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.
You can still feed the minimum nutritious food basket by choosing cheaper brands supermarket own brands are often from the same factory using the same recipe and merely differently labelled and the price difference is often huge
for instance tesco's own brand beans 30p a tin , Heinz 85p
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.
Er, no. Like you said, you need to deduct free school meals off that (c.£40), include home-prepared lunches (not bought lunches) for adults and then assess basic product costs for the family meals on top.
You get to £100 quite quickly.
But, you knew that. Your posts on here are more about you grandstanding on your high-horse and making little digs at other posters rather than constructive discussion.
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.
What action do you think the government in charge of UK drug laws should take?
ON TOPIC. “ For if that goes against him he is out of politics for good.‘.
Is that really true though?
He is popular now despite everything. MAGA will become even more popular in opposition, constantly sniping away at the democrats, and the GOP response too. The focus shifts now to the democrats, and all their little socialist, woke, BLM, defund the police, squads seen as holding the balance of power.
You have yet to convince me even if Trump loses in the senate, which had to be odds against at the moment, even if senate have a vote debarring him from being a candidate, that can actually legally stop Trump let alone growth of MAGA candidates and power holders.
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.
It's like the policy on this was developed in a era before air travel. As though a doctor in Bombay has telegraphed to say people are breaking out in bright green spots and HMG ought to warn the ports to check people coming off ships.
Following yesterday's laughable attempt to portray the fishing industry disaster as something concocted by the Scottish Government, there's a brutal article in The Thunderer quoting a letter sent from the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations to the PM:
"“Everything ... that you, and others at the very top of government told us, and also told parliament [and] the general public, led us to believe that your stance on fishing was not just rhetoric or expedience, but was based around a principle — that a sovereign country should be able to control who fishes in its own waters and should be able to harvest the fish resources in its own waters primarily for its own people. That proved not to be the case,” says the federation’s letter to Downing Street.
“It is not that, in the end, you were forced to concede in the face of an intransigent and powerful opponent that has caused such fury across our industry, it is that you have tried to present the agreement as a major success when it is patently clear that it is not.”"
Get back to us when we need 20,000 troops stationed in Westminster for the State Opening of Parliament, eh?
I'm not so sure, how many troops do you think the Epping Forest Franco wants stationed at the next opening of the Holyrood parliament?
You think there is going to be a coup? Flag-waving folk in face paint and crazy costumes, looking to seize power without any democratic mandate to support it? In Scotland? Get outta here....
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.
The last sentence brings us back to UBI...
I'd like to see fair minimum determined by focus group and explicit listing of what, on average, should be covered as basic (what speed of broadband etc etc) year by year. And I'd mandate from government that contract exits are made available for discretionary services for change of circumstances (e.g. get sacked, you may bin Sky Sports: when you so wish)
That I would expect it to almost always work out at pretty much the 60% of median relative poverty line that the right love to whinge about is besides the point. The fact the right like to whinge about it is reason enough to sink government money into making an explicit calculation.
And UBI, plus a restructuring of tax to make good the difference (e.g. if you take UBI, you go on higher tax rates for a period of time, your call. And 'something, something' for the self employed), yes please. And btw, state pension, child benefit, student financing - yes, ultimately, they're going to be UBI too.
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.
I was taken aback to discover that custom recently:
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.
They had a patch because it was just, minimally, better than nothing. Flavour comes from salt, sugar and spices; there is a reason why "spice trade" and "spice route" are phrases, whereas herb trade and herb route are not. UK grown thyme is pants anyway, it needs Mediterranean sun to develop any real flavour.
Get back to us when we need 20,000 troops stationed in Westminster for the State Opening of Parliament, eh?
I'm not so sure, how many troops do you think the Epping Forest Franco wants stationed at the next opening of the Holyrood parliament?
You think there is going to be a coup? Flag-waving folk in face paint and crazy costumes, looking to seize power without any democratic mandate to support it? In Scotland? Get outta here....
The whole point is to have a democratic mandate in the first place. Rather a difference there, right from the start.
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.
What action do you think the government in charge of UK drug laws should take?
ON TOPIC. “ For if that goes against him he is out of politics for good.‘.
Is that really true though?
He is popular now despite everything. MAGA will become even more popular in opposition, constantly sniping away at the democrats, and the GOP response too. The focus shifts now to the democrats, and all their little socialist, woke, BLM, defund the police, squads seen as holding the balance of power.
You have yet to convince me even if Trump loses in the senate, which had to be odds against at the moment, even if senate have a vote debarring him from being a candidate, that can actually legally stop Trump let alone growth of MAGA candidates and power holders.
I agree its odds against anyway, but there is a major reason Trump being unable to stand would have a huge impact - hed need a proxy to run in 2024, and however much Trump would do they would to some degree stand and fall on their own merits, which wont be as good, for his base, as Trump himself.
It is possible he could lose influence quickly or as you suggest remain very influential, but as the end result would not be him in the Oval Office, some of the spark may not be there.
I wonder though- barring him would be a majority vote, after conviction (not that I expect conviction). Coukd a simple majority revoke that? Would be a powerful motivator for him to stay focused on senate races.
Get back to us when we need 20,000 troops stationed in Westminster for the State Opening of Parliament, eh?
I'm not so sure, how many troops do you think the Epping Forest Franco wants stationed at the next opening of the Holyrood parliament?
You think there is going to be a coup? Flag-waving folk in face paint and crazy costumes, looking to seize power without any democratic mandate to support it? In Scotland? Get outta here....
The whole point is to have a democratic mandate in the first place. Rather a difference there, right from the start.
Those storming the Capitol thought they already had a democratic mandate.
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.
Er, no. Like you said, you need to deduct free school meals off that (c.£40), include home-prepared lunches (not bought lunches) for adults and then assess basic product costs for the family meals on top.
You get to £100 quite quickly.
But, you knew that. Your posts on here are more about you grandstanding on your high-horse and making little digs at other posters rather than constructive discussion.
You agreed that £150 was the cost of a minimum nutritious food basket and then arbitrarily said that you would cut that by a third. The figures I quote are not for people getting their lunch at Pret, but from a report on the minimum cost of a good diet carried out by HMG. I thought your arbitrary cut in the number seemed a bit callous. If you think that the argument that kids should have their basic developmental needs met in a country as rich as ours is "grandstanding" then that is a bit sad. Anyway, a generous welfare state isn't going to pay for itself, so I had better do some work. I apologise if I have upset you.
Get back to us when we need 20,000 troops stationed in Westminster for the State Opening of Parliament, eh?
I'm not so sure, how many troops do you think the Epping Forest Franco wants stationed at the next opening of the Holyrood parliament?
You think there is going to be a coup? Flag-waving folk in face paint and crazy costumes, looking to seize power without any democratic mandate to support it? In Scotland? Get outta here....
The whole point is to have a democratic mandate in the first place. Rather a difference there, right from the start.
Those storming the Capitol thought they already had a democratic mandate.
They were given a vote! That's the big difference.
ON TOPIC. “ For if that goes against him he is out of politics for good.‘.
Is that really true though?
He is popular now despite everything. MAGA will become even more popular in opposition, constantly sniping away at the democrats, and the GOP response too. The focus shifts now to the democrats, and all their little socialist, woke, BLM, defund the police, squads seen as holding the balance of power.
You have yet to convince me even if Trump loses in the senate, which had to be odds against at the moment, even if senate have a vote debarring him from being a candidate, that can actually legally stop Trump let alone growth of MAGA candidates and power holders.
Path of maximum chaos: 1) Senate passes impeachment, votes to ban Trump from running again 2) Conservative legal scholars declare that the ban on running again is unconstitutional 3) Trump runs and wins the GOP primary, through some combination of write-ins, getting onto ballots despite litigation, and putting up a child Trump as a stand-in 4) Likewise for the general election, with GOP legislatures declaring that Trump is a legitimate candidate and should be on the ballot, and some state courts declaring that he shouldn't, then equally fractious procedural arguments about whether places that voted had Ivanka or Trump Jr on the ballot can cast their votes for Donald 5) Electoral college votes get counted in Congress. Absolute pandemonium.
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.
You can still feed the minimum nutritious food basket by choosing cheaper brands supermarket own brands are often from the same factory using the same recipe and merely differently labelled and the price difference is often huge
for instance tesco's own brand beans 30p a tin , Heinz 85p
I doubt that a report on the *minimum* cost of a nutritious food basket based its costings on premium brands.
ON TOPIC. “ For if that goes against him he is out of politics for good.‘.
Is that really true though?
He is popular now despite everything. MAGA will become even more popular in opposition, constantly sniping away at the democrats, and the GOP response too. The focus shifts now to the democrats, and all their little socialist, woke, BLM, defund the police, squads seen as holding the balance of power.
You have yet to convince me even if Trump loses in the senate, which had to be odds against at the moment, even if senate have a vote debarring him from being a candidate, that can actually legally stop Trump let alone growth of MAGA candidates and power holders.
I agree its odds against anyway, but there is a major reason Trump being unable to stand would have a huge impact - hed need a proxy to run in 2024, and however much Trump would do they would to some degree stand and fall on their own merits, which wont be as good, for his base, as Trump himself.
It is possible he could lose influence quickly or as you suggest remain very influential, but as the end result would not be him in the Oval Office, some of the spark may not be there.
I wonder though- barring him would be a majority vote, after conviction (not that I expect conviction). Coukd a simple majority revoke that? Would be a powerful motivator for him to stay focused on senate races.
Who'd want to be a Trump proxy? Only someone in the family I suggest - and even they could get thrown under a bus by Donald. In any case if DC and Puerto Rico become States the senate will become more Democrat firendly.
Get back to us when we need 20,000 troops stationed in Westminster for the State Opening of Parliament, eh?
I'm not so sure, how many troops do you think the Epping Forest Franco wants stationed at the next opening of the Holyrood parliament?
You think there is going to be a coup? Flag-waving folk in face paint and crazy costumes, looking to seize power without any democratic mandate to support it? In Scotland? Get outta here....
The whole point is to have a democratic mandate in the first place. Rather a difference there, right from the start.
Those storming the Capitol thought they already had a democratic mandate.
They were given a vote! That's the big difference.
So were you, in 2014. The Scottish people decided in their infinite wisdom to use their once-in-a-generation voice to stay in the Union.
ON TOPIC. “ For if that goes against him he is out of politics for good.‘.
Is that really true though?
He is popular now despite everything. MAGA will become even more popular in opposition, constantly sniping away at the democrats, and the GOP response too. The focus shifts now to the democrats, and all their little socialist, woke, BLM, defund the police, squads seen as holding the balance of power.
You have yet to convince me even if Trump loses in the senate, which had to be odds against at the moment, even if senate have a vote debarring him from being a candidate, that can actually legally stop Trump let alone growth of MAGA candidates and power holders.
I agree its odds against anyway, but there is a major reason Trump being unable to stand would have a huge impact - hed need a proxy to run in 2024, and however much Trump would do they would to some degree stand and fall on their own merits, which wont be as good, for his base, as Trump himself.
It is possible he could lose influence quickly or as you suggest remain very influential, but as the end result would not be him in the Oval Office, some of the spark may not be there.
I wonder though- barring him would be a majority vote, after conviction (not that I expect conviction). Coukd a simple majority revoke that? Would be a powerful motivator for him to stay focused on senate races.
Who'd want to be a Trump proxy? Only someone in the family I suggest - and even they could get thrown under a bus by Donald. In any case if DC and Puerto Rico become States the senate will become more Democrat firendly.
I don't think he'd accept anyone but a family member as a proxy either. They're loyal, but frankly they should try living their own lives not be beholden to his goals all the time.
With Mitch no longer able to block it coming to the Senate, and given the referendum, is Puerto Rico now a lock for new state as there is an amount of cross party backing?
Sometimes, people are in deep poverty not because they are lazy, but because something is causing them to function at a level below the average capacity. It might be acute or it might be chronic.
All of the well-meaning discussions below about nice rational choice and careful planning really fail to take that basic fact into account. What they are all doing is saying "you won't starve if you make just a little more effort". Nobody can really deny that this is true, but certain people at certain times, for reasons way beyond their control, cannot.
If your potted theory of how to live on tuppence and spare string doesn't take into account the mental and physical capacity of the person doing it, it's not worth the paper that you really shouldn't bother to write it on.
And I don't want to hear about people feigning illness either. I acknowledge that such things go on but unless you can find a way to sort those people from the genuinely needy, WITHOUT it further eroding the limited capacity of those needful people, you're just making it worse for the genuine cases.
It's all very easy when you're mentally and physically well to make a carefully tabulated budget and choose coolly and rationally at the supermarket. But if your bipolar disorder has you on a manic cycle and you haven't slept because the neighbour's dog barks all night, and your kid is being bullied because of his scruffy trainers, and the landlord hasn't fixed the mould that keeps growing up the walls, and you're frightened and angry and feeling hopeless, your decision making gets so badly fucked up.
So please take that into account whilst you discuss your solutions.
The Supreme Court ruling insurers are liable for covid business interruption claims is a big moment, and excellent news for small businesses across the country
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.
The last sentence brings us back to UBI...
I'd like to see fair minimum determined by focus group and explicit listing of what, on average, should be covered as basic (what speed of broadband etc etc) year by year. And I'd mandate from government that contract exits are made available for discretionary services for change of circumstances (e.g. get sacked, you may bin Sky Sports: when you so wish)
That I would expect it to almost always work out at pretty much the 60% of median relative poverty line that the right love to whinge about is besides the point. The fact the right like to whinge about it is reason enough to sink government money into making an explicit calculation.
And UBI, plus a restructuring of tax to make good the difference (e.g. if you take UBI, you go on higher tax rates for a period of time, your call. And 'something, something' for the self employed), yes please. And btw, state pension, child benefit, student financing - yes, ultimately, they're going to be UBI too.
The contract exits seem a good idea or for that matter contract breaks. However what did I not list that you consider necessary?
Both adults have a mobile, they have internet access, they have gas and electric,they have food a roof some money left over for discretionary spending on clothes etc. That is by its very definition a safety net. The purpose of benefits is to provide support when you fall on hard times not to provide a living.
UBI is a pipedream that will never happen because it would cost too much. Merely giving every adult in britain 1000£ a month ubi would cost in the region of 480 billion and 1000 a month would not be enough to live on it would probably need to be double that assuming housing benefit and other benefits would be axed. Add in the NHS, defence,schools etc and you are pretty much looking at the entirety of GDP going to the government coffers. When that happens no one is getting enough extra from working to bother. Why would a surgeon do a hugely stressful job when he is not getting a lot more than the ubi recipient
No matter how fast we go, still not fast enough for the moaners...
Now get on with the vaccines and end lockdown: Boris is urged to seize on Britain halting Covid surge by DOUBLING jabs target to 30million to ease restrictions by mid-February
ON TOPIC. “ For if that goes against him he is out of politics for good.‘.
Is that really true though?
He is popular now despite everything. MAGA will become even more popular in opposition, constantly sniping away at the democrats, and the GOP response too. The focus shifts now to the democrats, and all their little socialist, woke, BLM, defund the police, squads seen as holding the balance of power.
You have yet to convince me even if Trump loses in the senate, which had to be odds against at the moment, even if senate have a vote debarring him from being a candidate, that can actually legally stop Trump let alone growth of MAGA candidates and power holders.
I agree its odds against anyway, but there is a major reason Trump being unable to stand would have a huge impact - hed need a proxy to run in 2024, and however much Trump would do they would to some degree stand and fall on their own merits, which wont be as good, for his base, as Trump himself.
It is possible he could lose influence quickly or as you suggest remain very influential, but as the end result would not be him in the Oval Office, some of the spark may not be there.
I wonder though- barring him would be a majority vote, after conviction (not that I expect conviction). Coukd a simple majority revoke that? Would be a powerful motivator for him to stay focused on senate races.
I think you missed my point. They can’t debar him bringing the end of his political career. Legally they can’t. Impeachment is only throw out of office, it needs more to ban and debar. As you said yourself, one vote could over turn another vote. But the Supreme Court could rule he can stand even without that.
As long as MAGA continues to grow in popularity Trump is going nowhere. In fact the coming conditions of perpetual campaigning whilst in opposition against backdrop of recession MAGA popularity could go through the roof.
The Supreme Court ruling insurers are liable for covid business interruption claims is a big moment, and excellent news for small businesses across the country
Yep, as I said downthread kudos to the FCA in bringing this case in the way they did and forcing an early resolution whilst at least most of the claimants are still solvent. If only they had done the same with hedge loans and collars.
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.
You can still feed the minimum nutritious food basket by choosing cheaper brands supermarket own brands are often from the same factory using the same recipe and merely differently labelled and the price difference is often huge
for instance tesco's own brand beans 30p a tin , Heinz 85p
Is that actually true? I thought it was more likely that different own-brands beans were made in the same factory but top brands were exclusive. I'm no expert, 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 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.
The last sentence brings us back to UBI...
I'd like to see fair minimum determined by focus group and explicit listing of what, on average, should be covered as basic (what speed of broadband etc etc) year by year. And I'd mandate from government that contract exits are made available for discretionary services for change of circumstances (e.g. get sacked, you may bin Sky Sports: when you so wish)
That I would expect it to almost always work out at pretty much the 60% of median relative poverty line that the right love to whinge about is besides the point. The fact the right like to whinge about it is reason enough to sink government money into making an explicit calculation.
And UBI, plus a restructuring of tax to make good the difference (e.g. if you take UBI, you go on higher tax rates for a period of time, your call. And 'something, something' for the self employed), yes please. And btw, state pension, child benefit, student financing - yes, ultimately, they're going to be UBI too.
My UBI version is
- monthly paid to every living citizen over 18, via selected account. - can never be withdrawn or cut. - UBI = tax free allowance, so all income is taxed - UBI is the state pension. - NI rolled into income tax.
As long as MAGA continues to grow in popularity Trump is going nowhere. In fact the coming conditions of perpetual campaigning whilst in opposition against backdrop of recession MAGA popularity could go through the roof.
Without Twitter he is neutered, and it looks like he is going to have severe financial and perhaps legal issues which will restrict his campaigning abilities.
No matter how fast we go, still not fast enough for the moaners...
Now get on with the vaccines and end lockdown: Boris is urged to seize on Britain halting Covid surge by DOUBLING jabs target to 30million to ease restrictions by mid-February
Supermarkets, shops and workplaces in Wales are to be compelled to carry out a specific coronavirus assessment under new legislation being introduced amid concerns that some businesses are not taking restrictions seriously enough.
Indeed. Lovely to see that spiteful rubbish fall silent as she makes a roaring success of her job.
Roaring success? Why are you hiding behind the vaccination program and the amount of vaccinations?
It’s not going to change anything is it?
Everybody can still carry COVID about and give it to everyone, and anyone old, frail or vulnerable is still going to get very ill and die. This vaccination program changes very little.
ON TOPIC. “ For if that goes against him he is out of politics for good.‘.
Is that really true though?
He is popular now despite everything. MAGA will become even more popular in opposition, constantly sniping away at the democrats, and the GOP response too. The focus shifts now to the democrats, and all their little socialist, woke, BLM, defund the police, squads seen as holding the balance of power.
You have yet to convince me even if Trump loses in the senate, which had to be odds against at the moment, even if senate have a vote debarring him from being a candidate, that can actually legally stop Trump let alone growth of MAGA candidates and power holders.
I agree its odds against anyway, but there is a major reason Trump being unable to stand would have a huge impact - hed need a proxy to run in 2024, and however much Trump would do they would to some degree stand and fall on their own merits, which wont be as good, for his base, as Trump himself.
It is possible he could lose influence quickly or as you suggest remain very influential, but as the end result would not be him in the Oval Office, some of the spark may not be there.
I wonder though- barring him would be a majority vote, after conviction (not that I expect conviction). Coukd a simple majority revoke that? Would be a powerful motivator for him to stay focused on senate races.
I think you missed my point. They can’t debar him bringing the end of his political career. Legally they can’t. Impeachment is only throw out of office, it needs more to ban and debar. As you said yourself, one vote could over turn another vote. But the Supreme Court could rule he can stand even without that.
As long as MAGA continues to grow in popularity Trump is going nowhere. In fact the coming conditions of perpetual campaigning whilst in opposition against backdrop of recession MAGA popularity could go through the roof.
I didn't miss your point in the slightest, that's why I said he could 'as you suggest remain very influential'.
My point was not that he is going to have his career ended, just that if he is indeed disbarred from office, I believe that will have an impact on where that career goes and how effective it may be. If I'm a MAGA Trump fan, even with the great man himself backing Senator Desperateto DraintheSwamp for President, will I be as keen to turn out for him? Trump himself often makes the claim that people lower on the ballot would not win without his having backed them, and some do worse than him even with him backing them.
Trump stand in is just not as appealing to his fans as Trump himself was the point. Don't they want the real deal?
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.
You can still feed the minimum nutritious food basket by choosing cheaper brands supermarket own brands are often from the same factory using the same recipe and merely differently labelled and the price difference is often huge
for instance tesco's own brand beans 30p a tin , Heinz 85p
Is that actually true? I thought it was more likely that different own-brands beans were made in the same factory but top brands were exclusive. I'm no expert, mind.
It is true for some products at least, however I can't honestly say its true for all products and certainly not true for the "value" brands which are definitely a tier below
No matter how fast we go, still not fast enough for the moaners...
Now get on with the vaccines and end lockdown: Boris is urged to seize on Britain halting Covid surge by DOUBLING jabs target to 30million to ease restrictions by mid-February
I don't even see how that's possible. It would need 1m jabs per day from tomorrow to reach it, we simply don't have the supply. Even if we had the logistics in place to do 1m jabs per day those people would be sitting around waiting for vaccine doses all day.
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.
Er, no. Like you said, you need to deduct free school meals off that (c.£40), include home-prepared lunches (not bought lunches) for adults and then assess basic product costs for the family meals on top.
You get to £100 quite quickly.
But, you knew that. Your posts on here are more about you grandstanding on your high-horse and making little digs at other posters rather than constructive discussion.
You agreed that £150 was the cost of a minimum nutritious food basket and then arbitrarily said that you would cut that by a third. The figures I quote are not for people getting their lunch at Pret, but from a report on the minimum cost of a good diet carried out by HMG. I thought your arbitrary cut in the number seemed a bit callous. If you think that the argument that kids should have their basic developmental needs met in a country as rich as ours is "grandstanding" then that is a bit sad. Anyway, a generous welfare state isn't going to pay for itself, so I had better do some work. I apologise if I have upset you.
No, I've explained my mathematics and reasoning upthread. It's very easy to follow. So far your responses have been non-sequiturs, and cheap personal shots.
If you want to engage with the detail in good faith, then I'd be happy to do so. If not, going back to work if probably best.
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.
You can still feed the minimum nutritious food basket by choosing cheaper brands supermarket own brands are often from the same factory using the same recipe and merely differently labelled and the price difference is often huge
for instance tesco's own brand beans 30p a tin , Heinz 85p
Is that actually true? I thought it was more likely that different own-brands beans were made in the same factory but top brands were exclusive. I'm no expert, mind.
Yes and it is spread across a wide range of supermarket's own brands
Anecdata - Group 4 friend in South London praising vaccine process as highly efficient - turned up for appointment early but was seen immediately, happy to have got first shot. (Pfizer).
No matter how fast we go, still not fast enough for the moaners...
Now get on with the vaccines and end lockdown: Boris is urged to seize on Britain halting Covid surge by DOUBLING jabs target to 30million to ease restrictions by mid-February
I don't even see how that's possible. It would need 1m jabs per day from tomorrow to reach it, we simply don't have the supply. Even if we had the logistics in place to do 1m jabs per day those people would be sitting around waiting for vaccine doses all day.
Anecdata - Group 4 friend in South London praising vaccine process as highly efficient - turned up for appointment early but was seen immediately, happy to have got first shot. (Pfizer).
That was my fathers experience the other day. He was very impressed, and he rarely is about anything.
Sometimes, people are in deep poverty not because they are lazy, but because something is causing them to function at a level below the average capacity. It might be acute or it might be chronic.
All of the well-meaning discussions below about nice rational choice and careful planning really fail to take that basic fact into account. What they are all doing is saying "you won't starve if you make just a little more effort". Nobody can really deny that this is true, but certain people at certain times, for reasons way beyond their control, cannot.
If your potted theory of how to live on tuppence and spare string doesn't take into account the mental and physical capacity of the person doing it, it's not worth the paper that you really shouldn't bother to write it on.
And I don't want to hear about people feigning illness either. I acknowledge that such things go on but unless you can find a way to sort those people from the genuinely needy, WITHOUT it further eroding the limited capacity of those needful people, you're just making it worse for the genuine cases.
It's all very easy when you're mentally and physically well to make a carefully tabulated budget and choose coolly and rationally at the supermarket. But if your bipolar disorder has you on a manic cycle and you haven't slept because the neighbour's dog barks all night, and your kid is being bullied because of his scruffy trainers, and the landlord hasn't fixed the mould that keeps growing up the walls, and you're frightened and angry and feeling hopeless, your decision making gets so badly fucked up.
So please take that into account whilst you discuss your solutions.
Really excellent post - thank you. It struck me repeatedly when helping constituents that much of the health and welfare system is designed for people who are well-organised, literate and well-informed, and there are people who simply aren't for reasons that are really not under their control. Outreach to people known to be having difficulties of this kind is one of the most important functions of a welfare state. If I was sacked tomorrow, or had to move out of my home, I'd know exactly how to respond. Lots of people really do not, and they just get overwhelmed.
No matter how fast we go, still not fast enough for the moaners...
Now get on with the vaccines and end lockdown: Boris is urged to seize on Britain halting Covid surge by DOUBLING jabs target to 30million to ease restrictions by mid-February
On the subject of adding herbs to food, in the winter we put a half coconut with fat and grubs in it in our greenhouse and leave the door open just enough to allow small birds through. This winter a robin has started going in and we notice that he will go to the pots of herbs in the greenhouse and take strands of thyme (it is always the thyme) and lay them across the coconut, as a sort of garnish. Is it the avian version of Nigella? My husband thinks it is trying to disguise the coconut from other birds. Anyone any ideas? Apologies is this sounds trite against the issue of food poverty but I am genuinely interested to know.
Sometimes, people are in deep poverty not because they are lazy, but because something is causing them to function at a level below the average capacity. It might be acute or it might be chronic.
All of the well-meaning discussions below about nice rational choice and careful planning really fail to take that basic fact into account. What they are all doing is saying "you won't starve if you make just a little more effort". Nobody can really deny that this is true, but certain people at certain times, for reasons way beyond their control, cannot.
If your potted theory of how to live on tuppence and spare string doesn't take into account the mental and physical capacity of the person doing it, it's not worth the paper that you really shouldn't bother to write it on.
And I don't want to hear about people feigning illness either. I acknowledge that such things go on but unless you can find a way to sort those people from the genuinely needy, WITHOUT it further eroding the limited capacity of those needful people, you're just making it worse for the genuine cases.
It's all very easy when you're mentally and physically well to make a carefully tabulated budget and choose coolly and rationally at the supermarket. But if your bipolar disorder has you on a manic cycle and you haven't slept because the neighbour's dog barks all night, and your kid is being bullied because of his scruffy trainers, and the landlord hasn't fixed the mould that keeps growing up the walls, and you're frightened and angry and feeling hopeless, your decision making gets so badly fucked up.
So please take that into account whilst you discuss your solutions.
Good post, and all of that is perfectly true.
The best answer to poverty is to get more people into work. That means more people in paid work, ending the couples penalty, helping families stay together, and having better childcare provision - childcare being the biggest driver of poverty due to the absolute care costs and the penalty of needing to abstain from work to provide childcare.
The coalition made great steps in getting lots of people into work onwards, such that we got to a near 50-year low on unemployment, and we shouldn't forget that or go back to how things were pre-2010.
If we are to revisit welfare provision in this country I think it should be focussed on better childcare provision (it's one of the most expensive in the world here) and supporting those with mental and physical health problems with remote and home working.
In short, support to work - which is good for everyone: parents and children.
No matter how fast we go, still not fast enough for the moaners...
Now get on with the vaccines and end lockdown: Boris is urged to seize on Britain halting Covid surge by DOUBLING jabs target to 30million to ease restrictions by mid-February
I don't even see how that's possible. It would need 1m jabs per day from tomorrow to reach it, we simply don't have the supply. Even if we had the logistics in place to do 1m jabs per day those people would be sitting around waiting for vaccine doses all day.
Gordon Brittas would find a way....
I don't understand how the interviewer didn't challenge that idea immediately and ask where the UK would magic up an additional 15m doses from. Which countries would we be taking those away from? By what mechanism would we convince Pfizer to give them to us rather than Germany, Italy or Belgium?
These kinds of ideas need to be robustly challenged. I think Hancock needs to come out swinging against this kind of idiot thinking today and challenge Ashworth to present the maths behind the demand and talks with Pfizer to secure an additional 2m doses per week on top of current supply.
Sometimes, people are in deep poverty not because they are lazy, but because something is causing them to function at a level below the average capacity. It might be acute or it might be chronic.
All of the well-meaning discussions below about nice rational choice and careful planning really fail to take that basic fact into account. What they are all doing is saying "you won't starve if you make just a little more effort". Nobody can really deny that this is true, but certain people at certain times, for reasons way beyond their control, cannot.
If your potted theory of how to live on tuppence and spare string doesn't take into account the mental and physical capacity of the person doing it, it's not worth the paper that you really shouldn't bother to write it on.
And I don't want to hear about people feigning illness either. I acknowledge that such things go on but unless you can find a way to sort those people from the genuinely needy, WITHOUT it further eroding the limited capacity of those needful people, you're just making it worse for the genuine cases.
It's all very easy when you're mentally and physically well to make a carefully tabulated budget and choose coolly and rationally at the supermarket. But if your bipolar disorder has you on a manic cycle and you haven't slept because the neighbour's dog barks all night, and your kid is being bullied because of his scruffy trainers, and the landlord hasn't fixed the mould that keeps growing up the walls, and you're frightened and angry and feeling hopeless, your decision making gets so badly fucked up.
So please take that into account whilst you discuss your solutions.
Really excellent post - thank you. It struck me repeatedly when helping constituents that much of the health and welfare system is designed for people who are well-organised, literate and well-informed, and there are people who simply aren't for reasons that are really not under their control. Outreach to people known to be having difficulties of this kind is one of the most important functions of a welfare state. If I was sacked tomorrow, or had to move out of my home, I'd know exactly how to respond. Lots of people really do not, and they just get overwhelmed.
There is a very distressing case in front of the courts at the moment where the DWP allegedly cut benefit to someone who was very vulnerable.
ON TOPIC. “ For if that goes against him he is out of politics for good.‘.
Is that really true though?
He is popular now despite everything. MAGA will become even more popular in opposition, constantly sniping away at the democrats, and the GOP response too. The focus shifts now to the democrats, and all their little socialist, woke, BLM, defund the police, squads seen as holding the balance of power.
You have yet to convince me even if Trump loses in the senate, which had to be odds against at the moment, even if senate have a vote debarring him from being a candidate, that can actually legally stop Trump let alone growth of MAGA candidates and power holders.
I agree its odds against anyway, but there is a major reason Trump being unable to stand would have a huge impact - hed need a proxy to run in 2024, and however much Trump would do they would to some degree stand and fall on their own merits, which wont be as good, for his base, as Trump himself.
It is possible he could lose influence quickly or as you suggest remain very influential, but as the end result would not be him in the Oval Office, some of the spark may not be there.
I wonder though- barring him would be a majority vote, after conviction (not that I expect conviction). Coukd a simple majority revoke that? Would be a powerful motivator for him to stay focused on senate races.
Who'd want to be a Trump proxy? Only someone in the family I suggest - and even they could get thrown under a bus by Donald. In any case if DC and Puerto Rico become States the senate will become more Democrat firendly.
I don't think he'd accept anyone but a family member as a proxy either. They're loyal, but frankly they should try living their own lives not be beholden to his goals all the time.
With Mitch no longer able to block it coming to the Senate, and given the referendum, is Puerto Rico now a lock for new state as there is an amount of cross party backing?
No matter how fast we go, still not fast enough for the moaners...
Now get on with the vaccines and end lockdown: Boris is urged to seize on Britain halting Covid surge by DOUBLING jabs target to 30million to ease restrictions by mid-February
I don't even see how that's possible. It would need 1m jabs per day from tomorrow to reach it, we simply don't have the supply. Even if we had the logistics in place to do 1m jabs per day those people would be sitting around waiting for vaccine doses all day.
I am sure that you are wrong Max. Rather if they don't double the target it will conclusively prove that the government just doesn't care and is indifferent to peoples' suffering (and I am sure that Brexit comes in there somewhere too).
Sometimes, people are in deep poverty not because they are lazy, but because something is causing them to function at a level below the average capacity. It might be acute or it might be chronic.
All of the well-meaning discussions below about nice rational choice and careful planning really fail to take that basic fact into account. What they are all doing is saying "you won't starve if you make just a little more effort". Nobody can really deny that this is true, but certain people at certain times, for reasons way beyond their control, cannot.
If your potted theory of how to live on tuppence and spare string doesn't take into account the mental and physical capacity of the person doing it, it's not worth the paper that you really shouldn't bother to write it on.
And I don't want to hear about people feigning illness either. I acknowledge that such things go on but unless you can find a way to sort those people from the genuinely needy, WITHOUT it further eroding the limited capacity of those needful people, you're just making it worse for the genuine cases.
It's all very easy when you're mentally and physically well to make a carefully tabulated budget and choose coolly and rationally at the supermarket. But if your bipolar disorder has you on a manic cycle and you haven't slept because the neighbour's dog barks all night, and your kid is being bullied because of his scruffy trainers, and the landlord hasn't fixed the mould that keeps growing up the walls, and you're frightened and angry and feeling hopeless, your decision making gets so badly fucked up.
So please take that into account whilst you discuss your solutions.
Really excellent post - thank you. It struck me repeatedly when helping constituents that much of the health and welfare system is designed for people who are well-organised, literate and well-informed, and there are people who simply aren't for reasons that are really not under their control. Outreach to people known to be having difficulties of this kind is one of the most important functions of a welfare state. If I was sacked tomorrow, or had to move out of my home, I'd know exactly how to respond. Lots of people really do not, and they just get overwhelmed.
While I am quite critical of a lot of those who say uc isn't enough, as you may have noticed, I would certainly support more intervention to help with those that are not able to cope. Indeed during the fsm/rashford thing I was quite vociferous in saying I opposed it. Not because I thought children should go hungry but because I doubted it would have any real impact. I would have rather seen the money ploughed into educating the parents. Basic budgeting and cooking skills even though it would probably have cost 2 to 3 times as much
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.
The last sentence brings us back to UBI...
I'd like to see fair minimum determined by focus group and explicit listing of what, on average, should be covered as basic (what speed of broadband etc etc) year by year. And I'd mandate from government that contract exits are made available for discretionary services for change of circumstances (e.g. get sacked, you may bin Sky Sports: when you so wish)
That I would expect it to almost always work out at pretty much the 60% of median relative poverty line that the right love to whinge about is besides the point. The fact the right like to whinge about it is reason enough to sink government money into making an explicit calculation.
And UBI, plus a restructuring of tax to make good the difference (e.g. if you take UBI, you go on higher tax rates for a period of time, your call. And 'something, something' for the self employed), yes please. And btw, state pension, child benefit, student financing - yes, ultimately, they're going to be UBI too.
My UBI version is
- monthly paid to every living citizen over 18, via selected account. - can never be withdrawn or cut. - UBI = tax free allowance, so all income is taxed - UBI is the state pension. - NI rolled into income tax.
I like that, M. Think of the penpushers and paperwork that would save.
ON TOPIC. “ For if that goes against him he is out of politics for good.‘.
Is that really true though?
He is popular now despite everything. MAGA will become even more popular in opposition, constantly sniping away at the democrats, and the GOP response too. The focus shifts now to the democrats, and all their little socialist, woke, BLM, defund the police, squads seen as holding the balance of power.
You have yet to convince me even if Trump loses in the senate, which had to be odds against at the moment, even if senate have a vote debarring him from being a candidate, that can actually legally stop Trump let alone growth of MAGA candidates and power holders.
I agree its odds against anyway, but there is a major reason Trump being unable to stand would have a huge impact - hed need a proxy to run in 2024, and however much Trump would do they would to some degree stand and fall on their own merits, which wont be as good, for his base, as Trump himself.
It is possible he could lose influence quickly or as you suggest remain very influential, but as the end result would not be him in the Oval Office, some of the spark may not be there.
I wonder though- barring him would be a majority vote, after conviction (not that I expect conviction). Coukd a simple majority revoke that? Would be a powerful motivator for him to stay focused on senate races.
Who'd want to be a Trump proxy? Only someone in the family I suggest - and even they could get thrown under a bus by Donald. In any case if DC and Puerto Rico become States the senate will become more Democrat firendly.
I don't think he'd accept anyone but a family member as a proxy either. They're loyal, but frankly they should try living their own lives not be beholden to his goals all the time.
With Mitch no longer able to block it coming to the Senate, and given the referendum, is Puerto Rico now a lock for new state as there is an amount of cross party backing?
DC though...
Puerto Rico Could return two GOP senators
Could do, makes no difference to me. It's just I'm aware it is not just Democrats who support that one becoming a state (nor do I know if all Democrats do support it), so it's presumably easier to get support for it than DC, which voted 92% for Biden.
ON TOPIC. “ For if that goes against him he is out of politics for good.‘.
Is that really true though?
He is popular now despite everything. MAGA will become even more popular in opposition, constantly sniping away at the democrats, and the GOP response too. The focus shifts now to the democrats, and all their little socialist, woke, BLM, defund the police, squads seen as holding the balance of power.
You have yet to convince me even if Trump loses in the senate, which had to be odds against at the moment, even if senate have a vote debarring him from being a candidate, that can actually legally stop Trump let alone growth of MAGA candidates and power holders.
Path of maximum chaos: 1) Senate passes impeachment, votes to ban Trump from running again 2) Conservative legal scholars declare that the ban on running again is unconstitutional 3) Trump runs and wins the GOP primary, through some combination of write-ins, getting onto ballots despite litigation, and putting up a child Trump as a stand-in 4) Likewise for the general election, with GOP legislatures declaring that Trump is a legitimate candidate and should be on the ballot, and some state courts declaring that he shouldn't, then equally fractious procedural arguments about whether places that voted had Ivanka or Trump Jr on the ballot can cast their votes for Donald 5) Electoral college votes get counted in Congress. Absolute pandemonium.
Plus the fact you have made him the “bad boy” and that’s extra not less votes to start with.
No matter how fast we go, still not fast enough for the moaners...
Now get on with the vaccines and end lockdown: Boris is urged to seize on Britain halting Covid surge by DOUBLING jabs target to 30million to ease restrictions by mid-February
I don't even see how that's possible. It would need 1m jabs per day from tomorrow to reach it, we simply don't have the supply. Even if we had the logistics in place to do 1m jabs per day those people would be sitting around waiting for vaccine doses all day.
Gordon Brittas would find a way....
I don't understand how the interviewer didn't challenge that idea immediately and ask where the UK would magic up an additional 15m doses from. Which countries would we be taking those away from? By what mechanism would we convince Pfizer to give them to us rather than Germany, Italy or Belgium?
These kinds of ideas need to be robustly challenged. I think Hancock needs to come out swinging against this kind of idiot thinking today and challenge Ashworth to present the maths behind the demand and talks with Pfizer to secure an additional 2m doses per week on top of current supply.
Well if Newsnight last night was anything to go by, they are onboard the idiot train... government failing, needs to rethink strategy, why aren't you willing to tell us when we will get deliveries, do you think the Germans are stealing from us, are you going to override committee advice on groupings, shouldn't we vaccinating the poor first...
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.
The last sentence brings us back to UBI...
I'd like to see fair minimum determined by focus group and explicit listing of what, on average, should be covered as basic (what speed of broadband etc etc) year by year. And I'd mandate from government that contract exits are made available for discretionary services for change of circumstances (e.g. get sacked, you may bin Sky Sports: when you so wish)
That I would expect it to almost always work out at pretty much the 60% of median relative poverty line that the right love to whinge about is besides the point. The fact the right like to whinge about it is reason enough to sink government money into making an explicit calculation.
And UBI, plus a restructuring of tax to make good the difference (e.g. if you take UBI, you go on higher tax rates for a period of time, your call. And 'something, something' for the self employed), yes please. And btw, state pension, child benefit, student financing - yes, ultimately, they're going to be UBI too.
My UBI version is
- monthly paid to every living citizen over 18, via selected account. - can never be withdrawn or cut. - UBI = tax free allowance, so all income is taxed - UBI is the state pension. - NI rolled into income tax.
I like that, M. Think of the penpushers and paperwork that would save.
Until all of the special interest groups get their hands on the policy and reintroduce special allowances for certain groups.
Indeed. Lovely to see that spiteful rubbish fall silent as she makes a roaring success of her job.
Roaring success? Why are you hiding behind the vaccination program and the amount of vaccinations?
It’s not going to change anything is it?
Everybody can still carry COVID about and give it to everyone, and anyone old, frail or vulnerable is still going to get very ill and die. This vaccination program changes very little.
Tell me why I am wrong.
The other question is one of take-up. In mid-December there was a survey showing only 57% of those from South Asia would have the vaccine as against 80% of the general population.
All those assuming cases and deaths will disappear with vaccination are forgetting a substantial minority even among the most vulnerable will not be vaccinated for whatever reason.
In the short term, the Government will be able to vaccinate more quickly and no doubt its supporters on here will wallow on this "success" like a hippo in the afternoon mud bath but if instead of vaccinating 24 million you've vaccinated 20 million or even 18 million there's still a lot of potential deaths and cases out there.
We also have no idea how long protection will be provided by just one vaccination when the manufacturer advised two or for how long even two vaccinations will provide immunity.
As you say, it may well be the vaccinated can still carry the virus and infect the unvaccinated - we don't know much about that either.
That's not to decry vaccination by any stretch - it's far better than the alternative - but to assume life will return to complete pre-Covid normality is naive. Changes have occurred (home working for example, more online shopping) which won't be reversed even when Covid has been brought under control.
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.
The last sentence brings us back to UBI...
I'd like to see fair minimum determined by focus group and explicit listing of what, on average, should be covered as basic (what speed of broadband etc etc) year by year. And I'd mandate from government that contract exits are made available for discretionary services for change of circumstances (e.g. get sacked, you may bin Sky Sports: when you so wish)
That I would expect it to almost always work out at pretty much the 60% of median relative poverty line that the right love to whinge about is besides the point. The fact the right like to whinge about it is reason enough to sink government money into making an explicit calculation.
And UBI, plus a restructuring of tax to make good the difference (e.g. if you take UBI, you go on higher tax rates for a period of time, your call. And 'something, something' for the self employed), yes please. And btw, state pension, child benefit, student financing - yes, ultimately, they're going to be UBI too.
The contract exits seem a good idea or for that matter contract breaks. However what did I not list that you consider necessary?
Both adults have a mobile, they have internet access, they have gas and electric,they have food a roof some money left over for discretionary spending on clothes etc. That is by its very definition a safety net. The purpose of benefits is to provide support when you fall on hard times not to provide a living.
UBI is a pipedream that will never happen because it would cost too much. Merely giving every adult in britain 1000£ a month ubi would cost in the region of 480 billion and 1000 a month would not be enough to live on it would probably need to be double that assuming housing benefit and other benefits would be axed. Add in the NHS, defence,schools etc and you are pretty much looking at the entirety of GDP going to the government coffers. When that happens no one is getting enough extra from working to bother. Why would a surgeon do a hugely stressful job when he is not getting a lot more than the ubi recipient
I'd not seen your post, but my point is more that what is included would change with time, rather than engaging with the specific lists being bandied on this thread.
For UBI, I'd assume it to be at a level in the broad ball park of current pensions and benefits, and that earnings would sit on top. But that then tax would start being taken again at much lower earnings levels and tax rates would be differential for UBI recipients so that not everyone would claim. It won't be as simple as this, a UBI might still need associated top ups - formal childcare, housing and so not be totally flat rate (just as I don't think UC has successfully eliminated all complication). But I think you could get to a set of sums where UBI looked possible.
Sometimes, people are in deep poverty not because they are lazy, but because something is causing them to function at a level below the average capacity. It might be acute or it might be chronic.
All of the well-meaning discussions below about nice rational choice and careful planning really fail to take that basic fact into account. What they are all doing is saying "you won't starve if you make just a little more effort". Nobody can really deny that this is true, but certain people at certain times, for reasons way beyond their control, cannot.
If your potted theory of how to live on tuppence and spare string doesn't take into account the mental and physical capacity of the person doing it, it's not worth the paper that you really shouldn't bother to write it on.
And I don't want to hear about people feigning illness either. I acknowledge that such things go on but unless you can find a way to sort those people from the genuinely needy, WITHOUT it further eroding the limited capacity of those needful people, you're just making it worse for the genuine cases.
It's all very easy when you're mentally and physically well to make a carefully tabulated budget and choose coolly and rationally at the supermarket. But if your bipolar disorder has you on a manic cycle and you haven't slept because the neighbour's dog barks all night, and your kid is being bullied because of his scruffy trainers, and the landlord hasn't fixed the mould that keeps growing up the walls, and you're frightened and angry and feeling hopeless, your decision making gets so badly fucked up.
So please take that into account whilst you discuss your solutions.
Really excellent post - thank you. It struck me repeatedly when helping constituents that much of the health and welfare system is designed for people who are well-organised, literate and well-informed, and there are people who simply aren't for reasons that are really not under their control. Outreach to people known to be having difficulties of this kind is one of the most important functions of a welfare state. If I was sacked tomorrow, or had to move out of my home, I'd know exactly how to respond. Lots of people really do not, and they just get overwhelmed.
Education could help, I think. Obviously illnesses (stress is an illness IMHO) are a factor. But I think we could do better at helping people learn.... resilience? adaptability?
The problem is that sounds pejorative - but it's a skill, like reading and writing,
Sometimes, people are in deep poverty not because they are lazy, but because something is causing them to function at a level below the average capacity. It might be acute or it might be chronic.
All of the well-meaning discussions below about nice rational choice and careful planning really fail to take that basic fact into account. What they are all doing is saying "you won't starve if you make just a little more effort". Nobody can really deny that this is true, but certain people at certain times, for reasons way beyond their control, cannot.
If your potted theory of how to live on tuppence and spare string doesn't take into account the mental and physical capacity of the person doing it, it's not worth the paper that you really shouldn't bother to write it on.
And I don't want to hear about people feigning illness either. I acknowledge that such things go on but unless you can find a way to sort those people from the genuinely needy, WITHOUT it further eroding the limited capacity of those needful people, you're just making it worse for the genuine cases.
It's all very easy when you're mentally and physically well to make a carefully tabulated budget and choose coolly and rationally at the supermarket. But if your bipolar disorder has you on a manic cycle and you haven't slept because the neighbour's dog barks all night, and your kid is being bullied because of his scruffy trainers, and the landlord hasn't fixed the mould that keeps growing up the walls, and you're frightened and angry and feeling hopeless, your decision making gets so badly fucked up.
So please take that into account whilst you discuss your solutions.
Really excellent post - thank you. It struck me repeatedly when helping constituents that much of the health and welfare system is designed for people who are well-organised, literate and well-informed, and there are people who simply aren't for reasons that are really not under their control. Outreach to people known to be having difficulties of this kind is one of the most important functions of a welfare state. If I was sacked tomorrow, or had to move out of my home, I'd know exactly how to respond. Lots of people really do not, and they just get overwhelmed.
There is a very distressing case in front of the courts at the moment where the DWP allegedly cut benefit to someone who was very vulnerable.
It does seem far too easy to be sanction I will be the first to admit. I had experience of the dwp when a company I was working for suddenly went bust leaving me lacking 3 months in backpay. It was almost kafkaesque moment when I got told I was being sanctioned for not looking for work a minute or so after the guy had finished signing of my reimbursement claims for 6 interviews in the last period
ON TOPIC. “ For if that goes against him he is out of politics for good.‘.
Is that really true though?
He is popular now despite everything. MAGA will become even more popular in opposition, constantly sniping away at the democrats, and the GOP response too. The focus shifts now to the democrats, and all their little socialist, woke, BLM, defund the police, squads seen as holding the balance of power.
You have yet to convince me even if Trump loses in the senate, which had to be odds against at the moment, even if senate have a vote debarring him from being a candidate, that can actually legally stop Trump let alone growth of MAGA candidates and power holders.
Path of maximum chaos: 1) Senate passes impeachment, votes to ban Trump from running again 2) Conservative legal scholars declare that the ban on running again is unconstitutional 3) Trump runs and wins the GOP primary, through some combination of write-ins, getting onto ballots despite litigation, and putting up a child Trump as a stand-in 4) Likewise for the general election, with GOP legislatures declaring that Trump is a legitimate candidate and should be on the ballot, and some state courts declaring that he shouldn't, then equally fractious procedural arguments about whether places that voted had Ivanka or Trump Jr on the ballot can cast their votes for Donald 5) Electoral college votes get counted in Congress. Absolute pandemonium.
Supreme Court rules that, whatever States' rights are with regards to running election to federal positions, U.S. law has supremacy as to eligibility to federal office, hence regardless of EC and Congressional shenanigans, Trump is still disbarred.
We really need to just sack everybody in the home office / justice and start again. Is there a more dysfunctional department(s) over the past 25 years?
I don't know why you're picking on the civil service - I've heard similar nonsense in the private sector.
It seems we're now dredging up this old "private good, public bad" nonsense from the 1980s and 1990s.
Because that particular department is f##k up after f##k up in a way you don't see in other departments. Under Labour and Tories that department has a similar type of absolute f##k up every 6 months.
Its not public vs private sector, is it that department.
It's also very much a screw up that shouldn't occur.
I can see the point of it and how it all works but this is the reason why you have backups so you can recover the data when you f*** up.
And this is also a obvious scenario that should be documented and tested.
In the case of police data, though, isn't a purge of data intended irretrievably to get rid of it ? Was it not a case of just doing this for the wrong data ?
Sometimes, people are in deep poverty not because they are lazy, but because something is causing them to function at a level below the average capacity. It might be acute or it might be chronic.
All of the well-meaning discussions below about nice rational choice and careful planning really fail to take that basic fact into account. What they are all doing is saying "you won't starve if you make just a little more effort". Nobody can really deny that this is true, but certain people at certain times, for reasons way beyond their control, cannot.
If your potted theory of how to live on tuppence and spare string doesn't take into account the mental and physical capacity of the person doing it, it's not worth the paper that you really shouldn't bother to write it on.
And I don't want to hear about people feigning illness either. I acknowledge that such things go on but unless you can find a way to sort those people from the genuinely needy, WITHOUT it further eroding the limited capacity of those needful people, you're just making it worse for the genuine cases.
It's all very easy when you're mentally and physically well to make a carefully tabulated budget and choose coolly and rationally at the supermarket. But if your bipolar disorder has you on a manic cycle and you haven't slept because the neighbour's dog barks all night, and your kid is being bullied because of his scruffy trainers, and the landlord hasn't fixed the mould that keeps growing up the walls, and you're frightened and angry and feeling hopeless, your decision making gets so badly fucked up.
So please take that into account whilst you discuss your solutions.
Good post, and all of that is perfectly true.
The best answer to poverty is to get more people into work. That means more people in paid work, ending the couples penalty, helping families stay together, and having better childcare provision - childcare being the biggest driver of poverty due to the absolute care costs and the penalty of needing to abstain from work to provide childcare.
The coalition made great steps in getting lots of people into work onwards, such that we got to a near 50-year low on unemployment, and we shouldn't forget that or go back to how things were pre-2010.
If we are to revisit welfare provision in this country I think it should be focussed on better childcare provision (it's one of the most expensive in the world here) and supporting those with mental and physical health problems with remote and home working.
In short, support to work - which is good for everyone: parents and children.
Work only helps when the work actually pays the bills. Milliband may have lost in 2015 but his "squeezed middle" analysis, hit by the high cost of living, was absolutely valid. Too many jobs pay too poorly hence so many people in working poverty having to rely on supplementary benefits.
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.
The last sentence brings us back to UBI...
I'd like to see fair minimum determined by focus group and explicit listing of what, on average, should be covered as basic (what speed of broadband etc etc) year by year. And I'd mandate from government that contract exits are made available for discretionary services for change of circumstances (e.g. get sacked, you may bin Sky Sports: when you so wish)
That I would expect it to almost always work out at pretty much the 60% of median relative poverty line that the right love to whinge about is besides the point. The fact the right like to whinge about it is reason enough to sink government money into making an explicit calculation.
And UBI, plus a restructuring of tax to make good the difference (e.g. if you take UBI, you go on higher tax rates for a period of time, your call. And 'something, something' for the self employed), yes please. And btw, state pension, child benefit, student financing - yes, ultimately, they're going to be UBI too.
My UBI version is
- monthly paid to every living citizen over 18, via selected account. - can never be withdrawn or cut. - UBI = tax free allowance, so all income is taxed - UBI is the state pension. - NI rolled into income tax.
I like that, M. Think of the penpushers and paperwork that would save.
Until all of the special interest groups get their hands on the policy and reintroduce special allowances for certain groups.
That is always my biggest concern with UBI....there will always be an edge case where it doesn't work, so then we get back to the Gordon Brown approach where he then announces he is to target that group for extra help, but in doing so also aids people who don't...a few cycles of that and then you get ridiculous situation where people on £50k a year are back getting significant extra benefits.
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.
The last sentence brings us back to UBI...
I'd like to see fair minimum determined by focus group and explicit listing of what, on average, should be covered as basic (what speed of broadband etc etc) year by year. And I'd mandate from government that contract exits are made available for discretionary services for change of circumstances (e.g. get sacked, you may bin Sky Sports: when you so wish)
That I would expect it to almost always work out at pretty much the 60% of median relative poverty line that the right love to whinge about is besides the point. The fact the right like to whinge about it is reason enough to sink government money into making an explicit calculation.
And UBI, plus a restructuring of tax to make good the difference (e.g. if you take UBI, you go on higher tax rates for a period of time, your call. And 'something, something' for the self employed), yes please. And btw, state pension, child benefit, student financing - yes, ultimately, they're going to be UBI too.
My UBI version is
- monthly paid to every living citizen over 18, via selected account. - can never be withdrawn or cut. - UBI = tax free allowance, so all income is taxed - UBI is the state pension. - NI rolled into income tax.
I like that, M. Think of the penpushers and paperwork that would save.
Which wouldn't even cover the rent on my studio apartement. Or do you plan just to add this onto the benefits system?
Get back to us when we need 20,000 troops stationed in Westminster for the State Opening of Parliament, eh?
I'm not so sure, how many troops do you think the Epping Forest Franco wants stationed at the next opening of the Holyrood parliament?
You think there is going to be a coup? Flag-waving folk in face paint and crazy costumes, looking to seize power without any democratic mandate to support it? In Scotland? Get outta here....
The whole point is to have a democratic mandate in the first place. Rather a difference there, right from the start.
Those storming the Capitol thought they already had a democratic mandate.
They were given a vote! That's the big difference.
So were you, in 2014. The Scottish people decided in their infinite wisdom to use their once-in-a-generation voice to stay in the Union.
While being lied to - and now wanting to review the situation in th light of the Brexit we were promised would not happen.
Anecdata - Group 4 friend in South London praising vaccine process as highly efficient - turned up for appointment early but was seen immediately, happy to have got first shot. (Pfizer).
That was my fathers experience the other day. He was very impressed, and he rarely is about anything.
Im not sure if the vaccine rollout will result in the government's popularity increasing but my wife's experience yesterday was just how grateful everyone was, she said some looked they were kids on Christmas Day.
ON TOPIC. “ For if that goes against him he is out of politics for good.‘.
Is that really true though?
He is popular now despite everything. MAGA will become even more popular in opposition, constantly sniping away at the democrats, and the GOP response too. The focus shifts now to the democrats, and all their little socialist, woke, BLM, defund the police, squads seen as holding the balance of power.
You have yet to convince me even if Trump loses in the senate, which had to be odds against at the moment, even if senate have a vote debarring him from being a candidate, that can actually legally stop Trump let alone growth of MAGA candidates and power holders.
I agree its odds against anyway, but there is a major reason Trump being unable to stand would have a huge impact - hed need a proxy to run in 2024, and however much Trump would do they would to some degree stand and fall on their own merits, which wont be as good, for his base, as Trump himself.
It is possible he could lose influence quickly or as you suggest remain very influential, but as the end result would not be him in the Oval Office, some of the spark may not be there.
I wonder though- barring him would be a majority vote, after conviction (not that I expect conviction). Coukd a simple majority revoke that? Would be a powerful motivator for him to stay focused on senate races.
Who'd want to be a Trump proxy? Only someone in the family I suggest - and even they could get thrown under a bus by Donald. In any case if DC and Puerto Rico become States the senate will become more Democrat firendly.
I don't think he'd accept anyone but a family member as a proxy either. They're loyal, but frankly they should try living their own lives not be beholden to his goals all the time.
With Mitch no longer able to block it coming to the Senate, and given the referendum, is Puerto Rico now a lock for new state as there is an amount of cross party backing?
DC though...
Puerto Rico Could return two GOP senators
Could do, makes no difference to me. It's just I'm aware it is not just Democrats who support that one becoming a state (nor do I know if all Democrats do support it), so it's presumably easier to get support for it than DC, which voted 92% for Biden.
DC likely +2 Dem but if Rico +2 GOP that = neutral
Indeed. Lovely to see that spiteful rubbish fall silent as she makes a roaring success of her job.
Roaring success? Why are you hiding behind the vaccination program and the amount of vaccinations?
It’s not going to change anything is it?
Everybody can still carry COVID about and give it to everyone, and anyone old, frail or vulnerable is still going to get very ill and die. This vaccination program changes very little.
Tell me why I am wrong.
The other question is one of take-up. In mid-December there was a survey showing only 57% of those from South Asia would have the vaccine as against 80% of the general population.
All those assuming cases and deaths will disappear with vaccination are forgetting a substantial minority even among the most vulnerable will not be vaccinated for whatever reason.
In the short term, the Government will be able to vaccinate more quickly and no doubt its supporters on here will wallow on this "success" like a hippo in the afternoon mud bath but if instead of vaccinating 24 million you've vaccinated 20 million or even 18 million there's still a lot of potential deaths and cases out there.
We also have no idea how long protection will be provided by just one vaccination when the manufacturer advised two or for how long even two vaccinations will provide immunity.
As you say, it may well be the vaccinated can still carry the virus and infect the unvaccinated - we don't know much about that either.
That's not to decry vaccination by any stretch - it's far better than the alternative - but to assume life will return to complete pre-Covid normality is naive. Changes have occurred (home working for example, more online shopping) which won't be reversed even when Covid has been brought under control.
I thought that there were reports just yesterday saying that the vaccine in Israel did massively reduce the transmission of the virus?
Sometimes, people are in deep poverty not because they are lazy, but because something is causing them to function at a level below the average capacity. It might be acute or it might be chronic.
All of the well-meaning discussions below about nice rational choice and careful planning really fail to take that basic fact into account. What they are all doing is saying "you won't starve if you make just a little more effort". Nobody can really deny that this is true, but certain people at certain times, for reasons way beyond their control, cannot.
If your potted theory of how to live on tuppence and spare string doesn't take into account the mental and physical capacity of the person doing it, it's not worth the paper that you really shouldn't bother to write it on.
And I don't want to hear about people feigning illness either. I acknowledge that such things go on but unless you can find a way to sort those people from the genuinely needy, WITHOUT it further eroding the limited capacity of those needful people, you're just making it worse for the genuine cases.
It's all very easy when you're mentally and physically well to make a carefully tabulated budget and choose coolly and rationally at the supermarket. But if your bipolar disorder has you on a manic cycle and you haven't slept because the neighbour's dog barks all night, and your kid is being bullied because of his scruffy trainers, and the landlord hasn't fixed the mould that keeps growing up the walls, and you're frightened and angry and feeling hopeless, your decision making gets so badly fucked up.
So please take that into account whilst you discuss your solutions.
Good post, and all of that is perfectly true.
The best answer to poverty is to get more people into work. That means more people in paid work, ending the couples penalty, helping families stay together, and having better childcare provision - childcare being the biggest driver of poverty due to the absolute care costs and the penalty of needing to abstain from work to provide childcare.
The coalition made great steps in getting lots of people into work onwards, such that we got to a near 50-year low on unemployment, and we shouldn't forget that or go back to how things were pre-2010.
If we are to revisit welfare provision in this country I think it should be focussed on better childcare provision (it's one of the most expensive in the world here) and supporting those with mental and physical health problems with remote and home working.
In short, support to work - which is good for everyone: parents and children.
Work only helps when the work actually pays the bills. Milliband may have lost in 2015 but his "squeezed middle" analysis, hit by the high cost of living, was absolutely valid. Too many jobs pay too poorly hence so many people in working poverty having to rely on supplementary benefits.
I could nevert understand why the historians decry the Speenhamland System (local taxpayers subsidising big landpowners who didn't pay their labourers enough) but the same principle today is so widely accepted.
No matter how fast we go, still not fast enough for the moaners...
Now get on with the vaccines and end lockdown: Boris is urged to seize on Britain halting Covid surge by DOUBLING jabs target to 30million to ease restrictions by mid-February
I don't even see how that's possible. It would need 1m jabs per day from tomorrow to reach it, we simply don't have the supply. Even if we had the logistics in place to do 1m jabs per day those people would be sitting around waiting for vaccine doses all day.
Why the lack of ambition? We should have jabs for everyone. Tomorrow. 64 million jabs in the morning (just magic up a vaccine that is suitable for all age groups. 67 million in the afternoon (magic up a vaccine that only needs 10 minutes between shots)
No matter how fast we go, still not fast enough for the moaners...
Now get on with the vaccines and end lockdown: Boris is urged to seize on Britain halting Covid surge by DOUBLING jabs target to 30million to ease restrictions by mid-February
I don't even see how that's possible. It would need 1m jabs per day from tomorrow to reach it, we simply don't have the supply. Even if we had the logistics in place to do 1m jabs per day those people would be sitting around waiting for vaccine doses all day.
Gordon Brittas would find a way....
I don't understand how the interviewer didn't challenge that idea immediately and ask where the UK would magic up an additional 15m doses from. Which countries would we be taking those away from? By what mechanism would we convince Pfizer to give them to us rather than Germany, Italy or Belgium?
These kinds of ideas need to be robustly challenged. I think Hancock needs to come out swinging against this kind of idiot thinking today and challenge Ashworth to present the maths behind the demand and talks with Pfizer to secure an additional 2m doses per week on top of current supply.
Well if Newsnight last night was anything to go by, they are onboard the idiot train... government failing, needs to rethink strategy, why aren't you willing to tell us when we will get deliveries, do you think the Germans are stealing from us, are you going to override committee advice on groupings, shouldn't we vaccinating the poor first...
Just this week on the radio I have heard people calling for teachers, police, firemen, footballers, shop workers, bus drivers and probably others I have forgotten to be made a top priority for vaccination.
On the subject of adding herbs to food, in the winter we put a half coconut with fat and grubs in it in our greenhouse and leave the door open just enough to allow small birds through. This winter a robin has started going in and we notice that he will go to the pots of herbs in the greenhouse and take strands of thyme (it is always the thyme) and lay them across the coconut, as a sort of garnish. Is it the avian version of Nigella? My husband thinks it is trying to disguise the coconut from other birds. Anyone any ideas? Apologies is this sounds trite against the issue of food poverty but I am genuinely interested to know.
That's fascinating. It would be wonderful if you could get a video of the robin doing that, and then maybe ask the RSPB if they have an explanation.
No matter how fast we go, still not fast enough for the moaners...
Now get on with the vaccines and end lockdown: Boris is urged to seize on Britain halting Covid surge by DOUBLING jabs target to 30million to ease restrictions by mid-February
I don't even see how that's possible. It would need 1m jabs per day from tomorrow to reach it, we simply don't have the supply. Even if we had the logistics in place to do 1m jabs per day those people would be sitting around waiting for vaccine doses all day.
Gordon Brittas would find a way....
I don't understand how the interviewer didn't challenge that idea immediately and ask where the UK would magic up an additional 15m doses from. Which countries would we be taking those away from? By what mechanism would we convince Pfizer to give them to us rather than Germany, Italy or Belgium?
These kinds of ideas need to be robustly challenged. I think Hancock needs to come out swinging against this kind of idiot thinking today and challenge Ashworth to present the maths behind the demand and talks with Pfizer to secure an additional 2m doses per week on top of current supply.
Well if Newsnight last night was anything to go by, they are onboard the idiot train... government failing, needs to rethink strategy, why aren't you willing to tell us when we will get deliveries, do you think the Germans are stealing from us, are you going to override committee advice on groupings, shouldn't we vaccinating the poor first...
They have their narrative and will find a way to push it regardless. Even I've been impressed at the ramp up of the vaccine since the new year. Today should go above 350k total doses administered across the 4 nations putting us ahead of the daily required target. That's something to celebrate, not criticise.
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.
The last sentence brings us back to UBI...
I'd like to see fair minimum determined by focus group and explicit listing of what, on average, should be covered as basic (what speed of broadband etc etc) year by year. And I'd mandate from government that contract exits are made available for discretionary services for change of circumstances (e.g. get sacked, you may bin Sky Sports: when you so wish)
That I would expect it to almost always work out at pretty much the 60% of median relative poverty line that the right love to whinge about is besides the point. The fact the right like to whinge about it is reason enough to sink government money into making an explicit calculation.
And UBI, plus a restructuring of tax to make good the difference (e.g. if you take UBI, you go on higher tax rates for a period of time, your call. And 'something, something' for the self employed), yes please. And btw, state pension, child benefit, student financing - yes, ultimately, they're going to be UBI too.
My UBI version is
- monthly paid to every living citizen over 18, via selected account. - can never be withdrawn or cut. - UBI = tax free allowance, so all income is taxed - UBI is the state pension. - NI rolled into income tax.
Do you pay it to non-residents? Are you comfortable with this implying a hefty transfer of income from immigrants to citizens?
I'm a big supporter of UBI in general, and my starting point is similar to yours (though I'd replace child benefit/tax credits with UBI as well), but then these are the questions I'm not sure on.
We really need to just sack everybody in the home office / justice and start again. Is there a more dysfunctional department(s) over the past 25 years?
I don't know why you're picking on the civil service - I've heard similar nonsense in the private sector.
It seems we're now dredging up this old "private good, public bad" nonsense from the 1980s and 1990s.
Because that particular department is f##k up after f##k up in a way you don't see in other departments. Under Labour and Tories that department has a similar type of absolute f##k up every 6 months.
Its not public vs private sector, is it that department.
It's also very much a screw up that shouldn't occur.
I can see the point of it and how it all works but this is the reason why you have backups so you can recover the data when you f*** up.
And this is also a obvious scenario that should be documented and tested.
In the case of police data, though, isn't a purge of data intended irretrievably to get rid of it ? Was it not a case of just doing this for the wrong data ?
The cynic in me automatically thinks
"Hmmmm..... I wonder who we can no longer prosecute? How convenient...."
No matter how fast we go, still not fast enough for the moaners...
Now get on with the vaccines and end lockdown: Boris is urged to seize on Britain halting Covid surge by DOUBLING jabs target to 30million to ease restrictions by mid-February
I don't even see how that's possible. It would need 1m jabs per day from tomorrow to reach it, we simply don't have the supply. Even if we had the logistics in place to do 1m jabs per day those people would be sitting around waiting for vaccine doses all day.
Gordon Brittas would find a way....
I don't understand how the interviewer didn't challenge that idea immediately and ask where the UK would magic up an additional 15m doses from. Which countries would we be taking those away from? By what mechanism would we convince Pfizer to give them to us rather than Germany, Italy or Belgium?
These kinds of ideas need to be robustly challenged. I think Hancock needs to come out swinging against this kind of idiot thinking today and challenge Ashworth to present the maths behind the demand and talks with Pfizer to secure an additional 2m doses per week on top of current supply.
Well if Newsnight last night was anything to go by, they are onboard the idiot train... government failing, needs to rethink strategy, why aren't you willing to tell us when we will get deliveries, do you think the Germans are stealing from us, are you going to override committee advice on groupings, shouldn't we vaccinating the poor first...
They have their narrative and will find a way to push it regardless. Even I've been impressed at the ramp up of the vaccine since the new year. Today should go above 350k total doses administered across the 4 nations putting us ahead of the daily required target. That's something to celebrate, not criticise.
I don't think i have seen one positive headline. Yesterday bbc news was pushing the london not getting enough supply angle and general regional differences. Sad really for all those working their arses off to make this happen.
On the subject of adding herbs to food, in the winter we put a half coconut with fat and grubs in it in our greenhouse and leave the door open just enough to allow small birds through. This winter a robin has started going in and we notice that he will go to the pots of herbs in the greenhouse and take strands of thyme (it is always the thyme) and lay them across the coconut, as a sort of garnish. Is it the avian version of Nigella? My husband thinks it is trying to disguise the coconut from other birds. Anyone any ideas? Apologies is this sounds trite against the issue of food poverty but I am genuinely interested to know.
That's fascinating. It would be wonderful if you could get a video of the robin doing that, and then maybe ask the RSPB if they have an explanation.
Sometimes birds use aromatic herbs as a way of killing or deterring arthropod pests in the nest such as bloodsucking lice or insects. But I can't see how this coiuld work here, unless it is a slightly confused response to the grubs (ie to stop them "eating" the fat?).
Get back to us when we need 20,000 troops stationed in Westminster for the State Opening of Parliament, eh?
I'm not so sure, how many troops do you think the Epping Forest Franco wants stationed at the next opening of the Holyrood parliament?
You think there is going to be a coup? Flag-waving folk in face paint and crazy costumes, looking to seize power without any democratic mandate to support it? In Scotland? Get outta here....
The whole point is to have a democratic mandate in the first place. Rather a difference there, right from the start.
Those storming the Capitol thought they already had a democratic mandate.
They were given a vote! That's the big difference.
So were you, in 2014. The Scottish people decided in their infinite wisdom to use their once-in-a-generation voice to stay in the Union.
While being lied to
You mean $115 oil? Or were there other lies you had in mind? Currency Union?
I thought that there were reports just yesterday saying that the vaccine in Israel did massively reduce the transmission of the virus?
That would be welcome but we still don't know how long protection from the virus lasts? Will we need to vaccinate everyone again in the late summer/autumn or will it get us through to this time next year?
ON TOPIC. “ For if that goes against him he is out of politics for good.‘.
Is that really true though?
He is popular now despite everything. MAGA will become even more popular in opposition, constantly sniping away at the democrats, and the GOP response too. The focus shifts now to the democrats, and all their little socialist, woke, BLM, defund the police, squads seen as holding the balance of power.
You have yet to convince me even if Trump loses in the senate, which had to be odds against at the moment, even if senate have a vote debarring him from being a candidate, that can actually legally stop Trump let alone growth of MAGA candidates and power holders.
Path of maximum chaos: 1) Senate passes impeachment, votes to ban Trump from running again 2) Conservative legal scholars declare that the ban on running again is unconstitutional 3) Trump runs and wins the GOP primary, through some combination of write-ins, getting onto ballots despite litigation, and putting up a child Trump as a stand-in 4) Likewise for the general election, with GOP legislatures declaring that Trump is a legitimate candidate and should be on the ballot, and some state courts declaring that he shouldn't, then equally fractious procedural arguments about whether places that voted had Ivanka or Trump Jr on the ballot can cast their votes for Donald 5) Electoral college votes get counted in Congress. Absolute pandemonium.
Supreme Court rules that, whatever States' rights are with regards to running election to federal positions, U.S. law has supremacy as to eligibility to federal office, hence regardless of EC and Congressional shenanigans, Trump is still disbarred.
Then where?
Activate Liberty Prime because they'll fucking need it.
There's no way back to normality now and there will be a post-Trump iteration of MAGA that will be slightly less stupid and incompetent.
Over on Twitter, @Cyclefree is not impressed by my defence of Kate Bingham.
Bingham's Richard-Burgon-in-disguise FT interview was a sacking offence which could very well come back and bite us in the arse (we don't yet know how big a non-vaxxing/anti-vaxxing problem we have, so judgment reserved for the time being). I am very happy to file any vaccine success stories under "despite Kate...".
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.
The last sentence brings us back to UBI...
I'd like to see fair minimum determined by focus group and explicit listing of what, on average, should be covered as basic (what speed of broadband etc etc) year by year. And I'd mandate from government that contract exits are made available for discretionary services for change of circumstances (e.g. get sacked, you may bin Sky Sports: when you so wish)
That I would expect it to almost always work out at pretty much the 60% of median relative poverty line that the right love to whinge about is besides the point. The fact the right like to whinge about it is reason enough to sink government money into making an explicit calculation.
And UBI, plus a restructuring of tax to make good the difference (e.g. if you take UBI, you go on higher tax rates for a period of time, your call. And 'something, something' for the self employed), yes please. And btw, state pension, child benefit, student financing - yes, ultimately, they're going to be UBI too.
My UBI version is
- monthly paid to every living citizen over 18, via selected account. - can never be withdrawn or cut. - UBI = tax free allowance, so all income is taxed - UBI is the state pension. - NI rolled into income tax.
Do you pay it to non-residents? Are you comfortable with this implying a hefty transfer of income from immigrants to citizens?
I'm a big supporter of UBI in general, and my starting point is similar to yours (though I'd replace child benefit/tax credits with UBI as well), but then these are the questions I'm not sure on.
The child benefits (all of them) should go into a children's UBI.
Yes, the point at which UBI should become available to people coming to this country is a question. It is one of the main issue with UBI concepts in general. Apart from the affordability.
I thought that there were reports just yesterday saying that the vaccine in Israel did massively reduce the transmission of the virus?
That would be welcome but we still don't know how long protection from the virus lasts? Will we need to vaccinate everyone again in the late summer/autumn or will it get us through to this time next year?
That seems like less of a worry to be honest. If regular vaccinations are required I see no reason why that wouldn't happen.
No matter how fast we go, still not fast enough for the moaners...
Now get on with the vaccines and end lockdown: Boris is urged to seize on Britain halting Covid surge by DOUBLING jabs target to 30million to ease restrictions by mid-February
I don't even see how that's possible. It would need 1m jabs per day from tomorrow to reach it, we simply don't have the supply. Even if we had the logistics in place to do 1m jabs per day those people would be sitting around waiting for vaccine doses all day.
Gordon Brittas would find a way....
I don't understand how the interviewer didn't challenge that idea immediately and ask where the UK would magic up an additional 15m doses from. Which countries would we be taking those away from? By what mechanism would we convince Pfizer to give them to us rather than Germany, Italy or Belgium?
These kinds of ideas need to be robustly challenged. I think Hancock needs to come out swinging against this kind of idiot thinking today and challenge Ashworth to present the maths behind the demand and talks with Pfizer to secure an additional 2m doses per week on top of current supply.
Well if Newsnight last night was anything to go by, they are onboard the idiot train... government failing, needs to rethink strategy, why aren't you willing to tell us when we will get deliveries, do you think the Germans are stealing from us, are you going to override committee advice on groupings, shouldn't we vaccinating the poor first...
They have their narrative and will find a way to push it regardless. Even I've been impressed at the ramp up of the vaccine since the new year. Today should go above 350k total doses administered across the 4 nations putting us ahead of the daily required target. That's something to celebrate, not criticise.
I don't think i have seen one positive headline. Yesterday bbc news was pushing the london not getting enough supply angle and general regional differences. Sad really for all those working their arses off to make this happen.
Defund the BBC and spend the money on ... literally anything else.
I thought that there were reports just yesterday saying that the vaccine in Israel did massively reduce the transmission of the virus?
That would be welcome but we still don't know how long protection from the virus lasts? Will we need to vaccinate everyone again in the late summer/autumn or will it get us through to this time next year?
That's unnecessarily negative, the biggest threat is probably a mutation that evades the vaccine response but we can eliminate the risk of that by closing the border.
It does rather seem as though you're looking for the cloud in every sky at the moment, Stodge. Have you thought about speaking to someone about it (and I say that out of concern, not a glib comment or insult).
No matter how fast we go, still not fast enough for the moaners...
Now get on with the vaccines and end lockdown: Boris is urged to seize on Britain halting Covid surge by DOUBLING jabs target to 30million to ease restrictions by mid-February
I don't even see how that's possible. It would need 1m jabs per day from tomorrow to reach it, we simply don't have the supply. Even if we had the logistics in place to do 1m jabs per day those people would be sitting around waiting for vaccine doses all day.
Gordon Brittas would find a way....
I don't understand how the interviewer didn't challenge that idea immediately and ask where the UK would magic up an additional 15m doses from. Which countries would we be taking those away from? By what mechanism would we convince Pfizer to give them to us rather than Germany, Italy or Belgium?
These kinds of ideas need to be robustly challenged. I think Hancock needs to come out swinging against this kind of idiot thinking today and challenge Ashworth to present the maths behind the demand and talks with Pfizer to secure an additional 2m doses per week on top of current supply.
Well if Newsnight last night was anything to go by, they are onboard the idiot train... government failing, needs to rethink strategy, why aren't you willing to tell us when we will get deliveries, do you think the Germans are stealing from us, are you going to override committee advice on groupings, shouldn't we vaccinating the poor first...
They have their narrative and will find a way to push it regardless. Even I've been impressed at the ramp up of the vaccine since the new year. Today should go above 350k total doses administered across the 4 nations putting us ahead of the daily required target. That's something to celebrate, not criticise.
I don't think i have seen one positive headline. Yesterday bbc news was pushing the london not getting enough supply angle and general regional differences. Sad really for all those working their arses off to make this happen.
Defund the BBC and spend the money on ... literally anything else.
Well the governments new placemen at the top of the BBC think the licence fee is the best funding model, so that isn't happening.
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
I think one question there is how worn down you will be after doing it for several years.
No matter how fast we go, still not fast enough for the moaners...
Now get on with the vaccines and end lockdown: Boris is urged to seize on Britain halting Covid surge by DOUBLING jabs target to 30million to ease restrictions by mid-February
I don't even see how that's possible. It would need 1m jabs per day from tomorrow to reach it, we simply don't have the supply. Even if we had the logistics in place to do 1m jabs per day those people would be sitting around waiting for vaccine doses all day.
Why the lack of ambition? We should have jabs for everyone. Tomorrow. 64 million jabs in the morning (just magic up a vaccine that is suitable for all age groups. 67 million in the afternoon (magic up a vaccine that only needs 10 minutes between shots)
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
I think one question there is how worn down you will be after doing it for several years.
Get back to us when we need 20,000 troops stationed in Westminster for the State Opening of Parliament, eh?
I'm not so sure, how many troops do you think the Epping Forest Franco wants stationed at the next opening of the Holyrood parliament?
You think there is going to be a coup? Flag-waving folk in face paint and crazy costumes, looking to seize power without any democratic mandate to support it? In Scotland? Get outta here....
The whole point is to have a democratic mandate in the first place. Rather a difference there, right from the start.
Those storming the Capitol thought they already had a democratic mandate.
They were given a vote! That's the big difference.
So were you, in 2014. The Scottish people decided in their infinite wisdom to use their once-in-a-generation voice to stay in the Union.
While being lied to - and now wanting to review the situation in th light of the Brexit we were promised would not happen.
Lied to? Promised?
Sounding an awful lot like them MAGA boys there.....
Comments
for instance tesco's own brand beans 30p a tin , Heinz 85p
You get to £100 quite quickly.
But, you knew that. Your posts on here are more about you grandstanding on your high-horse and making little digs at other posters rather than constructive discussion.
Is that really true though?
He is popular now despite everything. MAGA will become even more popular in opposition, constantly sniping away at the democrats, and the GOP response too. The focus shifts now to the democrats, and all their little socialist, woke, BLM, defund the police, squads seen as holding the balance of power.
You have yet to convince me even if Trump loses in the senate, which had to be odds against at the moment, even if senate have a vote debarring him from being a candidate, that can actually legally stop Trump let alone growth of MAGA candidates and power holders.
"“Everything ... that you, and others at the very top of government told us, and also told parliament [and] the general public, led us to believe that your stance on fishing was not just rhetoric or expedience, but was based around a principle — that a sovereign country should be able to control who fishes in its own waters and should be able to harvest the fish resources in its own waters primarily for its own people. That proved not to be the case,” says the federation’s letter to Downing Street.
“It is not that, in the end, you were forced to concede in the face of an intransigent and powerful opponent that has caused such fury across our industry, it is that you have tried to present the agreement as a major success when it is patently clear that it is not.”"
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/you-misled-us-over-brexit-deal-angry-fishermen-tell-johnson-90cng8xcf?shareToken=27670065b3dc0201bbeb86ba78fbc1cf
That I would expect it to almost always work out at pretty much the 60% of median relative poverty line that the right love to whinge about is besides the point. The fact the right like to whinge about it is reason enough to sink government money into making an explicit calculation.
And UBI, plus a restructuring of tax to make good the difference (e.g. if you take UBI, you go on higher tax rates for a period of time, your call. And 'something, something' for the self employed), yes please. And btw, state pension, child benefit, student financing - yes, ultimately, they're going to be UBI too.
Kippers.
£1-1.50 a go, but so so nutritious. 6 mins in the microwave.
For whatever reason, several decades ago as a nation we ditched quality breakfast for carby, sugary cereals. Big mistake.
Eat like your grandad. Eat kippers!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutraloaf
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/claims-snps-refusal-fund-drug-23162832
An explosive report claims the Scottish Government’s refusal to properly fund drug treatment has led to a rocketing deaths crisis.
Academics blame it on a “real terms” cut in budgets for alcohol and drug services, from £114million to £53million between 2007 and 2019.
Drug deaths went from 455 in 2007 to 1187 in 2018 – a rise of 160 per cent.
A further increase is expected to be confirmed tomorrow when official figures for 2019 are published.
It is possible he could lose influence quickly or as you suggest remain very influential, but as the end result would not be him in the Oval Office, some of the spark may not be there.
I wonder though- barring him would be a majority vote, after conviction (not that I expect conviction). Coukd a simple majority revoke that? Would be a powerful motivator for him to stay focused on senate races.
Anyway, a generous welfare state isn't going to pay for itself, so I had better do some work. I apologise if I have upset you.
1) Senate passes impeachment, votes to ban Trump from running again
2) Conservative legal scholars declare that the ban on running again is unconstitutional
3) Trump runs and wins the GOP primary, through some combination of write-ins, getting onto ballots despite litigation, and putting up a child Trump as a stand-in
4) Likewise for the general election, with GOP legislatures declaring that Trump is a legitimate candidate and should be on the ballot, and some state courts declaring that he shouldn't, then equally fractious procedural arguments about whether places that voted had Ivanka or Trump Jr on the ballot can cast their votes for Donald
5) Electoral college votes get counted in Congress. Absolute pandemonium.
In any case if DC and Puerto Rico become States the senate will become more Democrat firendly.
With Mitch no longer able to block it coming to the Senate, and given the referendum, is Puerto Rico now a lock for new state as there is an amount of cross party backing?
DC though...
All of the well-meaning discussions below about nice rational choice and careful planning really fail to take that basic fact into account. What they are all doing is saying "you won't starve if you make just a little more effort". Nobody can really deny that this is true, but certain people at certain times, for reasons way beyond their control, cannot.
If your potted theory of how to live on tuppence and spare string doesn't take into account the mental and physical capacity of the person doing it, it's not worth the paper that you really shouldn't bother to write it on.
And I don't want to hear about people feigning illness either. I acknowledge that such things go on but unless you can find a way to sort those people from the genuinely needy, WITHOUT it further eroding the limited capacity of those needful people, you're just making it worse for the genuine cases.
It's all very easy when you're mentally and physically well to make a carefully tabulated budget and choose coolly and rationally at the supermarket. But if your bipolar disorder has you on a manic cycle and you haven't slept because the neighbour's dog barks all night, and your kid is being bullied because of his scruffy trainers, and the landlord hasn't fixed the mould that keeps growing up the walls, and you're frightened and angry and feeling hopeless, your decision making gets so badly fucked up.
So please take that into account whilst you discuss your solutions.
Both adults have a mobile, they have internet access, they have gas and electric,they have food a roof some money left over for discretionary spending on clothes etc. That is by its very definition a safety net. The purpose of benefits is to provide support when you fall on hard times not to provide a living.
UBI is a pipedream that will never happen because it would cost too much. Merely giving every adult in britain 1000£ a month ubi would cost in the region of 480 billion and 1000 a month would not be enough to live on it would probably need to be double that assuming housing benefit and other benefits would be axed. Add in the NHS, defence,schools etc and you are pretty much looking at the entirety of GDP going to the government coffers. When that happens no one is getting enough extra from working to bother. Why would a surgeon do a hugely stressful job when he is not getting a lot more than the ubi recipient
Now get on with the vaccines and end lockdown: Boris is urged to seize on Britain halting Covid surge by DOUBLING jabs target to 30million to ease restrictions by mid-February
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9150747/Boris-urged-seize-UK-curbing-Covid-surge-DOUBLING-jabs-target.html
As long as MAGA continues to grow in popularity Trump is going nowhere. In fact the coming conditions of perpetual campaigning whilst in opposition against backdrop of recession MAGA popularity could go through the roof.
- monthly paid to every living citizen over 18, via selected account.
- can never be withdrawn or cut.
- UBI = tax free allowance, so all income is taxed
- UBI is the state pension.
- NI rolled into income tax.
Apart from that...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/15/wales-to-introduce-new-covid-protections-in-supermarkets
https://twitter.com/Paul1Singh/status/1350052242783694849?s=20
It’s not going to change anything is it?
Everybody can still carry COVID about and give it to everyone, and anyone old, frail or vulnerable is still going to get very ill and die. This vaccination program changes very little.
Tell me why I am wrong.
My point was not that he is going to have his career ended, just that if he is indeed disbarred from office, I believe that will have an impact on where that career goes and how effective it may be. If I'm a MAGA Trump fan, even with the great man himself backing Senator Desperateto DraintheSwamp for President, will I be as keen to turn out for him? Trump himself often makes the claim that people lower on the ballot would not win without his having backed them, and some do worse than him even with him backing them.
Trump stand in is just not as appealing to his fans as Trump himself was the point. Don't they want the real deal?
If you want to engage with the detail in good faith, then I'd be happy to do so. If not, going back to work if probably best.
https://twitter.com/mocent0/status/1348969106184298498/photo/1
Apologies is this sounds trite against the issue of food poverty but I am genuinely interested to know.
The best answer to poverty is to get more people into work. That means more people in paid work, ending the couples penalty, helping families stay together, and having better childcare provision - childcare being the biggest driver of poverty due to the absolute care costs and the penalty of needing to abstain from work to provide childcare.
The coalition made great steps in getting lots of people into work onwards, such that we got to a near 50-year low on unemployment, and we shouldn't forget that or go back to how things were pre-2010.
If we are to revisit welfare provision in this country I think it should be focussed on better childcare provision (it's one of the most expensive in the world here) and supporting those with mental and physical health problems with remote and home working.
In short, support to work - which is good for everyone: parents and children.
These kinds of ideas need to be robustly challenged. I think Hancock needs to come out swinging against this kind of idiot thinking today and challenge Ashworth to present the maths behind the demand and talks with Pfizer to secure an additional 2m doses per week on top of current supply.
All those assuming cases and deaths will disappear with vaccination are forgetting a substantial minority even among the most vulnerable will not be vaccinated for whatever reason.
In the short term, the Government will be able to vaccinate more quickly and no doubt its supporters on here will wallow on this "success" like a hippo in the afternoon mud bath but if instead of vaccinating 24 million you've vaccinated 20 million or even 18 million there's still a lot of potential deaths and cases out there.
We also have no idea how long protection will be provided by just one vaccination when the manufacturer advised two or for how long even two vaccinations will provide immunity.
As you say, it may well be the vaccinated can still carry the virus and infect the unvaccinated - we don't know much about that either.
That's not to decry vaccination by any stretch - it's far better than the alternative - but to assume life will return to complete pre-Covid normality is naive. Changes have occurred (home working for example, more online shopping) which won't be reversed even when Covid has been brought under control.
For UBI, I'd assume it to be at a level in the broad ball park of current pensions and benefits, and that earnings would sit on top. But that then tax would start being taken again at much lower earnings levels and tax rates would be differential for UBI recipients so that not everyone would claim. It won't be as simple as this, a UBI might still need associated top ups - formal childcare, housing and so not be totally flat rate (just as I don't think UC has successfully eliminated all complication). But I think you could get to a set of sums where UBI looked possible.
The problem is that sounds pejorative - but it's a skill, like reading and writing,
https://twitter.com/HTScotPol/status/1350057526537162753?s=20
Supreme Court rules that, whatever States' rights are with regards to running election to federal positions, U.S. law has supremacy as to eligibility to federal office, hence regardless of EC and Congressional shenanigans, Trump is still disbarred.
Then where?
Was it not a case of just doing this for the wrong data ?
All we need is a hash tag on Twatter.
Are you comfortable with this implying a hefty transfer of income from immigrants to citizens?
I'm a big supporter of UBI in general, and my starting point is similar to yours (though I'd replace child benefit/tax credits with UBI as well), but then these are the questions I'm not sure on.
Why let the fact someone's doing a good job get in the way of the fact you've got a bee in your bonnet?
"Hmmmm..... I wonder who we can no longer prosecute? How convenient...."
There's no way back to normality now and there will be a post-Trump iteration of MAGA that will be slightly less stupid and incompetent.
Yes, the point at which UBI should become available to people coming to this country is a question. It is one of the main issue with UBI concepts in general. Apart from the affordability.
It does rather seem as though you're looking for the cloud in every sky at the moment, Stodge. Have you thought about speaking to someone about it (and I say that out of concern, not a glib comment or insult).
Sounding an awful lot like them MAGA boys there.....