do the same... Hence my advocacy of a Vitality style rewards-for-exercise0and-fitness program.
He does however look 20 years older.....
Does he? I was quite impressed, but then who am I to judge. It did inspire me though, but I'm not sure that will last more than 30 minutes sadly. My wife thought he had lost too much weight and on 2nd viewing I agree (when your head looks large compared to your hips!)
Though he was standing for the Tories in Glasgow Pollok, a seat less likely to elect a Tory MSP it would be hard to find
Well, he certainly follows your broad philosophy of attracting voters by making it clear they don't come up to his standards.
All is not lost though. The Tory vote went up 89% between the last two MSP elections. To 9.5%, admittedly. Only another 40 years (7 generations) before an absolute majority.
You obviously missed Newsnight last night that ran a piece all about how the government were f##king up and did they need to rethink the whole programme.
You obviously missed Newsnight last night that ran a piece all about how the government were f##king up and did they need to rethink the whole programme.
That piece was commissioned on the basis that the government was (and would be) falling short of the vaccine roll out goals. Partly because of not understanding ramp up of course.
It rather reminds me of the story of the last days of Kids Company.
The Guardian et al had tons of stories ready to go about how the heartless David Cameron had pulled down Kids Company by denying them money to save them. Cameron, since he was an effective media operator, arranged that money would be given. It was escrowed so that, in the end, when the charity collapsed, it wasn't lost. It fell over a couple of days later, due to the complete lack of anything resembling control on the spending of its money.
Slightly predictably the Supreme Court has found for the insured in the business interruptions test case. I am not their biggest fan but kudos to the FCA for bringing and successfully conducting this test case, it will have saved a lot of businesses from going under.
I wouldn't be too surprised to see some capital raising on the part of some insurers though.
Whoever Trump selects to be his legal team I expect the impeachment vote to go largely along party lines still anyway.
That means it will still be difficult to get the 2/3 majority to convict him, though a simple majority to disbar him from running for public office in the future might be possible
That means the first 100 days of Biden's Presidency, when he was the political capital to get things done, end up being all about his predecessor and the Senate arguing about that instead of getting to grips with Covid and the other issues facing the United States quite apart from re-engaging with the rest of the world.
Yes, I think the Democrats should play it long, can't see any advantage in letting it dominate the early days of Biden. Under US law, can people represent themselves? I can see Trump quite fancying that.Otherwise, I hope he gets reasonable representation - everyone's entitled to it, and I imagine there are plenty of ambitious young barristers who'd be glad to make a name as willing to tackle even the hardest cases.
Like that pupil barrister Keir Starmer who helped out on McLibel; whatever happened to him?
Clearly he misses out the fact - cheap food = full of sugar and other crap to keep costs down.
The only difference between now and the 19th century is that then cheap food was poor quality and often featured things that weren't food (so you were under weight). Now it contains calories that aren't easy to burn off.
If you were a one parent family with say two kids and struggling financially this would seem a cheap way to feed the family for three or four dinners
500g of pasta, one tin of tomatoes and 1kg of chicken is not going to provide 12 dinners, unless they are all for Tiny Tim. What planet are you on?
Two tins of tomatoes.
I am on planet normal - that could easily make one adult and two kids half a weeks dinners
It works out at about 300 calories per meal for 12 meals. An adult needs 2000-2500 calories per day and a child aged 6-12 needs 1600-2200. So 300 for your main meal of the day looks pretty inadequate. I shop and cook for a family of five and I can tell you that your meal would do us for about one dinner, maybe with a bit left over. Our kids are far from fat (in fact most clothes don't fit them because they are too skinny) so we are definitely not overfeeding them.
Fair enough, let them buy double what I suggested - three or four meals for less than £12
I think there is general agreement that people can just about afford to eat a decent diet on benefits as long as they don't buy anything else. Unfortunately people also need to pay for clothes, transport, heating, etc. Some people compound their difficulties by not knowing how to cook (a widespread problem not only affecting the poor; not helped by schools no longer teaching home economics). Some people working long hours and shifts don't have time to cook. Some people don't have the equipment. I just find all this smug wisdom being dispensed by well off people a bit too Marie Antoinette* for my liking. (*I know she was misquoted).
How much do you think is required to feed a family of four 2 children 2 adults per week? As a pound figure?
You obviously missed Newsnight last night that ran a piece all about how the government were f##king up and did they need to rethink the whole programme.
The press just cant cope with things going well
To be fair to them, they are in unchartered waters!
No doubt they will come up with some more War on Woke nonsense to distract the masses while they cut their pay and conditions.
I am a bit wary about this.
Starmer has quite sensibly voted for the Brexit Deal so Brexit has been completed and avoided getting drawn too much into Wokery, the problem is with Brexit now done and Corbyn gone Labour voters who switched to the Tories in 2019 may well go back to Labour now if they see the Tories as not pushing an agenda for them.
Policies like scrapping the 48 hour week may go down well with the Tory core vote in the South of England but they will not go down well with ex Labour voters in the North and Midlands and Wales ie the RedWall.
By all means we don't want the disaster of the 35 hour week the French have had but I have no great issue with a 48 hour week.
Good analysis. Previously you've been very keen on citing the 2019 Conservative manifesto commitments in respect of Brexit. That same manifesto pledged to improve, or at least maintain, workers' rights. If proposals to weaken workers' rights gain traction, you could well find that the white working class that, as you say, has switched in significant numbers to the Tories recently may return to seeing Labour as their natural home. Any weakening of workers' rights is also likely to impact the midlands and north the most, in direct contradiction of the 'levelling up' agenda.
It has always been my view that the so-called "white-working class" switchers switched because they hated Corbyn, not because Brexit. Now there is no Corbyn, and if you want to believe it, no Brexit either. There is no real reason for them to vote any differently from the traditional red team. The Tories are also now completely stuffed as the party of the economy (their main USP). They just cannot claim that anymore. If Labour can position themselves as the party of sensible government as they did under Blair then the Tories (especially if they keep The Clown in place) are in big trouble
On Red Wall doorsteps it was both of those issues.
One was "Corbyn. Pfffffft." The other was "We voted to leave - why haven't we left yet?"
The interesting thing will be how they react to Omnishambles Brexit. Their impatience to leave was that they had been promised a moon on a stick and they were sick of being told to wait.
Now reality kicks in, it will be stuff costs more, you can't go on holiday as easily and we require you to work longer hours for less money.
You obviously missed Newsnight last night that ran a piece all about how the government were f##king up and did they need to rethink the whole programme.
That piece was commissioned on the basis that the government was (and would be) falling short of the vaccine roll out goals. Partly because of not understanding ramp up of course.
It rather reminds me of the story of the last days of Kids Company.
The Guardian et al had tons of stories ready to go about how the heartless David Cameron had pulled down Kids Company by denying them money to save them. Cameron, since he was an effective media operator, arranged that money would be given. It was escrowed so that, in the end, when the charity collapsed, it wasn't lost. It fell over a couple of days later, due to the complete lack of anything resembling control on the spending of its money.
Clearly he misses out the fact - cheap food = full of sugar and other crap to keep costs down.
The only difference between now and the 19th century is that then cheap food was poor quality and often featured things that weren't food (so you were under weight). Now it contains calories that aren't easy to burn off.
If you were a one parent family with say two kids and struggling financially this would seem a cheap way to feed the family for three or four dinners
500g of pasta, one tin of tomatoes and 1kg of chicken is not going to provide 12 dinners, unless they are all for Tiny Tim. What planet are you on?
Two tins of tomatoes.
I am on planet normal - that could easily make one adult and two kids half a weeks dinners
It works out at about 300 calories per meal for 12 meals. An adult needs 2000-2500 calories per day and a child aged 6-12 needs 1600-2200. So 300 for your main meal of the day looks pretty inadequate. I shop and cook for a family of five and I can tell you that your meal would do us for about one dinner, maybe with a bit left over. Our kids are far from fat (in fact most clothes don't fit them because they are too skinny) so we are definitely not overfeeding them.
Fair enough, let them buy double what I suggested - three or four meals for less than £12
I think there is general agreement that people can just about afford to eat a decent diet on benefits as long as they don't buy anything else. Unfortunately people also need to pay for clothes, transport, heating, etc. Some people compound their difficulties by not knowing how to cook (a widespread problem not only affecting the poor; not helped by schools no longer teaching home economics). Some people working long hours and shifts don't have time to cook. Some people don't have the equipment. I just find all this smug wisdom being dispensed by well off people a bit too Marie Antoinette* for my liking. (*I know she was misquoted).
Jack seems to think it is a goer but as you have pointed out, and certainly looking at the illustrations, this does seem to require (quite?) some cooking skills.
But you are the person doing it so have the expertise (no idea if @isam buys for, then cooks for his family every day).
Which is an interesting case. What that is describing is
- brown some chicken in a pan/pot - add water, some herbs and a stock cube. - throw in some chopped veg - cook until... cooked. - add a bit of sauce towards the end.
Though he was standing for the Tories in Glasgow Pollok, a seat less likely to elect a Tory MSP it would be hard to find
Well, he certainly follows your broad philosophy of attracting voters by making it clear they don't come up to his standards.
All is not lost though. The Tory vote went up 89% between the last two MSP elections. To 9.5%, admittedly. Only another 40 years (7 generations) before an absolute majority.
LOL. Having said all this, there is a strong case for a major push at public heath messaging, particularly in Glasgow. The drugs problems is truly terrible there and life expectancy in some parts of the city at third world levels. I seem to remember some crime stats which really jumped out from Glasgow even compared to other parts of the Central Belt. Too many lives are being ruined and action needs to be taken.
From that same article: "Problems with border bureaucracy have been solved all around the world but companies need to go through a “learning process” in the UK context, he said.
“The rule book came out six hours before the end of the transition period so companies have not had any time to learn it," Mr Grozoubinski added.
“A year from now you won't have that problem because businesses will have learned."
It's also worth noting that hauliers and suppliers have 15-2% staff absences due to Covid-19, and the fact France is still insisting on 72 hour test results for everyone at the border - and even now challenging whether lateral flow tests are acceptable - which is causing backlogs in Kent and France unrelated to Brexit.
The bigger issue is the NI/GB flow of traffic, which isn't practical enough yet - and the Holyhead facility won't be finished until late 2021 - and that for very rapid transit of UK-EU "fish & chicks" which needs to be much smoother, and is still under development.
Clearly he misses out the fact - cheap food = full of sugar and other crap to keep costs down.
The only difference between now and the 19th century is that then cheap food was poor quality and often featured things that weren't food (so you were under weight). Now it contains calories that aren't easy to burn off.
If you were a one parent family with say two kids and struggling financially this would seem a cheap way to feed the family for three or four dinners
500g of pasta, one tin of tomatoes and 1kg of chicken is not going to provide 12 dinners, unless they are all for Tiny Tim. What planet are you on?
Two tins of tomatoes.
I am on planet normal - that could easily make one adult and two kids half a weeks dinners
It works out at about 300 calories per meal for 12 meals. An adult needs 2000-2500 calories per day and a child aged 6-12 needs 1600-2200. So 300 for your main meal of the day looks pretty inadequate. I shop and cook for a family of five and I can tell you that your meal would do us for about one dinner, maybe with a bit left over. Our kids are far from fat (in fact most clothes don't fit them because they are too skinny) so we are definitely not overfeeding them.
Fair enough, let them buy double what I suggested - three or four meals for less than £12
I think there is general agreement that people can just about afford to eat a decent diet on benefits as long as they don't buy anything else. Unfortunately people also need to pay for clothes, transport, heating, etc. Some people compound their difficulties by not knowing how to cook (a widespread problem not only affecting the poor; not helped by schools no longer teaching home economics). Some people working long hours and shifts don't have time to cook. Some people don't have the equipment. I just find all this smug wisdom being dispensed by well off people a bit too Marie Antoinette* for my liking. (*I know she was misquoted).
Jack seems to think it is a goer but as you have pointed out, and certainly looking at the illustrations, this does seem to require (quite?) some cooking skills.
But you are the person doing it so have the expertise (no idea if @isam buys for, then cooks for his family every day).
Which is an interesting case. What that is describing is
- brown some chicken in a pan/pot - add water, some herbs and a stock cube. - throw in some chopped veg - cook until... cooked. - add a bit of sauce towards the end.
Is it the language that is putting people off?
Yes good point. I think it is the palaver and the finished product I'm guessing looks so polished that people assume it is a fancy pants chef cooking it (which of course it is but you know...).
But yes, an "all in" with chicken is what it looks like to me but I'm not feeding a family of four seven days a week.
Clearly he misses out the fact - cheap food = full of sugar and other crap to keep costs down.
The only difference between now and the 19th century is that then cheap food was poor quality and often featured things that weren't food (so you were under weight). Now it contains calories that aren't easy to burn off.
If you were a one parent family with say two kids and struggling financially this would seem a cheap way to feed the family for three or four dinners
500g of pasta, one tin of tomatoes and 1kg of chicken is not going to provide 12 dinners, unless they are all for Tiny Tim. What planet are you on?
Two tins of tomatoes.
I am on planet normal - that could easily make one adult and two kids half a weeks dinners
It works out at about 300 calories per meal for 12 meals. An adult needs 2000-2500 calories per day and a child aged 6-12 needs 1600-2200. So 300 for your main meal of the day looks pretty inadequate. I shop and cook for a family of five and I can tell you that your meal would do us for about one dinner, maybe with a bit left over. Our kids are far from fat (in fact most clothes don't fit them because they are too skinny) so we are definitely not overfeeding them.
Fair enough, let them buy double what I suggested - three or four meals for less than £12
I think there is general agreement that people can just about afford to eat a decent diet on benefits as long as they don't buy anything else. Unfortunately people also need to pay for clothes, transport, heating, etc. Some people compound their difficulties by not knowing how to cook (a widespread problem not only affecting the poor; not helped by schools no longer teaching home economics). Some people working long hours and shifts don't have time to cook. Some people don't have the equipment. I just find all this smug wisdom being dispensed by well off people a bit too Marie Antoinette* for my liking. (*I know she was misquoted).
How do you know who is well off and who isn't? My family, and my girlfriend's, all grew up in council houses - in fact, out of all of her family, and all of mine, My son and I are the only two not to have lived in social housing. Probably the reason that they are able to see when other people in that situation are conning the state
It isn't smug wisdom to point out that you can feed a family of three for 3 or 4 days for less than a tenner, it just doesn't sit well with poverty porn addicts and soppy bleeding hearts
But you haven't done that. Your suggested meal has only three ingredients, it would also need other ingredients to make it palatable, it would need energy, appliances and utensils to store and cook the food, and would be only one meal out of three daily. Are there some feckless, useless, dishonest people out there? Yes. But their kids still need feeding. It's in our long run economic self interest to have kids eating enough to be able to concentrate at school and have a chance of breaking the cycle of poverty, getting off benefits and paying tax.
Christ...hardly recognisable...more seriously though, after Boris week long being a fatty is bad against covid, that message has totally gone by the wayside, a guess like a lot of people lockdown fitness routine. I am not massively into the nanny state, regulate our food, but we do need a much bigger push on hiw being over weight is really bad for you and end of this nonsense that you can be and still fit and healthy.
Well done him. If we could get the rest of the over weight population to do the same... Hence my advocacy of a Vitality style rewards-for-exercise0and-fitness program.
He does however look 20 years older.....
And Mr Johnson was - belatedly, rather too long after his bout with covid - trumpeting an obesity programme last summer. Seems to have done a Boris Island or even Garden Bridge?
So he starts a project, then gets bored with it?
Is now a good time to talk about which of the characteristics of psychopathy Boris Johnson fits?
1. Doesn't get bogged down with negative emotions 2. Is a different person to different people 3. Gets bored easily 4. Acts impulsively 5. Often lies 6. Rarely accepts responsibility 7. Has a parasitic lifestyle 8. Has a high opinion of himself
Theres only one explanation - Boris knows there are a bunch more catastrophes coming up in thsr department, and is hoping he can keep Williamson in place long enough that all the problems get fixed on him. And not the man who keeps him there.
Why would Labour want Williamson to resign? He embarrasses the government every time he opens his mouth and pisses off parents and teachers alike with great facility. Labour are struggling to make an impact right now. Removing one of the easier targets and having him replaced by someone competent would not assist. Sting but don't kill would be my advice.
Calling for someone to resign is very different to actually wanting them to go.
Callng for him to resign allows Labour to point at his arrogance for refusingto resign and Bozo's weakness for not sacking him.
Same again when there is a farce with GCSE and A Level grades in the summer.
Clearly he misses out the fact - cheap food = full of sugar and other crap to keep costs down.
The only difference between now and the 19th century is that then cheap food was poor quality and often featured things that weren't food (so you were under weight). Now it contains calories that aren't easy to burn off.
If you were a one parent family with say two kids and struggling financially this would seem a cheap way to feed the family for three or four dinners
500g of pasta, one tin of tomatoes and 1kg of chicken is not going to provide 12 dinners, unless they are all for Tiny Tim. What planet are you on?
Two tins of tomatoes.
I am on planet normal - that could easily make one adult and two kids half a weeks dinners
It works out at about 300 calories per meal for 12 meals. An adult needs 2000-2500 calories per day and a child aged 6-12 needs 1600-2200. So 300 for your main meal of the day looks pretty inadequate. I shop and cook for a family of five and I can tell you that your meal would do us for about one dinner, maybe with a bit left over. Our kids are far from fat (in fact most clothes don't fit them because they are too skinny) so we are definitely not overfeeding them.
Fair enough, let them buy double what I suggested - three or four meals for less than £12
I think there is general agreement that people can just about afford to eat a decent diet on benefits as long as they don't buy anything else. Unfortunately people also need to pay for clothes, transport, heating, etc. Some people compound their difficulties by not knowing how to cook (a widespread problem not only affecting the poor; not helped by schools no longer teaching home economics). Some people working long hours and shifts don't have time to cook. Some people don't have the equipment. I just find all this smug wisdom being dispensed by well off people a bit too Marie Antoinette* for my liking. (*I know she was misquoted).
How do you know who is well off and who isn't? My family, and my girlfriend's, all grew up in council houses - in fact, out of all of her family, and all of mine, My son and I are the only two not to have lived in social housing. Probably the reason that they are able to see when other people in that situation are conning the state
It isn't smug wisdom to point out that you can feed a family of three for 3 or 4 days for less than a tenner, it just doesn't sit well with poverty porn addicts and soppy bleeding hearts
But you haven't done that. Your suggested meal has only three ingredients, it would also need other ingredients to make it palatable, it would need energy, appliances and utensils to store and cook the food, and would be only one meal out of three daily. Are there some feckless, useless, dishonest people out there? Yes. But their kids still need feeding. It's in our long run economic self interest to have kids eating enough to be able to concentrate at school and have a chance of breaking the cycle of poverty, getting off benefits and paying tax.
Still waiting for your figure on how much you think is needed to spend a week to feed 2 adults and 2 children
BBC News - Covid-19: Brazil variant already in UK, scientist says
One of two coronavirus variants thought to have emerged in Brazil has already been detected in the UK, says a leading scientist advising the government
Christ...hardly recognisable...more seriously though, after Boris week long being a fatty is bad against covid, that message has totally gone by the wayside, a guess like a lot of people lockdown fitness routine. I am not massively into the nanny state, regulate our food, but we do need a much bigger push on hiw being over weight is really bad for you and end of this nonsense that you can be and still fit and healthy.
Well done him. If we could get the rest of the over weight population to do the same... Hence my advocacy of a Vitality style rewards-for-exercise0and-fitness program.
He does however look 20 years older.....
And Mr Johnson was - belatedly, rather too long after his bout with covid - trumpeting an obesity programme last summer. Seems to have done a Boris Island or even Garden Bridge?
So he starts a project, then gets bored with it?
Is now a good time to talk about which of the characteristics of psychopathy Boris Johnson fits?
1. Doesn't get bogged down with negative emotions 2. Is a different person to different people 3. Gets bored easily 4. Acts impulsively 5. Often lies 6. Rarely accepts responsibility 7. Has a parasitic lifestyle 8. Has a high opinion of himself
Though he was standing for the Tories in Glasgow Pollok, a seat less likely to elect a Tory MSP it would be hard to find
Well, he certainly follows your broad philosophy of attracting voters by making it clear they don't come up to his standards.
All is not lost though. The Tory vote went up 89% between the last two MSP elections. To 9.5%, admittedly. Only another 40 years (7 generations) before an absolute majority.
LOL. Having said all this, there is a strong case for a major push at public heath messaging, particularly in Glasgow. The drugs problems is truly terrible there and life expectancy in some parts of the city at third world levels. I seem to remember some crime stats which really jumped out from Glasgow even compared to other parts of the Central Belt. Too many lives are being ruined and action needs to be taken.
So: * legalise and quality control drugs defunding the gangs in the City; * ensure safe supply and monitoring for those who have this problem; * improve mental health services so that so many do not self medicate and end up overdosing; * Use the massive reduction on the calls on police time and the prison population to focus on other crimes, specifically violent crime and domestic abuse; * as an afterthought maybe provide some fruit at schools.
Whoever Trump selects to be his legal team I expect the impeachment vote to go largely along party lines still anyway.
That means it will still be difficult to get the 2/3 majority to convict him, though a simple majority to disbar him from running for public office in the future might be possible
That means the first 100 days of Biden's Presidency, when he was the political capital to get things done, end up being all about his predecessor and the Senate arguing about that instead of getting to grips with Covid and the other issues facing the United States quite apart from re-engaging with the rest of the world.
Yes, I think the Democrats should play it long, can't see any advantage in letting it dominate the early days of Biden. Under US law, can people represent themselves? I can see Trump quite fancying that.Otherwise, I hope he gets reasonable representation - everyone's entitled to it, and I imagine there are plenty of ambitious young barristers who'd be glad to make a name as willing to tackle even the hardest cases.
Like that pupil barrister Keir Starmer who helped out on McLibel; whatever happened to him?
Turned out to be a bit disappointing, sadly.
Thought so. I'd heard he had to give up the lawyering business.
Clearly he misses out the fact - cheap food = full of sugar and other crap to keep costs down.
The only difference between now and the 19th century is that then cheap food was poor quality and often featured things that weren't food (so you were under weight). Now it contains calories that aren't easy to burn off.
If you were a one parent family with say two kids and struggling financially this would seem a cheap way to feed the family for three or four dinners
500g of pasta, one tin of tomatoes and 1kg of chicken is not going to provide 12 dinners, unless they are all for Tiny Tim. What planet are you on?
Two tins of tomatoes.
I am on planet normal - that could easily make one adult and two kids half a weeks dinners
It works out at about 300 calories per meal for 12 meals. An adult needs 2000-2500 calories per day and a child aged 6-12 needs 1600-2200. So 300 for your main meal of the day looks pretty inadequate. I shop and cook for a family of five and I can tell you that your meal would do us for about one dinner, maybe with a bit left over. Our kids are far from fat (in fact most clothes don't fit them because they are too skinny) so we are definitely not overfeeding them.
Fair enough, let them buy double what I suggested - three or four meals for less than £12
I think there is general agreement that people can just about afford to eat a decent diet on benefits as long as they don't buy anything else. Unfortunately people also need to pay for clothes, transport, heating, etc. Some people compound their difficulties by not knowing how to cook (a widespread problem not only affecting the poor; not helped by schools no longer teaching home economics). Some people working long hours and shifts don't have time to cook. Some people don't have the equipment. I just find all this smug wisdom being dispensed by well off people a bit too Marie Antoinette* for my liking. (*I know she was misquoted).
Jack seems to think it is a goer but as you have pointed out, and certainly looking at the illustrations, this does seem to require (quite?) some cooking skills.
But you are the person doing it so have the expertise (no idea if @isam buys for, then cooks for his family every day).
Which is an interesting case. What that is describing is
- brown some chicken in a pan/pot - add water, some herbs and a stock cube. - throw in some chopped veg - cook until... cooked. - add a bit of sauce towards the end.
Is it the language that is putting people off?
Yes good point. I think it is the palaver and the finished product I'm guessing looks so polished that people assume it is a fancy pants chef cooking it (which of course it is but you know...).
But yes, an "all in" with chicken is what it looks like to me but I'm not feeding a family of four seven days a week.
I keep thinking about doing a cook book on the "throw things in a pan" style - get rid of the language. Make it so accessible that it breaks down barriers.
I made a soup yesterday. Remains of a chicken - bones, left over meat etc. In a pot, water, stock cube, any old spare root veg, salt, pepper and some dried oregano. Simmer on the stove for hour and a bit, while I revised the code for generating graphs to annoy people.
Christ...hardly recognisable...more seriously though, after Boris week long being a fatty is bad against covid, that message has totally gone by the wayside, a guess like a lot of people lockdown fitness routine. I am not massively into the nanny state, regulate our food, but we do need a much bigger push on hiw being over weight is really bad for you and end of this nonsense that you can be and still fit and healthy.
Well done him. If we could get the rest of the over weight population to do the same... Hence my advocacy of a Vitality style rewards-for-exercise0and-fitness program.
He does however look 20 years older.....
And Mr Johnson was - belatedly, rather too long after his bout with covid - trumpeting an obesity programme last summer. Seems to have done a Boris Island or even Garden Bridge?
So he starts a project, then gets bored with it?
Is now a good time to talk about which of the characteristics of psychopathy Boris Johnson fits?
1. Doesn't get bogged down with negative emotions 2. Is a different person to different people 3. Gets bored easily 4. Acts impulsively 5. Often lies 6. Rarely accepts responsibility 7. Has a parasitic lifestyle 8. Has a high opinion of himself
I count seven for Boris. (Two for me)
Which two. Or is that 2?
I meant two, not number 2. Numbers 3 and 8 best fit me.
Theres only one explanation - Boris knows there are a bunch more catastrophes coming up in thsr department, and is hoping he can keep Williamson in place long enough that all the problems get fixed on him. And not the man who keeps him there.
Why would Labour want Williamson to resign? He embarrasses the government every time he opens his mouth and pisses off parents and teachers alike with great facility. Labour are struggling to make an impact right now. Removing one of the easier targets and having him replaced by someone competent would not assist. Sting but don't kill would be my advice.
Calling for someone to resign is very different to actually wanting them to go.
Callng for him to resign allows Labour to point at his arrogance for refusingto resign and Bozo's weakness for not sacking him.
Same again when there is a farce with GCSE and A Level grades in the summer.
I fully get that you want to highlight his incompetence just in case someone is emerging from a year long retreat and isn't actually aware.
I don't think Kate Bingham was ever criticised because the vaccine acquisition policy was problematic.
The media seemed mostly concerned about the money she was spending on PR staff and the possible release of commercially sensitive information.
I was more concerned about the absolutely witless public statements she made about vaccination policy, which could hardly have been better calculated to undermine public confidence in the process.
Theres only one explanation - Boris knows there are a bunch more catastrophes coming up in thsr department, and is hoping he can keep Williamson in place long enough that all the problems get fixed on him. And not the man who keeps him there.
Why would Labour want Williamson to resign? He embarrasses the government every time he opens his mouth and pisses off parents and teachers alike with great facility. Labour are struggling to make an impact right now. Removing one of the easier targets and having him replaced by someone competent would not assist. Sting but don't kill would be my advice.
Calling for someone to resign is very different to actually wanting them to go.
Callng for him to resign allows Labour to point at his arrogance for refusingto resign and Bozo's weakness for not sacking him.
Same again when there is a farce with GCSE and A Level grades in the summer.
Quite so. Labour calling for a Cabinet Minister to resign or be sacked is a surefire way of ensuring that they stay in post. Clever politics. If Labour really wanted to get rid of Williamson, they'd be praising him to the skies.
BBC News - Covid-19: Brazil variant already in UK, scientist says
One of two coronavirus variants thought to have emerged in Brazil has already been detected in the UK, says a leading scientist advising the government
Before people just jump on the Marcus Rashford bandwagon they should try out for themselves just how cheaply one can feed oneself 2 meals a day for a week without feeling hungry.I tried it as an experiment and found i could do it for £7 i.e £1 a day
On the free school meals thing, it seems to me there's a bit of mission creep coming in. School Lunch -> Out of term food -> Main meal -> 7 days -> 'Can't feed a child on that - isn't the provision for 1 meal, not three/day ? and so on...
You obviously missed Newsnight last night that ran a piece all about how the government were f##king up and did they need to rethink the whole programme.
That piece was commissioned on the basis that the government was (and would be) falling short of the vaccine roll out goals. Partly because of not understanding ramp up of course.
It rather reminds me of the story of the last days of Kids Company.
The Guardian et al had tons of stories ready to go about how the heartless David Cameron had pulled down Kids Company by denying them money to save them. Cameron, since he was an effective media operator, arranged that money would be given. It was escrowed so that, in the end, when the charity collapsed, it wasn't lost. It fell over a couple of days later, due to the complete lack of anything resembling control on the spending of its money.
I must say I like the style of the barrister, arguing in a court of law, that being held legally responsible for your legal responsibilities is unfair.
Clearly he misses out the fact - cheap food = full of sugar and other crap to keep costs down.
The only difference between now and the 19th century is that then cheap food was poor quality and often featured things that weren't food (so you were under weight). Now it contains calories that aren't easy to burn off.
If you were a one parent family with say two kids and struggling financially this would seem a cheap way to feed the family for three or four dinners
500g of pasta, one tin of tomatoes and 1kg of chicken is not going to provide 12 dinners, unless they are all for Tiny Tim. What planet are you on?
Two tins of tomatoes.
I am on planet normal - that could easily make one adult and two kids half a weeks dinners
It works out at about 300 calories per meal for 12 meals. An adult needs 2000-2500 calories per day and a child aged 6-12 needs 1600-2200. So 300 for your main meal of the day looks pretty inadequate. I shop and cook for a family of five and I can tell you that your meal would do us for about one dinner, maybe with a bit left over. Our kids are far from fat (in fact most clothes don't fit them because they are too skinny) so we are definitely not overfeeding them.
Fair enough, let them buy double what I suggested - three or four meals for less than £12
I think there is general agreement that people can just about afford to eat a decent diet on benefits as long as they don't buy anything else. Unfortunately people also need to pay for clothes, transport, heating, etc. Some people compound their difficulties by not knowing how to cook (a widespread problem not only affecting the poor; not helped by schools no longer teaching home economics). Some people working long hours and shifts don't have time to cook. Some people don't have the equipment. I just find all this smug wisdom being dispensed by well off people a bit too Marie Antoinette* for my liking. (*I know she was misquoted).
Jack seems to think it is a goer but as you have pointed out, and certainly looking at the illustrations, this does seem to require (quite?) some cooking skills.
But you are the person doing it so have the expertise (no idea if @isam buys for, then cooks for his family every day).
Which is an interesting case. What that is describing is
- brown some chicken in a pan/pot - add water, some herbs and a stock cube. - throw in some chopped veg - cook until... cooked. - add a bit of sauce towards the end.
Is it the language that is putting people off?
Yes good point. I think it is the palaver and the finished product I'm guessing looks so polished that people assume it is a fancy pants chef cooking it (which of course it is but you know...).
But yes, an "all in" with chicken is what it looks like to me but I'm not feeding a family of four seven days a week.
I keep thinking about doing a cook book on the "throw things in a pan" style - get rid of the language. Make it so accessible that it breaks down barriers.
I made a soup yesterday. Remains of a chicken - bones, left over meat etc. In a pot, water, stock cube, any old spare root veg, salt, pepper and some dried oregano. Simmer on the stove for hour and a bit, while I revised the code for generating graphs to annoy people.
I make soup to feed starving schoolkids a couple of times a week. At least, I put three or four tins of whatever is on special offer into the foodbank bin. Three or four large tins of soup for £3 and no need to waste money on oregano.
Clearly he misses out the fact - cheap food = full of sugar and other crap to keep costs down.
The only difference between now and the 19th century is that then cheap food was poor quality and often featured things that weren't food (so you were under weight). Now it contains calories that aren't easy to burn off.
If you were a one parent family with say two kids and struggling financially this would seem a cheap way to feed the family for three or four dinners
500g of pasta, one tin of tomatoes and 1kg of chicken is not going to provide 12 dinners, unless they are all for Tiny Tim. What planet are you on?
Two tins of tomatoes.
I am on planet normal - that could easily make one adult and two kids half a weeks dinners
It works out at about 300 calories per meal for 12 meals. An adult needs 2000-2500 calories per day and a child aged 6-12 needs 1600-2200. So 300 for your main meal of the day looks pretty inadequate. I shop and cook for a family of five and I can tell you that your meal would do us for about one dinner, maybe with a bit left over. Our kids are far from fat (in fact most clothes don't fit them because they are too skinny) so we are definitely not overfeeding them.
Fair enough, let them buy double what I suggested - three or four meals for less than £12
I think there is general agreement that people can just about afford to eat a decent diet on benefits as long as they don't buy anything else. Unfortunately people also need to pay for clothes, transport, heating, etc. Some people compound their difficulties by not knowing how to cook (a widespread problem not only affecting the poor; not helped by schools no longer teaching home economics). Some people working long hours and shifts don't have time to cook. Some people don't have the equipment. I just find all this smug wisdom being dispensed by well off people a bit too Marie Antoinette* for my liking. (*I know she was misquoted).
Jack seems to think it is a goer but as you have pointed out, and certainly looking at the illustrations, this does seem to require (quite?) some cooking skills.
But you are the person doing it so have the expertise (no idea if @isam buys for, then cooks for his family every day).
It's a mistake that the vast majority of professional cooks make, even the popular ones. Most people aren't that interested in cooking as a hobby or an art - they just want to eat nice food, quickly.
Firstly, it always takes at least 50% longer than how long they say it does (normal people aren't as efficient at chopping or preparing veg as they are, nor doing several steps in parallel) and, second, they make it too complex. That has too many ingredients and steps. And they all need to take <30 mins from start to finish.
I'd say:
(1) Chop chicken breast (3 mins) and then fry for 5 mins till sealed (2) Add pint of boiling water and chicken stock cube to it (another 2-3 mins) (3) Meanwhile, chop carrot, onion and swede.. or use auto-chopper (7 mins) (4) Chuck it all in and simmer for 20-22 minutes (5) Then start the rice .. or wait till last 5 mins and microwave £1.49 rice pouch if lazy (6) Stir in flour, mustard and milk in the last 5 mins. (7) Serve (2 mins)
That recipe is probably 40 mins at least. You can cut out time maybe 5 mins with an auto-chopper (£20-30 I think) and get it down to 35 mins - otherwise doing a stir fry with that (no sauce) would deliver the goods in about 20-25 minutes.
Clearly he misses out the fact - cheap food = full of sugar and other crap to keep costs down.
The only difference between now and the 19th century is that then cheap food was poor quality and often featured things that weren't food (so you were under weight). Now it contains calories that aren't easy to burn off.
If you were a one parent family with say two kids and struggling financially this would seem a cheap way to feed the family for three or four dinners
500g of pasta, one tin of tomatoes and 1kg of chicken is not going to provide 12 dinners, unless they are all for Tiny Tim. What planet are you on?
Two tins of tomatoes.
I am on planet normal - that could easily make one adult and two kids half a weeks dinners
It works out at about 300 calories per meal for 12 meals. An adult needs 2000-2500 calories per day and a child aged 6-12 needs 1600-2200. So 300 for your main meal of the day looks pretty inadequate. I shop and cook for a family of five and I can tell you that your meal would do us for about one dinner, maybe with a bit left over. Our kids are far from fat (in fact most clothes don't fit them because they are too skinny) so we are definitely not overfeeding them.
Fair enough, let them buy double what I suggested - three or four meals for less than £12
I think there is general agreement that people can just about afford to eat a decent diet on benefits as long as they don't buy anything else. Unfortunately people also need to pay for clothes, transport, heating, etc. Some people compound their difficulties by not knowing how to cook (a widespread problem not only affecting the poor; not helped by schools no longer teaching home economics). Some people working long hours and shifts don't have time to cook. Some people don't have the equipment. I just find all this smug wisdom being dispensed by well off people a bit too Marie Antoinette* for my liking. (*I know she was misquoted).
Jack seems to think it is a goer but as you have pointed out, and certainly looking at the illustrations, this does seem to require (quite?) some cooking skills.
On the free school meals thing, it seems to me there's a bit of mission creep coming in. School Lunch -> Out of term food -> Main meal -> 7 days -> 'Can't feed a child on that - isn't the provision for 1 meal, not three/day ? and so on...
I'd agree somewhat. I can't feed myself as cheaply as Metatron suggests so I'm not dismissing the thrust of campaigning, but this issue as a whole does seem to be escalating to a surprising degree.
You obviously missed Newsnight last night that ran a piece all about how the government were f##king up and did they need to rethink the whole programme.
That piece was commissioned on the basis that the government was (and would be) falling short of the vaccine roll out goals. Partly because of not understanding ramp up of course.
It rather reminds me of the story of the last days of Kids Company.
The Guardian et al had tons of stories ready to go about how the heartless David Cameron had pulled down Kids Company by denying them money to save them. Cameron, since he was an effective media operator, arranged that money would be given. It was escrowed so that, in the end, when the charity collapsed, it wasn't lost. It fell over a couple of days later, due to the complete lack of anything resembling control on the spending of its money.
I must say I like the style of the barrister, arguing in a court of law, that being held legally responsible for your legal responsibilities is unfair.
That's exactly what I thought. My clients are far too worthy and luvvie type to be held accountable for the job that they have agreed to take on, they just want the kudos without any responsibility, thanks very much. Clever though.
Christ...hardly recognisable...more seriously though, after Boris week long being a fatty is bad against covid, that message has totally gone by the wayside, a guess like a lot of people lockdown fitness routine. I am not massively into the nanny state, regulate our food, but we do need a much bigger push on hiw being over weight is really bad for you and end of this nonsense that you can be and still fit and healthy.
Well done him. If we could get the rest of the over weight population to do the same... Hence my advocacy of a Vitality style rewards-for-exercise0and-fitness program.
He does however look 20 years older.....
And Mr Johnson was - belatedly, rather too long after his bout with covid - trumpeting an obesity programme last summer. Seems to have done a Boris Island or even Garden Bridge?
So he starts a project, then gets bored with it?
Is now a good time to talk about which of the characteristics of psychopathy Boris Johnson fits?
1. Doesn't get bogged down with negative emotions 2. Is a different person to different people 3. Gets bored easily 4. Acts impulsively 5. Often lies 6. Rarely accepts responsibility 7. Has a parasitic lifestyle 8. Has a high opinion of himself
I count seven for Boris. (Two for me)
Which two. Or is that 2?
I meant two, not number 2. Numbers 3 and 8 best fit me.
Before people just jump on the Marcus Rashford bandwagon they should try out for themselves just how cheaply one can feed oneself 2 meals a day for a week without feeling hungry.I tried it as an experiment and found i could do it for £7 i.e £1 a day
You must have been drinking some pretty ordinary wine with that.
Clearly he misses out the fact - cheap food = full of sugar and other crap to keep costs down.
The only difference between now and the 19th century is that then cheap food was poor quality and often featured things that weren't food (so you were under weight). Now it contains calories that aren't easy to burn off.
If you were a one parent family with say two kids and struggling financially this would seem a cheap way to feed the family for three or four dinners
500g of pasta, one tin of tomatoes and 1kg of chicken is not going to provide 12 dinners, unless they are all for Tiny Tim. What planet are you on?
Two tins of tomatoes.
I am on planet normal - that could easily make one adult and two kids half a weeks dinners
It works out at about 300 calories per meal for 12 meals. An adult needs 2000-2500 calories per day and a child aged 6-12 needs 1600-2200. So 300 for your main meal of the day looks pretty inadequate. I shop and cook for a family of five and I can tell you that your meal would do us for about one dinner, maybe with a bit left over. Our kids are far from fat (in fact most clothes don't fit them because they are too skinny) so we are definitely not overfeeding them.
Fair enough, let them buy double what I suggested - three or four meals for less than £12
I think there is general agreement that people can just about afford to eat a decent diet on benefits as long as they don't buy anything else. Unfortunately people also need to pay for clothes, transport, heating, etc. Some people compound their difficulties by not knowing how to cook (a widespread problem not only affecting the poor; not helped by schools no longer teaching home economics). Some people working long hours and shifts don't have time to cook. Some people don't have the equipment. I just find all this smug wisdom being dispensed by well off people a bit too Marie Antoinette* for my liking. (*I know she was misquoted).
How much do you think is required to feed a family of four 2 children 2 adults per week? As a pound figure?
About £150. Less if the kids are on free school meals. The Food Standards Agency have a report on the cost of a healthy food basket in Northern Ireland in 2018, they have it as £159 for a family of 4 with 2 school age kids. Presumably it is higher in 2020 with inflation, but NI may have higher costs than GB. I think we probably spend about £200/week on food for a family of 5. We don't shop at the cheapest supermarket and get organic meat and milk, but we cook everything from scratch which saves money and don't normally buy any alcohol.
Christ...hardly recognisable...more seriously though, after Boris week long being a fatty is bad against covid, that message has totally gone by the wayside, a guess like a lot of people lockdown fitness routine. I am not massively into the nanny state, regulate our food, but we do need a much bigger push on hiw being over weight is really bad for you and end of this nonsense that you can be and still fit and healthy.
Well done him. If we could get the rest of the over weight population to do the same... Hence my advocacy of a Vitality style rewards-for-exercise0and-fitness program.
He does however look 20 years older.....
And Mr Johnson was - belatedly, rather too long after his bout with covid - trumpeting an obesity programme last summer. Seems to have done a Boris Island or even Garden Bridge?
So he starts a project, then gets bored with it?
Is now a good time to talk about which of the characteristics of psychopathy Boris Johnson fits?
1. Doesn't get bogged down with negative emotions 2. Is a different person to different people 3. Gets bored easily 4. Acts impulsively 5. Often lies 6. Rarely accepts responsibility 7. Has a parasitic lifestyle 8. Has a high opinion of himself
I count seven for Boris. (Two for me)
I was actually a bit concerned I had missed it, living in Scotland as I do (he being Prime Minister of England only for that purpose). But nobody on PB has put me right today or on the other occasion I raised it. Shame if it didn't happen, never mind whether Mr J is involved or not.
You obviously missed Newsnight last night that ran a piece all about how the government were f##king up and did they need to rethink the whole programme.
That piece was commissioned on the basis that the government was (and would be) falling short of the vaccine roll out goals. Partly because of not understanding ramp up of course.
It rather reminds me of the story of the last days of Kids Company.
The Guardian et al had tons of stories ready to go about how the heartless David Cameron had pulled down Kids Company by denying them money to save them. Cameron, since he was an effective media operator, arranged that money would be given. It was escrowed so that, in the end, when the charity collapsed, it wasn't lost. It fell over a couple of days later, due to the complete lack of anything resembling control on the spending of its money.
I must say I like the style of the barrister, arguing in a court of law, that being held legally responsible for your legal responsibilities is unfair.
" the Charity Commission should now have, loudly, in red letters on its website: 'If you're thinking of joining a charity as a trustee, look at its financial position; if there is any uncertainty, don’t’,” he said."
Which is of course the advice that I and many other routinely provide to people considering become trustees of smaller charities.
BBC News - Covid-19: Brazil variant already in UK, scientist says
One of two coronavirus variants thought to have emerged in Brazil has already been detected in the UK, says a leading scientist advising the government
Of course it is, by the time it's detected it's already too late (asymptomatic patients and lots of open and bilateral trade will see to that) and then you've got the 36-48 hours of faff on top to decide what to do about it on top.
Before people just jump on the Marcus Rashford bandwagon they should try out for themselves just how cheaply one can feed oneself 2 meals a day for a week without feeling hungry. I tried it as an experiment and found i could do it for £7 i.e £1 a day
Was that just for yourself and did you consider what equipment a poorer family may have?
Clearly he misses out the fact - cheap food = full of sugar and other crap to keep costs down.
The only difference between now and the 19th century is that then cheap food was poor quality and often featured things that weren't food (so you were under weight). Now it contains calories that aren't easy to burn off.
If you were a one parent family with say two kids and struggling financially this would seem a cheap way to feed the family for three or four dinners
500g of pasta, one tin of tomatoes and 1kg of chicken is not going to provide 12 dinners, unless they are all for Tiny Tim. What planet are you on?
Two tins of tomatoes.
I am on planet normal - that could easily make one adult and two kids half a weeks dinners
It works out at about 300 calories per meal for 12 meals. An adult needs 2000-2500 calories per day and a child aged 6-12 needs 1600-2200. So 300 for your main meal of the day looks pretty inadequate. I shop and cook for a family of five and I can tell you that your meal would do us for about one dinner, maybe with a bit left over. Our kids are far from fat (in fact most clothes don't fit them because they are too skinny) so we are definitely not overfeeding them.
Fair enough, let them buy double what I suggested - three or four meals for less than £12
I think there is general agreement that people can just about afford to eat a decent diet on benefits as long as they don't buy anything else. Unfortunately people also need to pay for clothes, transport, heating, etc. Some people compound their difficulties by not knowing how to cook (a widespread problem not only affecting the poor; not helped by schools no longer teaching home economics). Some people working long hours and shifts don't have time to cook. Some people don't have the equipment. I just find all this smug wisdom being dispensed by well off people a bit too Marie Antoinette* for my liking. (*I know she was misquoted).
How do you know who is well off and who isn't? My family, and my girlfriend's, all grew up in council houses - in fact, out of all of her family, and all of mine, My son and I are the only two not to have lived in social housing. Probably the reason that they are able to see when other people in that situation are conning the state
It isn't smug wisdom to point out that you can feed a family of three for 3 or 4 days for less than a tenner, it just doesn't sit well with poverty porn addicts and soppy bleeding hearts
But you haven't done that. Your suggested meal has only three ingredients, it would also need other ingredients to make it palatable, it would need energy, appliances and utensils to store and cook the food, and would be only one meal out of three daily. Are there some feckless, useless, dishonest people out there? Yes. But their kids still need feeding. It's in our long run economic self interest to have kids eating enough to be able to concentrate at school and have a chance of breaking the cycle of poverty, getting off benefits and paying tax.
Still waiting for your figure on how much you think is needed to spend a week to feed 2 adults and 2 children
Sorry I was looking it up rather than pulling the number out of my arse.
Clearly he misses out the fact - cheap food = full of sugar and other crap to keep costs down.
The only difference between now and the 19th century is that then cheap food was poor quality and often featured things that weren't food (so you were under weight). Now it contains calories that aren't easy to burn off.
If you were a one parent family with say two kids and struggling financially this would seem a cheap way to feed the family for three or four dinners
500g of pasta, one tin of tomatoes and 1kg of chicken is not going to provide 12 dinners, unless they are all for Tiny Tim. What planet are you on?
Two tins of tomatoes.
I am on planet normal - that could easily make one adult and two kids half a weeks dinners
It works out at about 300 calories per meal for 12 meals. An adult needs 2000-2500 calories per day and a child aged 6-12 needs 1600-2200. So 300 for your main meal of the day looks pretty inadequate. I shop and cook for a family of five and I can tell you that your meal would do us for about one dinner, maybe with a bit left over. Our kids are far from fat (in fact most clothes don't fit them because they are too skinny) so we are definitely not overfeeding them.
Fair enough, let them buy double what I suggested - three or four meals for less than £12
I think there is general agreement that people can just about afford to eat a decent diet on benefits as long as they don't buy anything else. Unfortunately people also need to pay for clothes, transport, heating, etc. Some people compound their difficulties by not knowing how to cook (a widespread problem not only affecting the poor; not helped by schools no longer teaching home economics). Some people working long hours and shifts don't have time to cook. Some people don't have the equipment. I just find all this smug wisdom being dispensed by well off people a bit too Marie Antoinette* for my liking. (*I know she was misquoted).
Jack seems to think it is a goer but as you have pointed out, and certainly looking at the illustrations, this does seem to require (quite?) some cooking skills.
But you are the person doing it so have the expertise (no idea if @isam buys for, then cooks for his family every day).
Which is an interesting case. What that is describing is
- brown some chicken in a pan/pot - add water, some herbs and a stock cube. - throw in some chopped veg - cook until... cooked. - add a bit of sauce towards the end.
Is it the language that is putting people off?
Yes good point. I think it is the palaver and the finished product I'm guessing looks so polished that people assume it is a fancy pants chef cooking it (which of course it is but you know...).
But yes, an "all in" with chicken is what it looks like to me but I'm not feeding a family of four seven days a week.
I keep thinking about doing a cook book on the "throw things in a pan" style - get rid of the language. Make it so accessible that it breaks down barriers.
I made a soup yesterday. Remains of a chicken - bones, left over meat etc. In a pot, water, stock cube, any old spare root veg, salt, pepper and some dried oregano. Simmer on the stove for hour and a bit, while I revised the code for generating graphs to annoy people.
I make soup to feed starving schoolkids a couple of times a week. At least, I put three or four tins of whatever is on special offer into the foodbank bin. Three or four large tins of soup for £3 and no need to waste money on oregano.
The main difference between bland food and tasty food is herbs.
A little bit of thyme in pretty much any meat dish will help. Parsley at the end of any chicken or fish (sometimes dill, admittedly) dish.
BBC News - Covid-19: Brazil variant already in UK, scientist says
One of two coronavirus variants thought to have emerged in Brazil has already been detected in the UK, says a leading scientist advising the government
Of course it is, by the time it's detected it's already too late (asymptomatic patients and lots of open and bilateral trade will see to that) and then you've got the 36-48 hours of faff on top to decide what to do about it on top.
It's probably been here for over a week already.
And why the airbridge / selective flight bans have always been incredibly stupid policy. By the time you know, its too late.
You obviously missed Newsnight last night that ran a piece all about how the government were f##king up and did they need to rethink the whole programme.
That piece was commissioned on the basis that the government was (and would be) falling short of the vaccine roll out goals. Partly because of not understanding ramp up of course.
It rather reminds me of the story of the last days of Kids Company.
The Guardian et al had tons of stories ready to go about how the heartless David Cameron had pulled down Kids Company by denying them money to save them. Cameron, since he was an effective media operator, arranged that money would be given. It was escrowed so that, in the end, when the charity collapsed, it wasn't lost. It fell over a couple of days later, due to the complete lack of anything resembling control on the spending of its money.
I must say I like the style of the barrister, arguing in a court of law, that being held legally responsible for your legal responsibilities is unfair.
That's exactly what I thought. My clients are far too worthy and luvvie type to be held accountable for the job that they have agreed to take on, they just want the kudos without any responsibility, thanks very much. Clever though.
Hmmm....
"Your Honour, my client admittedly commited war crimes in his campaign of world conquest. But holding him accountable for his actions would be unfair, since he was very busy with his property development projects"
On FSM and resisting additional money for UC there is a pretty clear theme. The government cannot accept that the existing social security system doesn't provide enough money and support during the pandemic, because doing so is to accept that social security doesn't provide enough money and support.
It has been a convenient fiction for the Tory Party over the decades that poor people are feckless. Whether its Peter Lilley attacking single mums, or Ben Bradley saying poor parents buy crack over feeding their kids, or this Scottish candidate saying food bank users are fat, the mission is always attack the victims.
I know that not everyone in the party is as callous and amoral as that, but they can always be relied to vote for punative measures against the poor. With some success, as the next rung above the truly desperately poor are happy to put the boot in as well.
This is the risk for the party with the combined assault of Covid and Brexit. Hard to successfully blame the newly poor for being poor when its Brexit making them work longer hours for less pay or Covid shutting schools and letting their kids go hungry.
On the free school meals thing, it seems to me there's a bit of mission creep coming in. School Lunch -> Out of term food -> Main meal -> 7 days -> 'Can't feed a child on that - isn't the provision for 1 meal, not three/day ? and so on...
I think it's a reaction to the long-term squeeze that has been put on social security, so that it no longer functions as a safety net. (And, yes, this started before Austerity in 2020).
Hungry children are the more acceptable face of poverty in Britain. Since no politician is willing to make the case for increasing social security payments more generally, it's only by targeting hungry children that some improvement can be achieved.
You obviously missed Newsnight last night that ran a piece all about how the government were f##king up and did they need to rethink the whole programme.
That piece was commissioned on the basis that the government was (and would be) falling short of the vaccine roll out goals. Partly because of not understanding ramp up of course.
It rather reminds me of the story of the last days of Kids Company.
The Guardian et al had tons of stories ready to go about how the heartless David Cameron had pulled down Kids Company by denying them money to save them. Cameron, since he was an effective media operator, arranged that money would be given. It was escrowed so that, in the end, when the charity collapsed, it wasn't lost. It fell over a couple of days later, due to the complete lack of anything resembling control on the spending of its money.
I must say I like the style of the barrister, arguing in a court of law, that being held legally responsible for your legal responsibilities is unfair.
" the Charity Commission should now have, loudly, in red letters on its website: 'If you're thinking of joining a charity as a trustee, look at its financial position; if there is any uncertainty, don’t’,” he said."
Which is of course the advice that I and many other routinely provide to people considering become trustees of smaller charities.
Or directors of companies, for that matter.
I remember the day when my firm decided to grace me with the honour of being a partner. As a result for the first time I got to see the firm's accounts. I looked at the balance sheet and bank borrowing. "Holy shit" didn't seem to be the response they were expecting.
Before people just jump on the Marcus Rashford bandwagon they should try out for themselves just how cheaply one can feed oneself 2 meals a day for a week without feeling hungry.I tried it as an experiment and found i could do it for £7 i.e £1 a day
You are exactly right but unfortunately the fact that food is cheaper now than it has ever been compared to incomes is not an argument that will gain any ground.
It has become the states responsibility to feed children, not the parents.
Christ...hardly recognisable...more seriously though, after Boris week long being a fatty is bad against covid, that message has totally gone by the wayside, a guess like a lot of people lockdown fitness routine. I am not massively into the nanny state, regulate our food, but we do need a much bigger push on hiw being over weight is really bad for you and end of this nonsense that you can be and still fit and healthy.
Well done him. If we could get the rest of the over weight population to do the same... Hence my advocacy of a Vitality style rewards-for-exercise0and-fitness program.
He does however look 20 years older.....
And Mr Johnson was - belatedly, rather too long after his bout with covid - trumpeting an obesity programme last summer. Seems to have done a Boris Island or even Garden Bridge?
So he starts a project, then gets bored with it?
Is now a good time to talk about which of the characteristics of psychopathy Boris Johnson fits?
1. Doesn't get bogged down with negative emotions 2. Is a different person to different people 3. Gets bored easily 4. Acts impulsively 5. Often lies 6. Rarely accepts responsibility 7. Has a parasitic lifestyle 8. Has a high opinion of himself
I count seven for Boris. (Two for me)
Which two. Or is that 2?
Well that is a relief as it is only one, number 3, for me. Although I am the exact opposite for number 4 which is a real problem for me, so the only consolation is I'm not a psychopath.
Clearly he misses out the fact - cheap food = full of sugar and other crap to keep costs down.
The only difference between now and the 19th century is that then cheap food was poor quality and often featured things that weren't food (so you were under weight). Now it contains calories that aren't easy to burn off.
If you were a one parent family with say two kids and struggling financially this would seem a cheap way to feed the family for three or four dinners
500g of pasta, one tin of tomatoes and 1kg of chicken is not going to provide 12 dinners, unless they are all for Tiny Tim. What planet are you on?
Two tins of tomatoes.
I am on planet normal - that could easily make one adult and two kids half a weeks dinners
It works out at about 300 calories per meal for 12 meals. An adult needs 2000-2500 calories per day and a child aged 6-12 needs 1600-2200. So 300 for your main meal of the day looks pretty inadequate. I shop and cook for a family of five and I can tell you that your meal would do us for about one dinner, maybe with a bit left over. Our kids are far from fat (in fact most clothes don't fit them because they are too skinny) so we are definitely not overfeeding them.
Fair enough, let them buy double what I suggested - three or four meals for less than £12
I think there is general agreement that people can just about afford to eat a decent diet on benefits as long as they don't buy anything else. Unfortunately people also need to pay for clothes, transport, heating, etc. Some people compound their difficulties by not knowing how to cook (a widespread problem not only affecting the poor; not helped by schools no longer teaching home economics). Some people working long hours and shifts don't have time to cook. Some people don't have the equipment. I just find all this smug wisdom being dispensed by well off people a bit too Marie Antoinette* for my liking. (*I know she was misquoted).
How much do you think is required to feed a family of four 2 children 2 adults per week? As a pound figure?
About £150. Less if the kids are on free school meals. The Food Standards Agency have a report on the cost of a healthy food basket in Northern Ireland in 2018, they have it as £159 for a family of 4 with 2 school age kids. Presumably it is higher in 2020 with inflation, but NI may have higher costs than GB. I think we probably spend about £200/week on food for a family of 5. We don't shop at the cheapest supermarket and get organic meat and milk, but we cook everything from scratch which saves money and don't normally buy any alcohol.
And on uc the least that family would get per week is 229£ the most 253£
Add in 100£ per month for gas and electric 25£ per month for internet two sim only deals for the adults 10£ a month comes to another 33£ a week
So using your figure we come to 183£ leaving them between 46£ a week and 70£ a week
Aha you say they may need to pay some towards rent well lets add in another 100£ a month for rent and 60 for council tax thats another 34£ a week
Clearly he misses out the fact - cheap food = full of sugar and other crap to keep costs down.
The only difference between now and the 19th century is that then cheap food was poor quality and often featured things that weren't food (so you were under weight). Now it contains calories that aren't easy to burn off.
If you were a one parent family with say two kids and struggling financially this would seem a cheap way to feed the family for three or four dinners
500g of pasta, one tin of tomatoes and 1kg of chicken is not going to provide 12 dinners, unless they are all for Tiny Tim. What planet are you on?
Two tins of tomatoes.
I am on planet normal - that could easily make one adult and two kids half a weeks dinners
It works out at about 300 calories per meal for 12 meals. An adult needs 2000-2500 calories per day and a child aged 6-12 needs 1600-2200. So 300 for your main meal of the day looks pretty inadequate. I shop and cook for a family of five and I can tell you that your meal would do us for about one dinner, maybe with a bit left over. Our kids are far from fat (in fact most clothes don't fit them because they are too skinny) so we are definitely not overfeeding them.
Fair enough, let them buy double what I suggested - three or four meals for less than £12
I think there is general agreement that people can just about afford to eat a decent diet on benefits as long as they don't buy anything else. Unfortunately people also need to pay for clothes, transport, heating, etc. Some people compound their difficulties by not knowing how to cook (a widespread problem not only affecting the poor; not helped by schools no longer teaching home economics). Some people working long hours and shifts don't have time to cook. Some people don't have the equipment. I just find all this smug wisdom being dispensed by well off people a bit too Marie Antoinette* for my liking. (*I know she was misquoted).
How much do you think is required to feed a family of four 2 children 2 adults per week? As a pound figure?
About £150. Less if the kids are on free school meals. The Food Standards Agency have a report on the cost of a healthy food basket in Northern Ireland in 2018, they have it as £159 for a family of 4 with 2 school age kids. Presumably it is higher in 2020 with inflation, but NI may have higher costs than GB. I think we probably spend about £200/week on food for a family of 5. We don't shop at the cheapest supermarket and get organic meat and milk, but we cook everything from scratch which saves money and don't normally buy any alcohol.
I get to a similar figure. I'd say kids lunch money (£4 x 2 x 5) and adults lunch money (£5 x 2 x 5) + breakfast (£20 all in for 7 days, milk, cereal, bread, butter and preserves etc) and dinner (£35-£50) for x 4 for 7 days. Total = £145-160.
I don't think benefits should match that, though. You don't have to buy a nice fresh lunch every day, and you can stretch meals, and it's important not to be unfair with taxing those who move into full-time work but don't get this support, so I'd say £100 per week should do it.
Clearly he misses out the fact - cheap food = full of sugar and other crap to keep costs down.
The only difference between now and the 19th century is that then cheap food was poor quality and often featured things that weren't food (so you were under weight). Now it contains calories that aren't easy to burn off.
If you were a one parent family with say two kids and struggling financially this would seem a cheap way to feed the family for three or four dinners
500g of pasta, one tin of tomatoes and 1kg of chicken is not going to provide 12 dinners, unless they are all for Tiny Tim. What planet are you on?
Two tins of tomatoes.
I am on planet normal - that could easily make one adult and two kids half a weeks dinners
It works out at about 300 calories per meal for 12 meals. An adult needs 2000-2500 calories per day and a child aged 6-12 needs 1600-2200. So 300 for your main meal of the day looks pretty inadequate. I shop and cook for a family of five and I can tell you that your meal would do us for about one dinner, maybe with a bit left over. Our kids are far from fat (in fact most clothes don't fit them because they are too skinny) so we are definitely not overfeeding them.
Fair enough, let them buy double what I suggested - three or four meals for less than £12
I think there is general agreement that people can just about afford to eat a decent diet on benefits as long as they don't buy anything else. Unfortunately people also need to pay for clothes, transport, heating, etc. Some people compound their difficulties by not knowing how to cook (a widespread problem not only affecting the poor; not helped by schools no longer teaching home economics). Some people working long hours and shifts don't have time to cook. Some people don't have the equipment. I just find all this smug wisdom being dispensed by well off people a bit too Marie Antoinette* for my liking. (*I know she was misquoted).
Jack seems to think it is a goer but as you have pointed out, and certainly looking at the illustrations, this does seem to require (quite?) some cooking skills.
But you are the person doing it so have the expertise (no idea if @isam buys for, then cooks for his family every day).
Which is an interesting case. What that is describing is
- brown some chicken in a pan/pot - add water, some herbs and a stock cube. - throw in some chopped veg - cook until... cooked. - add a bit of sauce towards the end.
Is it the language that is putting people off?
Yes good point. I think it is the palaver and the finished product I'm guessing looks so polished that people assume it is a fancy pants chef cooking it (which of course it is but you know...).
But yes, an "all in" with chicken is what it looks like to me but I'm not feeding a family of four seven days a week.
I keep thinking about doing a cook book on the "throw things in a pan" style - get rid of the language. Make it so accessible that it breaks down barriers.
I made a soup yesterday. Remains of a chicken - bones, left over meat etc. In a pot, water, stock cube, any old spare root veg, salt, pepper and some dried oregano. Simmer on the stove for hour and a bit, while I revised the code for generating graphs to annoy people.
I make soup to feed starving schoolkids a couple of times a week. At least, I put three or four tins of whatever is on special offer into the foodbank bin. Three or four large tins of soup for £3 and no need to waste money on oregano.
The main difference between bland food and tasty food is herbs.
A little bit of thyme in pretty much any meat dish will help. Parsley at the end of any chicken or fish (sometimes dill, admittedly) dish.
Herbs are a cheap (and simple) way add flavours to food - hence why, back in the day, every labourers cottage would have a patch.
The fact that it is regarded as fancy or posh is somewhere between weird and sad.
One way that prisons punish inmates (deliberately) in the US is to feed them super bland food. That is product of a nasty mind.
Clearly he misses out the fact - cheap food = full of sugar and other crap to keep costs down.
The only difference between now and the 19th century is that then cheap food was poor quality and often featured things that weren't food (so you were under weight). Now it contains calories that aren't easy to burn off.
If you were a one parent family with say two kids and struggling financially this would seem a cheap way to feed the family for three or four dinners
500g of pasta, one tin of tomatoes and 1kg of chicken is not going to provide 12 dinners, unless they are all for Tiny Tim. What planet are you on?
Two tins of tomatoes.
I am on planet normal - that could easily make one adult and two kids half a weeks dinners
It works out at about 300 calories per meal for 12 meals. An adult needs 2000-2500 calories per day and a child aged 6-12 needs 1600-2200. So 300 for your main meal of the day looks pretty inadequate. I shop and cook for a family of five and I can tell you that your meal would do us for about one dinner, maybe with a bit left over. Our kids are far from fat (in fact most clothes don't fit them because they are too skinny) so we are definitely not overfeeding them.
Fair enough, let them buy double what I suggested - three or four meals for less than £12
I think there is general agreement that people can just about afford to eat a decent diet on benefits as long as they don't buy anything else. Unfortunately people also need to pay for clothes, transport, heating, etc. Some people compound their difficulties by not knowing how to cook (a widespread problem not only affecting the poor; not helped by schools no longer teaching home economics). Some people working long hours and shifts don't have time to cook. Some people don't have the equipment. I just find all this smug wisdom being dispensed by well off people a bit too Marie Antoinette* for my liking. (*I know she was misquoted).
How do you know who is well off and who isn't? My family, and my girlfriend's, all grew up in council houses - in fact, out of all of her family, and all of mine, My son and I are the only two not to have lived in social housing. Probably the reason that they are able to see when other people in that situation are conning the state
It isn't smug wisdom to point out that you can feed a family of three for 3 or 4 days for less than a tenner, it just doesn't sit well with poverty porn addicts and soppy bleeding hearts
But you haven't done that. Your suggested meal has only three ingredients, it would also need other ingredients to make it palatable, it would need energy, appliances and utensils to store and cook the food, and would be only one meal out of three daily. Are there some feckless, useless, dishonest people out there? Yes. But their kids still need feeding. It's in our long run economic self interest to have kids eating enough to be able to concentrate at school and have a chance of breaking the cycle of poverty, getting off benefits and paying tax.
Still waiting for your figure on how much you think is needed to spend a week to feed 2 adults and 2 children
Sorry I was looking it up rather than pulling the number out of my arse.
Nearly 5k posts and you still haven't got the idea. Sad.
Clearly he misses out the fact - cheap food = full of sugar and other crap to keep costs down.
The only difference between now and the 19th century is that then cheap food was poor quality and often featured things that weren't food (so you were under weight). Now it contains calories that aren't easy to burn off.
If you were a one parent family with say two kids and struggling financially this would seem a cheap way to feed the family for three or four dinners
500g of pasta, one tin of tomatoes and 1kg of chicken is not going to provide 12 dinners, unless they are all for Tiny Tim. What planet are you on?
Two tins of tomatoes.
I am on planet normal - that could easily make one adult and two kids half a weeks dinners
It works out at about 300 calories per meal for 12 meals. An adult needs 2000-2500 calories per day and a child aged 6-12 needs 1600-2200. So 300 for your main meal of the day looks pretty inadequate. I shop and cook for a family of five and I can tell you that your meal would do us for about one dinner, maybe with a bit left over. Our kids are far from fat (in fact most clothes don't fit them because they are too skinny) so we are definitely not overfeeding them.
Fair enough, let them buy double what I suggested - three or four meals for less than £12
I think there is general agreement that people can just about afford to eat a decent diet on benefits as long as they don't buy anything else. Unfortunately people also need to pay for clothes, transport, heating, etc. Some people compound their difficulties by not knowing how to cook (a widespread problem not only affecting the poor; not helped by schools no longer teaching home economics). Some people working long hours and shifts don't have time to cook. Some people don't have the equipment. I just find all this smug wisdom being dispensed by well off people a bit too Marie Antoinette* for my liking. (*I know she was misquoted).
How much do you think is required to feed a family of four 2 children 2 adults per week? As a pound figure?
About £150. Less if the kids are on free school meals. The Food Standards Agency have a report on the cost of a healthy food basket in Northern Ireland in 2018, they have it as £159 for a family of 4 with 2 school age kids. Presumably it is higher in 2020 with inflation, but NI may have higher costs than GB. I think we probably spend about £200/week on food for a family of 5. We don't shop at the cheapest supermarket and get organic meat and milk, but we cook everything from scratch which saves money and don't normally buy any alcohol.
I get to a similar figure. I'd say kids lunch money (£4 x 2 x 5) and adults lunch money (£5 x 2 x 5) + breakfast (£20 all in for 7 days, milk, cereal, bread, butter and preserves etc) and dinner (£35-£50) for x 4 for 7 days. Total = £145-160.
I don't think benefits should match that, though. You don't have to buy a nice fresh lunch every day, and you can stretch meals, and it's important not to be unfair with taxing those who move into full-time work but don't get this support, so I'd say £100 per week should do it.
I thought the figure a little high as well as I would expect people to trim their sales a bit. Just brand substitution brings a shopping bill down remarkably. However I ran with his figure
Clearly he misses out the fact - cheap food = full of sugar and other crap to keep costs down.
The only difference between now and the 19th century is that then cheap food was poor quality and often featured things that weren't food (so you were under weight). Now it contains calories that aren't easy to burn off.
If you were a one parent family with say two kids and struggling financially this would seem a cheap way to feed the family for three or four dinners
500g of pasta, one tin of tomatoes and 1kg of chicken is not going to provide 12 dinners, unless they are all for Tiny Tim. What planet are you on?
Two tins of tomatoes.
I am on planet normal - that could easily make one adult and two kids half a weeks dinners
It works out at about 300 calories per meal for 12 meals. An adult needs 2000-2500 calories per day and a child aged 6-12 needs 1600-2200. So 300 for your main meal of the day looks pretty inadequate. I shop and cook for a family of five and I can tell you that your meal would do us for about one dinner, maybe with a bit left over. Our kids are far from fat (in fact most clothes don't fit them because they are too skinny) so we are definitely not overfeeding them.
Fair enough, let them buy double what I suggested - three or four meals for less than £12
I think there is general agreement that people can just about afford to eat a decent diet on benefits as long as they don't buy anything else. Unfortunately people also need to pay for clothes, transport, heating, etc. Some people compound their difficulties by not knowing how to cook (a widespread problem not only affecting the poor; not helped by schools no longer teaching home economics). Some people working long hours and shifts don't have time to cook. Some people don't have the equipment. I just find all this smug wisdom being dispensed by well off people a bit too Marie Antoinette* for my liking. (*I know she was misquoted).
How much do you think is required to feed a family of four 2 children 2 adults per week? As a pound figure?
About £150. Less if the kids are on free school meals. The Food Standards Agency have a report on the cost of a healthy food basket in Northern Ireland in 2018, they have it as £159 for a family of 4 with 2 school age kids. Presumably it is higher in 2020 with inflation, but NI may have higher costs than GB. I think we probably spend about £200/week on food for a family of 5. We don't shop at the cheapest supermarket and get organic meat and milk, but we cook everything from scratch which saves money and don't normally buy any alcohol.
And on uc the least that family would get per week is 229£ the most 253£
Add in 100£ per month for gas and electric 25£ per month for internet two sim only deals for the adults 10£ a month comes to another 33£ a week
So using your figure we come to 183£ leaving them between 46£ a week and 70£ a week
Aha you say they may need to pay some towards rent well lets add in another 100£ a month for rent and 60 for council tax thats another 34£ a week
Still leaves a net of 12£ a week to 36£ a week
Clothes and bus fares. Car needs a repair. Haircuts. Furniture and appliances need to be replaced. School trips. Curtains and bedding. This all assumes your benefits are paid on time, you don't get sanctioned unfairly, you're not subject to the bedroom tax etc.
BBC: fake news problem regarding the vaccine believed to be a problem in south Asian communities.
And it uses the term "South Asian" because we are all American now and Asian means something else in the land of the free.
Is "the sub-Continent" off limits as a term these days? Can't see why it should be, but it is so difficult to keep up with what people find offensive these days. Perhaps some think it implies submissive....
You obviously missed Newsnight last night that ran a piece all about how the government were f##king up and did they need to rethink the whole programme.
That piece was commissioned on the basis that the government was (and would be) falling short of the vaccine roll out goals. Partly because of not understanding ramp up of course.
It rather reminds me of the story of the last days of Kids Company.
The Guardian et al had tons of stories ready to go about how the heartless David Cameron had pulled down Kids Company by denying them money to save them. Cameron, since he was an effective media operator, arranged that money would be given. It was escrowed so that, in the end, when the charity collapsed, it wasn't lost. It fell over a couple of days later, due to the complete lack of anything resembling control on the spending of its money.
I must say I like the style of the barrister, arguing in a court of law, that being held legally responsible for your legal responsibilities is unfair.
" the Charity Commission should now have, loudly, in red letters on its website: 'If you're thinking of joining a charity as a trustee, look at its financial position; if there is any uncertainty, don’t’,” he said."
Which is of course the advice that I and many other routinely provide to people considering become trustees of smaller charities.
Problem being, an uncertain financial position is the default condition of most charities. The Commission doesn't like organisations accumulating cash to build up a balance sheet. They'll soon receive a "will no-one think of the donkeys?" letter.
Clearly he misses out the fact - cheap food = full of sugar and other crap to keep costs down.
The only difference between now and the 19th century is that then cheap food was poor quality and often featured things that weren't food (so you were under weight). Now it contains calories that aren't easy to burn off.
If you were a one parent family with say two kids and struggling financially this would seem a cheap way to feed the family for three or four dinners
500g of pasta, one tin of tomatoes and 1kg of chicken is not going to provide 12 dinners, unless they are all for Tiny Tim. What planet are you on?
Two tins of tomatoes.
I am on planet normal - that could easily make one adult and two kids half a weeks dinners
It works out at about 300 calories per meal for 12 meals. An adult needs 2000-2500 calories per day and a child aged 6-12 needs 1600-2200. So 300 for your main meal of the day looks pretty inadequate. I shop and cook for a family of five and I can tell you that your meal would do us for about one dinner, maybe with a bit left over. Our kids are far from fat (in fact most clothes don't fit them because they are too skinny) so we are definitely not overfeeding them.
Fair enough, let them buy double what I suggested - three or four meals for less than £12
I think there is general agreement that people can just about afford to eat a decent diet on benefits as long as they don't buy anything else. Unfortunately people also need to pay for clothes, transport, heating, etc. Some people compound their difficulties by not knowing how to cook (a widespread problem not only affecting the poor; not helped by schools no longer teaching home economics). Some people working long hours and shifts don't have time to cook. Some people don't have the equipment. I just find all this smug wisdom being dispensed by well off people a bit too Marie Antoinette* for my liking. (*I know she was misquoted).
How much do you think is required to feed a family of four 2 children 2 adults per week? As a pound figure?
About £150. Less if the kids are on free school meals. The Food Standards Agency have a report on the cost of a healthy food basket in Northern Ireland in 2018, they have it as £159 for a family of 4 with 2 school age kids. Presumably it is higher in 2020 with inflation, but NI may have higher costs than GB. I think we probably spend about £200/week on food for a family of 5. We don't shop at the cheapest supermarket and get organic meat and milk, but we cook everything from scratch which saves money and don't normally buy any alcohol.
And on uc the least that family would get per week is 229£ the most 253£
Add in 100£ per month for gas and electric 25£ per month for internet two sim only deals for the adults 10£ a month comes to another 33£ a week
So using your figure we come to 183£ leaving them between 46£ a week and 70£ a week
Aha you say they may need to pay some towards rent well lets add in another 100£ a month for rent and 60 for council tax thats another 34£ a week
Still leaves a net of 12£ a week to 36£ a week
Clothes and bus fares. Car needs a repair. Haircuts. Furniture and appliances need to be replaced. School trips. Curtains and bedding. This all assumes your benefits are paid on time, you don't get sanctioned unfairly, you're not subject to the bedroom tax etc.
Clearly he misses out the fact - cheap food = full of sugar and other crap to keep costs down.
The only difference between now and the 19th century is that then cheap food was poor quality and often featured things that weren't food (so you were under weight). Now it contains calories that aren't easy to burn off.
If you were a one parent family with say two kids and struggling financially this would seem a cheap way to feed the family for three or four dinners
500g of pasta, one tin of tomatoes and 1kg of chicken is not going to provide 12 dinners, unless they are all for Tiny Tim. What planet are you on?
Two tins of tomatoes.
I am on planet normal - that could easily make one adult and two kids half a weeks dinners
It works out at about 300 calories per meal for 12 meals. An adult needs 2000-2500 calories per day and a child aged 6-12 needs 1600-2200. So 300 for your main meal of the day looks pretty inadequate. I shop and cook for a family of five and I can tell you that your meal would do us for about one dinner, maybe with a bit left over. Our kids are far from fat (in fact most clothes don't fit them because they are too skinny) so we are definitely not overfeeding them.
Fair enough, let them buy double what I suggested - three or four meals for less than £12
I think there is general agreement that people can just about afford to eat a decent diet on benefits as long as they don't buy anything else. Unfortunately people also need to pay for clothes, transport, heating, etc. Some people compound their difficulties by not knowing how to cook (a widespread problem not only affecting the poor; not helped by schools no longer teaching home economics). Some people working long hours and shifts don't have time to cook. Some people don't have the equipment. I just find all this smug wisdom being dispensed by well off people a bit too Marie Antoinette* for my liking. (*I know she was misquoted).
How much do you think is required to feed a family of four 2 children 2 adults per week? As a pound figure?
About £150. Less if the kids are on free school meals. The Food Standards Agency have a report on the cost of a healthy food basket in Northern Ireland in 2018, they have it as £159 for a family of 4 with 2 school age kids. Presumably it is higher in 2020 with inflation, but NI may have higher costs than GB. I think we probably spend about £200/week on food for a family of 5. We don't shop at the cheapest supermarket and get organic meat and milk, but we cook everything from scratch which saves money and don't normally buy any alcohol.
I get to a similar figure. I'd say kids lunch money (£4 x 2 x 5) and adults lunch money (£5 x 2 x 5) + breakfast (£20 all in for 7 days, milk, cereal, bread, butter and preserves etc) and dinner (£35-£50) for x 4 for 7 days. Total = £145-160.
I don't think benefits should match that, though. You don't have to buy a nice fresh lunch every day, and you can stretch meals, and it's important not to be unfair with taxing those who move into full-time work but don't get this support, so I'd say £100 per week should do it.
So you think it's OK that poor kids (who didn't choose to be poor of course) don't consume the minimum nutritious food basket. I think you need to take a look at yourself, honestly.
Clearly he misses out the fact - cheap food = full of sugar and other crap to keep costs down.
The only difference between now and the 19th century is that then cheap food was poor quality and often featured things that weren't food (so you were under weight). Now it contains calories that aren't easy to burn off.
If you were a one parent family with say two kids and struggling financially this would seem a cheap way to feed the family for three or four dinners
500g of pasta, one tin of tomatoes and 1kg of chicken is not going to provide 12 dinners, unless they are all for Tiny Tim. What planet are you on?
Two tins of tomatoes.
I am on planet normal - that could easily make one adult and two kids half a weeks dinners
It works out at about 300 calories per meal for 12 meals. An adult needs 2000-2500 calories per day and a child aged 6-12 needs 1600-2200. So 300 for your main meal of the day looks pretty inadequate. I shop and cook for a family of five and I can tell you that your meal would do us for about one dinner, maybe with a bit left over. Our kids are far from fat (in fact most clothes don't fit them because they are too skinny) so we are definitely not overfeeding them.
Fair enough, let them buy double what I suggested - three or four meals for less than £12
I think there is general agreement that people can just about afford to eat a decent diet on benefits as long as they don't buy anything else. Unfortunately people also need to pay for clothes, transport, heating, etc. Some people compound their difficulties by not knowing how to cook (a widespread problem not only affecting the poor; not helped by schools no longer teaching home economics). Some people working long hours and shifts don't have time to cook. Some people don't have the equipment. I just find all this smug wisdom being dispensed by well off people a bit too Marie Antoinette* for my liking. (*I know she was misquoted).
Jack seems to think it is a goer but as you have pointed out, and certainly looking at the illustrations, this does seem to require (quite?) some cooking skills.
But you are the person doing it so have the expertise (no idea if @isam buys for, then cooks for his family every day).
Which is an interesting case. What that is describing is
- brown some chicken in a pan/pot - add water, some herbs and a stock cube. - throw in some chopped veg - cook until... cooked. - add a bit of sauce towards the end.
Is it the language that is putting people off?
Yes good point. I think it is the palaver and the finished product I'm guessing looks so polished that people assume it is a fancy pants chef cooking it (which of course it is but you know...).
But yes, an "all in" with chicken is what it looks like to me but I'm not feeding a family of four seven days a week.
I keep thinking about doing a cook book on the "throw things in a pan" style - get rid of the language. Make it so accessible that it breaks down barriers.
I made a soup yesterday. Remains of a chicken - bones, left over meat etc. In a pot, water, stock cube, any old spare root veg, salt, pepper and some dried oregano. Simmer on the stove for hour and a bit, while I revised the code for generating graphs to annoy people.
I am pretty fond of my slow cooker. Chuck in random veg, beans and some cheap cuts of meat, and get out really good stews.
Working to recipes is just making what should be easy much more difficult. The only thing that I ever measure when cooking is when baking as it does seem to actually matter.
Clearly he misses out the fact - cheap food = full of sugar and other crap to keep costs down.
The only difference between now and the 19th century is that then cheap food was poor quality and often featured things that weren't food (so you were under weight). Now it contains calories that aren't easy to burn off.
If you were a one parent family with say two kids and struggling financially this would seem a cheap way to feed the family for three or four dinners
500g of pasta, one tin of tomatoes and 1kg of chicken is not going to provide 12 dinners, unless they are all for Tiny Tim. What planet are you on?
Two tins of tomatoes.
I am on planet normal - that could easily make one adult and two kids half a weeks dinners
It works out at about 300 calories per meal for 12 meals. An adult needs 2000-2500 calories per day and a child aged 6-12 needs 1600-2200. So 300 for your main meal of the day looks pretty inadequate. I shop and cook for a family of five and I can tell you that your meal would do us for about one dinner, maybe with a bit left over. Our kids are far from fat (in fact most clothes don't fit them because they are too skinny) so we are definitely not overfeeding them.
Fair enough, let them buy double what I suggested - three or four meals for less than £12
I think there is general agreement that people can just about afford to eat a decent diet on benefits as long as they don't buy anything else. Unfortunately people also need to pay for clothes, transport, heating, etc. Some people compound their difficulties by not knowing how to cook (a widespread problem not only affecting the poor; not helped by schools no longer teaching home economics). Some people working long hours and shifts don't have time to cook. Some people don't have the equipment. I just find all this smug wisdom being dispensed by well off people a bit too Marie Antoinette* for my liking. (*I know she was misquoted).
How much do you think is required to feed a family of four 2 children 2 adults per week? As a pound figure?
About £150. Less if the kids are on free school meals. The Food Standards Agency have a report on the cost of a healthy food basket in Northern Ireland in 2018, they have it as £159 for a family of 4 with 2 school age kids. Presumably it is higher in 2020 with inflation, but NI may have higher costs than GB. I think we probably spend about £200/week on food for a family of 5. We don't shop at the cheapest supermarket and get organic meat and milk, but we cook everything from scratch which saves money and don't normally buy any alcohol.
I get to a similar figure. I'd say kids lunch money (£4 x 2 x 5) and adults lunch money (£5 x 2 x 5) + breakfast (£20 all in for 7 days, milk, cereal, bread, butter and preserves etc) and dinner (£35-£50) for x 4 for 7 days. Total = £145-160.
I don't think benefits should match that, though. You don't have to buy a nice fresh lunch every day, and you can stretch meals, and it's important not to be unfair with taxing those who move into full-time work but don't get this support, so I'd say £100 per week should do it.
So you think it's OK that poor kids (who didn't choose to be poor of course) don't consume the minimum nutritious food basket. I think you need to take a look at yourself, honestly.
The solution to feckless parenting is feckless governance. Apparently.
Clearly he misses out the fact - cheap food = full of sugar and other crap to keep costs down.
The only difference between now and the 19th century is that then cheap food was poor quality and often featured things that weren't food (so you were under weight). Now it contains calories that aren't easy to burn off.
If you were a one parent family with say two kids and struggling financially this would seem a cheap way to feed the family for three or four dinners
500g of pasta, one tin of tomatoes and 1kg of chicken is not going to provide 12 dinners, unless they are all for Tiny Tim. What planet are you on?
Two tins of tomatoes.
I am on planet normal - that could easily make one adult and two kids half a weeks dinners
It works out at about 300 calories per meal for 12 meals. An adult needs 2000-2500 calories per day and a child aged 6-12 needs 1600-2200. So 300 for your main meal of the day looks pretty inadequate. I shop and cook for a family of five and I can tell you that your meal would do us for about one dinner, maybe with a bit left over. Our kids are far from fat (in fact most clothes don't fit them because they are too skinny) so we are definitely not overfeeding them.
Fair enough, let them buy double what I suggested - three or four meals for less than £12
I think there is general agreement that people can just about afford to eat a decent diet on benefits as long as they don't buy anything else. Unfortunately people also need to pay for clothes, transport, heating, etc. Some people compound their difficulties by not knowing how to cook (a widespread problem not only affecting the poor; not helped by schools no longer teaching home economics). Some people working long hours and shifts don't have time to cook. Some people don't have the equipment. I just find all this smug wisdom being dispensed by well off people a bit too Marie Antoinette* for my liking. (*I know she was misquoted).
How much do you think is required to feed a family of four 2 children 2 adults per week? As a pound figure?
About £150. Less if the kids are on free school meals. The Food Standards Agency have a report on the cost of a healthy food basket in Northern Ireland in 2018, they have it as £159 for a family of 4 with 2 school age kids. Presumably it is higher in 2020 with inflation, but NI may have higher costs than GB. I think we probably spend about £200/week on food for a family of 5. We don't shop at the cheapest supermarket and get organic meat and milk, but we cook everything from scratch which saves money and don't normally buy any alcohol.
And on uc the least that family would get per week is 229£ the most 253£
Add in 100£ per month for gas and electric 25£ per month for internet two sim only deals for the adults 10£ a month comes to another 33£ a week
So using your figure we come to 183£ leaving them between 46£ a week and 70£ a week
Aha you say they may need to pay some towards rent well lets add in another 100£ a month for rent and 60 for council tax thats another 34£ a week
Still leaves a net of 12£ a week to 36£ a week
Clothes and bus fares. Car needs a repair. Haircuts. Furniture and appliances need to be replaced. School trips. Curtains and bedding. This all assumes your benefits are paid on time, you don't get sanctioned unfairly, you're not subject to the bedroom tax etc.
I included money for the bedroom tax with the 100£ a month rent.
Car , well I am in full time employment and have been for years. I gave up my car years ago because I couldn't afford it so can they. We assumed they are in rental so appliance replacement is usually down to the landlord. Haircuts can be done at home.
You have as I showed money left over that can be pooled over weeks to provide clothes, and bedding and school trips and that was using your high figure of 150 per week on shopping. I suspect it would be easy enough to trim that back down by 30£ a week by just buying cheaper brands. Tesco's instead of heinz etc which gives even more lee way.
Don't get me wrong not saying its an easy living, just that it is more than possible to get by on benefits and feed your kids properly. As you have also said these kids would be on fsm which would cut the shopping bill further.
Before people just jump on the Marcus Rashford bandwagon they should try out for themselves just how cheaply one can feed oneself 2 meals a day for a week without feeling hungry.I tried it as an experiment and found i could do it for £7 i.e £1 a day
You obviously missed Newsnight last night that ran a piece all about how the government were f##king up and did they need to rethink the whole programme.
That piece was commissioned on the basis that the government was (and would be) falling short of the vaccine roll out goals. Partly because of not understanding ramp up of course.
It rather reminds me of the story of the last days of Kids Company.
The Guardian et al had tons of stories ready to go about how the heartless David Cameron had pulled down Kids Company by denying them money to save them. Cameron, since he was an effective media operator, arranged that money would be given. It was escrowed so that, in the end, when the charity collapsed, it wasn't lost. It fell over a couple of days later, due to the complete lack of anything resembling control on the spending of its money.
I must say I like the style of the barrister, arguing in a court of law, that being held legally responsible for your legal responsibilities is unfair.
" the Charity Commission should now have, loudly, in red letters on its website: 'If you're thinking of joining a charity as a trustee, look at its financial position; if there is any uncertainty, don’t’,” he said."
Which is of course the advice that I and many other routinely provide to people considering become trustees of smaller charities.
Presumably the whole point (or should be really ) of being a trustee to a charity is to tangibly help it at a governance level - Charities with financial uncertainty need this more than ones without it( stands to reason almost by definition). If you are being personally selfish I agree that that advice is valid , if you want to get stuck in and help then it is not . I should add that trustees are not personally in any trouble if a charity fails (just like directors are not in ltd companies) , only if they have traded when technically insolvent .
Comments
Are you just assuming it is a disaster because you don't like the idea or because it has actually been a disaster?
(*I know she was misquoted).
So anything less than hand raising your own tomatoes (a mix of rare breeds) in compost you made in your own garden, hand skinned and pulped by Oompa Loompas of the right tribe, at the correct phase of the moon...
In reality a tin of chopped tomatoes is not actually a crime against humanity. Nor is using a pre-made sauce from a bottle.
https://cookingonabootstrap.com/2020/01/24/creamy-mustard-chicken-recipe/
But you are the person doing it so have the expertise (no idea if @isam buys for, then cooks for his family every day).
It isn't smug wisdom to point out that you can feed a family of three for 3 or 4 days for less than a tenner, it just doesn't sit well with poverty porn addicts and soppy bleeding hearts
All is not lost though. The Tory vote went up 89% between the last two MSP elections. To 9.5%, admittedly. Only another 40 years (7 generations) before an absolute majority.
It rather reminds me of the story of the last days of Kids Company.
The Guardian et al had tons of stories ready to go about how the heartless David Cameron had pulled down Kids Company by denying them money to save them. Cameron, since he was an effective media operator, arranged that money would be given. It was escrowed so that, in the end, when the charity collapsed, it wasn't lost. It fell over a couple of days later, due to the complete lack of anything resembling control on the spending of its money.
What was lost was the pile of stories.....
I wouldn't be too surprised to see some capital raising on the part of some insurers though.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/14/world/europe/tower-of-london-missing-raven-merlina.html
Now reality kicks in, it will be stuff costs more, you can't go on holiday as easily and we require you to work longer hours for less money.
"ang on, where's my bloody moon?!"
https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/potential-trustees-warned-off-struggling-charities-kids-company-case-upheld-high-court-hears/governance/article/1703020
- brown some chicken in a pan/pot
- add water, some herbs and a stock cube.
- throw in some chopped veg
- cook until... cooked.
- add a bit of sauce towards the end.
Is it the language that is putting people off?
Tbh. He's right. Book if you want to. Just spare us the whining if it doesn't come off.
seem to remember some crime stats which really jumped out from Glasgow even compared to other parts of the Central Belt. Too many lives are being ruined and action needs to be taken.
“The rule book came out six hours before the end of the transition period so companies have not had any time to learn it," Mr Grozoubinski added.
“A year from now you won't have that problem because businesses will have learned."
It's also worth noting that hauliers and suppliers have 15-2% staff absences due to Covid-19, and the fact France is still insisting on 72 hour test results for everyone at the border - and even now challenging whether lateral flow tests are acceptable - which is causing backlogs in Kent and France unrelated to Brexit.
The bigger issue is the NI/GB flow of traffic, which isn't practical enough yet - and the Holyhead facility won't be finished until late 2021 - and that for very rapid transit of UK-EU "fish & chicks" which needs to be much smoother, and is still under development.
But yes, an "all in" with chicken is what it looks like to me but I'm not feeding a family of four seven days a week.
Are there some feckless, useless, dishonest people out there? Yes. But their kids still need feeding. It's in our long run economic self interest to have kids eating enough to be able to concentrate at school and have a chance of breaking the cycle of poverty, getting off benefits and paying tax.
Is now a good time to talk about which of the characteristics of psychopathy Boris Johnson fits?
1. Doesn't get bogged down with negative emotions
2. Is a different person to different people
3. Gets bored easily
4. Acts impulsively
5. Often lies
6. Rarely accepts responsibility
7. Has a parasitic lifestyle
8. Has a high opinion of himself
I count seven for Boris.
(Two for me)
Callng for him to resign allows Labour to point at his arrogance for refusingto resign and Bozo's weakness for not sacking him.
Same again when there is a farce with GCSE and A Level grades in the summer.
One of two coronavirus variants thought to have emerged in Brazil has already been detected in the UK, says a leading scientist advising the government
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55676637
* legalise and quality control drugs defunding the gangs in the City;
* ensure safe supply and monitoring for those who have this problem;
* improve mental health services so that so many do not self medicate and end up overdosing;
* Use the massive reduction on the calls on police time and the prison population to focus on other crimes, specifically violent crime and domestic abuse;
* as an afterthought maybe provide some fruit at schools.
Simples really.
I made a soup yesterday. Remains of a chicken - bones, left over meat etc. In a pot, water, stock cube, any old spare root veg, salt, pepper and some dried oregano. Simmer on the stove for hour and a bit, while I revised the code for generating graphs to annoy people.
Numbers 3 and 8 best fit me.
The media seemed mostly concerned about the money she was spending on PR staff and the possible release of commercially sensitive information.
I was more concerned about the absolutely witless public statements she made about vaccination policy, which could hardly have been better calculated to undermine public confidence in the process.
School Lunch -> Out of term food -> Main meal -> 7 days -> 'Can't feed a child on that - isn't the provision for 1 meal, not three/day ? and so on...
Firstly, it always takes at least 50% longer than how long they say it does (normal people aren't as efficient at chopping or preparing veg as they are, nor doing several steps in parallel) and, second, they make it too complex. That has too many ingredients and steps. And they all need to take <30 mins from start to finish.
I'd say:
(1) Chop chicken breast (3 mins) and then fry for 5 mins till sealed
(2) Add pint of boiling water and chicken stock cube to it (another 2-3 mins)
(3) Meanwhile, chop carrot, onion and swede.. or use auto-chopper (7 mins)
(4) Chuck it all in and simmer for 20-22 minutes
(5) Then start the rice .. or wait till last 5 mins and microwave £1.49 rice pouch if lazy
(6) Stir in flour, mustard and milk in the last 5 mins.
(7) Serve (2 mins)
That recipe is probably 40 mins at least. You can cut out time maybe 5 mins with an auto-chopper (£20-30 I think) and get it down to 35 mins - otherwise doing a stir fry with that (no sauce) would deliver the goods in about 20-25 minutes.
The only thing I can see is making sure the chicken is cooked right through.
A student could do it
I think we probably spend about £200/week on food for a family of 5. We don't shop at the cheapest supermarket and get organic meat and milk, but we cook everything from scratch which saves money and don't normally buy any alcohol.
Which is of course the advice that I and many other routinely provide to people considering become trustees of smaller charities.
It's probably been here for over a week already.
A little bit of thyme in pretty much any meat dish will help. Parsley at the end of any chicken or fish (sometimes dill, admittedly) dish.
"Your Honour, my client admittedly commited war crimes in his campaign of world conquest. But holding him accountable for his actions would be unfair, since he was very busy with his property development projects"
It has been a convenient fiction for the Tory Party over the decades that poor people are feckless. Whether its Peter Lilley attacking single mums, or Ben Bradley saying poor parents buy crack over feeding their kids, or this Scottish candidate saying food bank users are fat, the mission is always attack the victims.
I know that not everyone in the party is as callous and amoral as that, but they can always be relied to vote for punative measures against the poor. With some success, as the next rung above the truly desperately poor are happy to put the boot in as well.
This is the risk for the party with the combined assault of Covid and Brexit. Hard to successfully blame the newly poor for being poor when its Brexit making them work longer hours for less pay or Covid shutting schools and letting their kids go hungry.
Hungry children are the more acceptable face of poverty in Britain. Since no politician is willing to make the case for increasing social security payments more generally, it's only by targeting hungry children that some improvement can be achieved.
I remember the day when my firm decided to grace me with the honour of being a partner. As a result for the first time I got to see the firm's accounts. I looked at the balance sheet and bank borrowing. "Holy shit" didn't seem to be the response they were expecting.
It has become the states responsibility to feed children, not the parents.
Add in 100£ per month for gas and electric
25£ per month for internet
two sim only deals for the adults 10£ a month comes to another 33£ a week
So using your figure we come to 183£ leaving them between 46£ a week and 70£ a week
Aha you say they may need to pay some towards rent well lets add in another 100£ a month for rent and 60 for council tax thats another 34£ a week
Still leaves a net of 12£ a week to 36£ a week
I don't think benefits should match that, though. You don't have to buy a nice fresh lunch every day, and you can stretch meals, and it's important not to be unfair with taxing those who move into full-time work but don't get this support, so I'd say £100 per week should do it.
The fact that it is regarded as fancy or posh is somewhere between weird and sad.
One way that prisons punish inmates (deliberately) in the US is to feed them super bland food. That is product of a nasty mind.
"Brazil variant already in UK, scientist says"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55676637
Working to recipes is just making what should be easy much more difficult. The only thing that I ever measure when cooking is when baking as it does seem to actually matter.
Car , well I am in full time employment and have been for years. I gave up my car years ago because I couldn't afford it so can they. We assumed they are in rental so appliance replacement is usually down to the landlord. Haircuts can be done at home.
You have as I showed money left over that can be pooled over weeks to provide clothes, and bedding and school trips and that was using your high figure of 150 per week on shopping. I suspect it would be easy enough to trim that back down by 30£ a week by just buying cheaper brands. Tesco's instead of heinz etc which gives even more lee way.
Don't get me wrong not saying its an easy living, just that it is more than possible to get by on benefits and feed your kids properly. As you have also said these kids would be on fsm which would cut the shopping bill further.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDb4G8ZikHM