Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » To kneel or not to kneel that is the question

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited September 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » To kneel or not to kneel that is the question

The story above in the Sunday Telegraph follows on from Corbyn’s failure to sing the national anthem at the Battle of Britain 75th anniversary memorial earlier on this week could present further problems for Mr Corbyn. Why this story might carry some potency is that Kevan Jones, one of Corbyn’s own shadow ministers has gone on the record so it can’t be dismissed as Tory/media smears/hype.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • JackWJackW Posts: 12,920
    Kneel Sir Jeremy ....
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 42,355
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 16,095
    At what point do Labour MPs look at their leader and think: Another One Bites the Dust?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 42,355
    The market doesn't seem to be here - I'd have stuck a tenner on Corbyn bending the knee.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 42,355
    edited September 2015

    At what point do Labour MPs look at their leader and think: Another One Bites the Dust?

    10:01pm 7th May 2020
  • JackWJackW Posts: 12,920
    Sky News reporting that the Coalition Universal Free School Meal Programme is facing the axe as part of Ozzie's drive to make substantial cuts to the unprotected part of the education budget.

    If accurate it's bad move by the Conservative government.
  • Morning all.

    So much for principles. - After numerous ‘clarification’, apologies, U-turns and dumping old loyalties in his clamber to retain power, Jeremy Corbyn will soon be Tony Blair with a beard.
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,702
    As a cartoon in Private Eye once asked, "Zgikspøn?"
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,094
    Re: Yesterdays polls it is worth remembering how wrong they were in May and I believe only ComRes have changed their methodology since. Suggests the Conservative lead might be higher.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 7,691
    JackW said:

    Sky News reporting that the Coalition Universal Free School Meal Programme is facing the axe as part of Ozzie's drive to make substantial cuts to the unprotected part of the education budget.

    If accurate it's bad move by the Conservative government.

    I can't say I've paid a great deal of attention to this, but did Labour criticize the (Lib Dem) policy as ineffective when it was introduced? No doubt they'll be outraged if the Tories abolish it, not that anyone cares what they say.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 16,095
    Hmmm.
    JackW said:

    Sky News reporting that the Coalition Universal Free School Meal Programme is facing the axe as part of Ozzie's drive to make substantial cuts to the unprotected part of the education budget.

    If accurate it's bad move by the Conservative government.

    Hmmm. Or is it ground bait by Osborne? So a few defecting Labour MPs can then claim they got this policy over-turned....?
  • JackWJackW Posts: 12,920
    tlg86 said:

    JackW said:

    Sky News reporting that the Coalition Universal Free School Meal Programme is facing the axe as part of Ozzie's drive to make substantial cuts to the unprotected part of the education budget.

    If accurate it's bad move by the Conservative government.

    I can't say I've paid a great deal of attention to this, but did Labour criticize the (Lib Dem) policy as ineffective when it was introduced? No doubt they'll be outraged if the Tories abolish it, not that anyone cares what they say.
    The programme, despite some early infrastructure difficulties in some schools, has proved worthwhile to all pupils. They all get a decent hot nutritious meal which is an aid to learning in the afternoon rather than many eating all too often sugar filled packed lunches.

    The government and parents need to address the obesity crisis and this programme should be part of an overall strategy to tackle the problem from early years.

    The programme retention was also part of the Conservative manifesto.

  • JackWJackW Posts: 12,920

    Hmmm.

    JackW said:

    Sky News reporting that the Coalition Universal Free School Meal Programme is facing the axe as part of Ozzie's drive to make substantial cuts to the unprotected part of the education budget.

    If accurate it's bad move by the Conservative government.

    Hmmm. Or is it ground bait by Osborne? So a few defecting Labour MPs can then claim they got this policy over-turned....?
    The Conservatives need to govern not play juvenile games with a few Labour malcontents.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 16,095
    JackW said:

    Hmmm.

    JackW said:

    Sky News reporting that the Coalition Universal Free School Meal Programme is facing the axe as part of Ozzie's drive to make substantial cuts to the unprotected part of the education budget.

    If accurate it's bad move by the Conservative government.

    Hmmm. Or is it ground bait by Osborne? So a few defecting Labour MPs can then claim they got this policy over-turned....?
    The Conservatives need to govern not play juvenile games with a few Labour malcontents.

    They have an opportunity to destroy Labour - and extend their majority to ensure this Govt. lasts five years and probably well beyond that. That ain't juvenile games....
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 18,663
    JackW said:

    Sky News reporting that the Coalition Universal Free School Meal Programme is facing the axe as part of Ozzie's drive to make substantial cuts to the unprotected part of the education budget.

    If accurate it's bad move by the Conservative government.

    Why is it a good use of money to subsidise well-off parents and use a large portion of the capex budget to put kitchen facilities into all schools?

    Nutrition is a fundamental factor that is at the root of so many issues (e.g. behaviour, learning rates, etc) but In my view supporting something like this would be a far better use of public money

    http://www.mayorsfundforlondon.org.uk/programme/breakfast-clubs/
  • JackWJackW Posts: 12,920

    JackW said:

    Hmmm.

    JackW said:

    Sky News reporting that the Coalition Universal Free School Meal Programme is facing the axe as part of Ozzie's drive to make substantial cuts to the unprotected part of the education budget.

    If accurate it's bad move by the Conservative government.

    Hmmm. Or is it ground bait by Osborne? So a few defecting Labour MPs can then claim they got this policy over-turned....?
    The Conservatives need to govern not play juvenile games with a few Labour malcontents.

    They have an opportunity to destroy Labour - and extend their majority to ensure this Govt. lasts five years and probably well beyond that. That ain't juvenile games....
    It's up to the electorate and/or Corbyn to destroy Labour. This government will run five years despite any musical chairs on the left.

    The essential and primary purpose of the government is to govern. Let them do so and .... this will be novel, keep a few manifesto promises on the way.

  • JackW said:

    tlg86 said:

    JackW said:

    Sky News reporting that the Coalition Universal Free School Meal Programme is facing the axe as part of Ozzie's drive to make substantial cuts to the unprotected part of the education budget.

    If accurate it's bad move by the Conservative government.

    I can't say I've paid a great deal of attention to this, but did Labour criticize the (Lib Dem) policy as ineffective when it was introduced? No doubt they'll be outraged if the Tories abolish it, not that anyone cares what they say.
    The programme, despite some early infrastructure difficulties in some schools, has proved worthwhile to all pupils. They all get a decent hot nutritious meal which is an aid to learning in the afternoon rather than many eating all too often sugar filled packed lunches.

    The government and parents need to address the obesity crisis and this programme should be part of an overall strategy to tackle the problem from early years.

    The programme retention was also part of the Conservative manifesto.

    I'm pretty agnostic about free school meals, although I might change my mind when the little 'un reaches school!

    However I think you're going wrong with the obesity bit. The problem is not just what kids shove into their gobs, but also the exercise they get.

    If you want to help reduce the obesity crisis for the next generation, getting them interested in outside activity - and that is far more than just the obsession with competitive sports - is vital.
  • I see Corbyn supporters are blaming the "meejah" and the Tories for the latest example of his stupidity. He's the leader of the opposition, he's going to come under intense scrutiny, quite rightly, he's only got himself to blame for his ridiculous history and infantile views.

    I've just read a guardian article which is a complete hatchet job, if they're turning on him he might go even sooner than most predicted, the Mirror barely endorses him.

    Stop whining and pointing fingers and accept you elected an unelectable buffoon with a dubious past, you have nobody to blame but yourselves.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 12,920
    Charles said:

    JackW said:

    Sky News reporting that the Coalition Universal Free School Meal Programme is facing the axe as part of Ozzie's drive to make substantial cuts to the unprotected part of the education budget.

    If accurate it's bad move by the Conservative government.

    Why is it a good use of money to subsidise well-off parents and use a large portion of the capex budget to put kitchen facilities into all schools?

    Nutrition is a fundamental factor that is at the root of so many issues (e.g. behaviour, learning rates, etc) but In my view supporting something like this would be a far better use of public money

    http://www.mayorsfundforlondon.org.uk/programme/breakfast-clubs/
    Are you suggesting we take all taxpayer subsidies from well-off parents? .... Interesting.

    The infrastructure is now there. I'd go further and gradually extend the programme as part of a radical programme to tackle child obesity through this and a vast education programme in the schools through to adulthood. Obesity is costing the state a vast amount in terms of cash and health.

    The Mayoral breakfast club is also a good idea but shouldn't be regarded as a substitute but an add-on

    Quant it may be but I'm also rather attracted to a political party keeping the odd promise or two.



  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 7,691
    On topic - that the bookies are putting up a market on something like this tells you all you need to know about Corbyn and where the Labour Party are heading - and they can do nothing about it.

    Off topic - I see there is talk about HS2 terminating at Old Oak Common while Euston is redeveloped. I still have a suspicion that this isn't going to happen at all. If you have to trek to OOC then you might as well go to Euston and go the old way to Birmingham.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 1,813
    edited September 2015
    I think I would term this William Hill Trolling.

    I want a market on the size of JC's turnips.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 12,920

    JackW said:

    tlg86 said:

    JackW said:

    Sky News reporting that the Coalition Universal Free School Meal Programme is facing the axe as part of Ozzie's drive to make substantial cuts to the unprotected part of the education budget.

    If accurate it's bad move by the Conservative government.

    I can't say I've paid a great deal of attention to this, but did Labour criticize the (Lib Dem) policy as ineffective when it was introduced? No doubt they'll be outraged if the Tories abolish it, not that anyone cares what they say.
    The programme, despite some early infrastructure difficulties in some schools, has proved worthwhile to all pupils. They all get a decent hot nutritious meal which is an aid to learning in the afternoon rather than many eating all too often sugar filled packed lunches.

    The government and parents need to address the obesity crisis and this programme should be part of an overall strategy to tackle the problem from early years.

    The programme retention was also part of the Conservative manifesto.

    I'm pretty agnostic about free school meals, although I might change my mind when the little 'un reaches school!

    However I think you're going wrong with the obesity bit. The problem is not just what kids shove into their gobs, but also the exercise they get.

    If you want to help reduce the obesity crisis for the next generation, getting them interested in outside activity - and that is far more than just the obsession with competitive sports - is vital.
    I don't disagree.

    Sport in school and outside activity must also be part of the solution. I hate to use the phrase but to tackle the obesity crisis we need a "multi faceted and agency approach" to get a grip on the issue.

  • MattWMattW Posts: 1,813
    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    tlg86 said:

    JackW said:

    Sky News reporting that the Coalition Universal Free School Meal Programme is facing the axe as part of Ozzie's drive to make substantial cuts to the unprotected part of the education budget.

    If accurate it's bad move by the Conservative government.

    I can't say I've paid a great deal of attention to this, but did Labour criticize the (Lib Dem) policy as ineffective when it was introduced? No doubt they'll be outraged if the Tories abolish it, not that anyone cares what they say.
    The programme, despite some early infrastructure difficulties in some schools, has proved worthwhile to all pupils. They all get a decent hot nutritious meal which is an aid to learning in the afternoon rather than many eating all too often sugar filled packed lunches.

    The government and parents need to address the obesity crisis and this programme should be part of an overall strategy to tackle the problem from early years.

    The programme retention was also part of the Conservative manifesto.

    I'm pretty agnostic about free school meals, although I might change my mind when the little 'un reaches school!

    However I think you're going wrong with the obesity bit. The problem is not just what kids shove into their gobs, but also the exercise they get.

    If you want to help reduce the obesity crisis for the next generation, getting them interested in outside activity - and that is far more than just the obsession with competitive sports - is vital.
    I don't disagree.

    Sport in school and outside activity must also be part of the solution. I hate to use the phrase but to tackle the obesity crisis we need a "multi faceted and agency approach" to get a grip on the issue.

    To be fair to JC he has part of the solution: allotments, gardening, healthy nutrition, and cycling to school.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,334
    Interesting interview reported today with Sadiq Khan: he seems to be pedalling hard in the opposite direction from Corbyn and McDonnell.

    Oh....and morning to all.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 16,095
    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    tlg86 said:

    JackW said:

    Sky News reporting that the Coalition Universal Free School Meal Programme is facing the axe as part of Ozzie's drive to make substantial cuts to the unprotected part of the education budget.

    If accurate it's bad move by the Conservative government.

    I can't say I've paid a great deal of attention to this, but did Labour criticize the (Lib Dem) policy as ineffective when it was introduced? No doubt they'll be outraged if the Tories abolish it, not that anyone cares what they say.
    The programme, despite some early infrastructure difficulties in some schools, has proved worthwhile to all pupils. They all get a decent hot nutritious meal which is an aid to learning in the afternoon rather than many eating all too often sugar filled packed lunches.

    The government and parents need to address the obesity crisis and this programme should be part of an overall strategy to tackle the problem from early years.

    The programme retention was also part of the Conservative manifesto.

    I'm pretty agnostic about free school meals, although I might change my mind when the little 'un reaches school!

    However I think you're going wrong with the obesity bit. The problem is not just what kids shove into their gobs, but also the exercise they get.

    If you want to help reduce the obesity crisis for the next generation, getting them interested in outside activity - and that is far more than just the obsession with competitive sports - is vital.
    I don't disagree.

    Sport in school and outside activity must also be part of the solution. I hate to use the phrase but to tackle the obesity crisis we need a "multi faceted and agency approach" to get a grip on the issue.

    Or get out of the mindset of the little darlings being ferried door to school door every day in the school run. A half hour walk each way would declog the roads - and declog their little arteries too.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 12,920
    MattW said:

    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    tlg86 said:

    JackW said:

    Sky News reporting that the Coalition Universal Free School Meal Programme is facing the axe as part of Ozzie's drive to make substantial cuts to the unprotected part of the education budget.

    If accurate it's bad move by the Conservative government.

    I can't say I've paid a great deal of attention to this, but did Labour criticize the (Lib Dem) policy as ineffective when it was introduced? No doubt they'll be outraged if the Tories abolish it, not that anyone cares what they say.
    The programme, despite some early infrastructure difficulties in some schools, has proved worthwhile to all pupils. They all get a decent hot nutritious meal which is an aid to learning in the afternoon rather than many eating all too often sugar filled packed lunches.

    The government and parents need to address the obesity crisis and this programme should be part of an overall strategy to tackle the problem from early years.

    The programme retention was also part of the Conservative manifesto.

    I'm pretty agnostic about free school meals, although I might change my mind when the little 'un reaches school!

    However I think you're going wrong with the obesity bit. The problem is not just what kids shove into their gobs, but also the exercise they get.

    If you want to help reduce the obesity crisis for the next generation, getting them interested in outside activity - and that is far more than just the obsession with competitive sports - is vital.
    I don't disagree.

    Sport in school and outside activity must also be part of the solution. I hate to use the phrase but to tackle the obesity crisis we need a "multi faceted and agency approach" to get a grip on the issue.

    To be fair to JC he has part of the solution: allotments, gardening, healthy nutrition, and cycling to school.
    Every little helps ... even from Jezza.

    I was discussing this issue a few months ago with a senior NHS bod who laid bare to me the vast scale of the obesity epidemic that faces the nation. I was broadly aware of the problem but the scope was shocking.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 18,663
    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    JackW said:

    Sky News reporting that the Coalition Universal Free School Meal Programme is facing the axe as part of Ozzie's drive to make substantial cuts to the unprotected part of the education budget.

    If accurate it's bad move by the Conservative government.

    Why is it a good use of money to subsidise well-off parents and use a large portion of the capex budget to put kitchen facilities into all schools?

    Nutrition is a fundamental factor that is at the root of so many issues (e.g. behaviour, learning rates, etc) but In my view supporting something like this would be a far better use of public money

    http://www.mayorsfundforlondon.org.uk/programme/breakfast-clubs/
    Are you suggesting we take all taxpayer subsidies from well-off parents? .... Interesting.

    The infrastructure is now there. I'd go further and gradually extend the programme as part of a radical programme to tackle child obesity through this and a vast education programme in the schools through to adulthood. Obesity is costing the state a vast amount in terms of cash and health.

    The Mayoral breakfast club is also a good idea but shouldn't be regarded as a substitute but an add-on

    Quant it may be but I'm also rather attracted to a political party keeping the odd promise or two.



    I'm in favour of good governance and the appropriate use of state resources. Political parties make stupid promises in the heat of the moment and if the evidence shows that something is a bad idea they should have the courage to stand up and say that is the case.

    I don't have a problem with schools providing food - I can see the benefits of hot food vs. packed lunches. But why should it be free? Even a nominal sum - to pick a number let's say £1 per day [assume that is cheaper than a packed lunch] - would generate about £200 per child*

    There are 8.6 million children aged 5-16 in the UK. From memory about 25% of kids already get free school meals, and about 7% are at private school. Hence this policy impacts 5.7 million children.

    I'm sure there are some on the margin that would benefit from free school meals, so let's say you are only charging 4.0 million children.

    That's a very useful £800 million per year for the school budget - this money should be kept by the school and invested as they see fit. And, no, it shouldn't cost any more to process bills because it could be performed by existing staff.


    * Apparently the 'average family' spend £437 per year on lunch money. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/free-school-lunch-for-every-child-in-infant-school
  • JackWJackW Posts: 12,920

    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    tlg86 said:

    JackW said:

    Sky News reporting that the Coalition Universal Free School Meal Programme is facing the axe as part of Ozzie's drive to make substantial cuts to the unprotected part of the education budget.

    If accurate it's bad move by the Conservative government.

    I can't say I've paid a great deal of attention to this, but did Labour criticize the (Lib Dem) policy as ineffective when it was introduced? No doubt they'll be outraged if the Tories abolish it, not that anyone cares what they say.
    The programme, despite some early infrastructure difficulties in some schools, has proved worthwhile to all pupils. They all get a decent hot nutritious meal which is an aid to learning in the afternoon rather than many eating all too often sugar filled packed lunches.

    The government and parents need to address the obesity crisis and this programme should be part of an overall strategy to tackle the problem from early years.

    The programme retention was also part of the Conservative manifesto.

    I'm pretty agnostic about free school meals, although I might change my mind when the little 'un reaches school!

    However I think you're going wrong with the obesity bit. The problem is not just what kids shove into their gobs, but also the exercise they get.

    If you want to help reduce the obesity crisis for the next generation, getting them interested in outside activity - and that is far more than just the obsession with competitive sports - is vital.
    I don't disagree.

    Sport in school and outside activity must also be part of the solution. I hate to use the phrase but to tackle the obesity crisis we need a "multi faceted and agency approach" to get a grip on the issue.

    Or get out of the mindset of the little darlings being ferried door to school door every day in the school run. A half hour walk each way would declog the roads - and declog their little arteries too.
    Quite so .... where possible the little darlings in the government should declog the roads around Westminster and walk.

    The Conservative have made a little progress in this direction - at least they don't have to drive around Eric Pickles any longer, which of course has saved the taxpayer by cutting the bill for repairs to government car suspensions.

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 7,691
    JackW said:

    Quite so .... where possible the little darlings in the government should declog the roads around Westminster and walk.

    I would support the pedestrianizing of the congestion charging zone.
  • Morning all.

    So much for principles. - After numerous ‘clarification’, apologies, U-turns and dumping old loyalties in his clamber to retain power, Jeremy Corbyn will soon be Tony Blair with a beard.

    ... and win 3 elections?
  • JackWJackW Posts: 12,920
    Charles said:

    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    JackW said:

    Sky News reporting that the Coalition Universal Free School Meal Programme is facing the axe as part of Ozzie's drive to make substantial cuts to the unprotected part of the education budget.

    If accurate it's bad move by the Conservative government.

    http://www.mayorsfundforlondon.org.uk/programme/breakfast-clubs/
    I'm in favour of good governance and the appropriate use of state resources. Political parties make stupid promises in the heat of the moment and if the evidence shows that something is a bad idea they should have the courage to stand up and say that is the case.

    I don't have a problem with schools providing food - I can see the benefits of hot food vs. packed lunches. But why should it be free? Even a nominal sum - to pick a number let's say £1 per day [assume that is cheaper than a packed lunch] - would generate about £200 per child*

    There are 8.6 million children aged 5-16 in the UK. From memory about 25% of kids already get free school meals, and about 7% are at private school. Hence this policy impacts 5.7 million children.

    I'm sure there are some on the margin that would benefit from free school meals, so let's say you are only charging 4.0 million children.

    That's a very useful £800 million per year for the school budget - this money should be kept by the school and invested as they see fit. And, no, it shouldn't cost any more to process bills because it could be performed by existing staff.


    * Apparently the 'average family' spend £437 per year on lunch money. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/free-school-lunch-for-every-child-in-infant-school
    In isolation that sounds fine but it isn't good enough.

    The nation is chomping itself to death. It's a suicide by nosh and needs to tackled as if facing a substantial external threat. It really is that bad.

    The government needs to wage war on obesity and pull out all the levers of the state and take robust measures by education, encouragement, organization, bribery, tax and the law or reconcile itself to bankrupting the NHS and the decline of the country into a floating tub of lard in the mid Atlantic.

  • JackW said:

    JackW said:

    tlg86 said:

    JackW said:

    Sky News reporting that the Coalition Universal Free School Meal Programme is facing the axe as part of Ozzie's drive to make substantial cuts to the unprotected part of the education budget.

    If accurate it's bad move by the Conservative government.

    I can't say I've paid a great deal of attention to this, but did Labour criticize the (Lib Dem) policy as ineffective when it was introduced? No doubt they'll be outraged if the Tories abolish it, not that anyone cares what they say.
    The programme, despite some early infrastructure difficulties in some schools, has proved worthwhile to all pupils. They all get a decent hot nutritious meal which is an aid to learning in the afternoon rather than many eating all too often sugar filled packed lunches.

    The government and parents need to address the obesity crisis and this programme should be part of an overall strategy to tackle the problem from early years.

    The programme retention was also part of the Conservative manifesto.

    I'm pretty agnostic about free school meals, although I might change my mind when the little 'un reaches school!

    However I think you're going wrong with the obesity bit. The problem is not just what kids shove into their gobs, but also the exercise they get.

    If you want to help reduce the obesity crisis for the next generation, getting them interested in outside activity - and that is far more than just the obsession with competitive sports - is vital.
    I don't disagree.

    Sport in school and outside activity must also be part of the solution. I hate to use the phrase but to tackle the obesity crisis we need a "multi faceted and agency approach" to get a grip on the issue.

    Or get out of the mindset of the little darlings being ferried door to school door every day in the school run. A half hour walk each way would declog the roads - and declog their little arteries too.
    Wouldn't work for us: the school that our little 'un's likely to go to is only a five minute walk down the road. At least it will be when it's opened. ;)

    For the recently-opened secondary school on the same site, many kids walk or cycle in. Then again, this village has been designed in such a way that walking and cycling is easy and relatively safe (other pedestrians aren't necessarily safe from the kids, though!)
  • Morning all.

    So much for principles. - After numerous ‘clarification’, apologies, U-turns and dumping old loyalties in his clamber to retain power, Jeremy Corbyn will soon be Tony Blair with a beard.

    ... and win 3 elections?
    Arf – Jeremy has won his first and last election, methinks.
  • More important for Jeremy Corbyn is continuing to cycle and continuing to wear the vest.He can kneel only if he gets to the Palace by bike and can wear his usual clothing,shorts.socks and sandals,and a white vest.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,400
    Charles said:

    JackW said:

    Sky News reporting that the Coalition Universal Free School Meal Programme is facing the axe as part of Ozzie's drive to make substantial cuts to the unprotected part of the education budget.

    If accurate it's bad move by the Conservative government.

    Why is it a good use of money to subsidise well-off parents and use a large portion of the capex budget to put kitchen facilities into all schools?

    Nutrition is a fundamental factor that is at the root of so many issues (e.g. behaviour, learning rates, etc) but In my view supporting something like this would be a far better use of public money

    http://www.mayorsfundforlondon.org.uk/programme/breakfast-clubs/
    Easy to say when you are rich, for lots of children it will be the only decent meal they get.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 814
    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    JackW said:

    Sky News reporting that the Coalition Universal Free School Meal Programme is facing the axe as part of Ozzie's drive to make substantial cuts to the unprotected part of the education budget.

    If accurate it's bad move by the Conservative government.

    Why is it a good use of money to subsidise well-off parents and use a large portion of the capex budget to put kitchen facilities into all schools?

    Nutrition is a fundamental factor that is at the root of so many issues (e.g. behaviour, learning rates, etc) but In my view supporting something like this would be a far better use of public money

    http://www.mayorsfundforlondon.org.uk/programme/breakfast-clubs/
    Easy to say when you are rich, for lots of children it will be the only decent meal they get.
    And for those children, presumably, free school meals will remain.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 18,490
    edited September 2015
    What I find interesting about the Telegraph story is the Corbyn has clearly been bullied into resigning from the Stop the War Coalition but has responded to that bullying by sending them "a message of support." It demonstrates, as clearly as anything else to date, that Corbyn is still intellectually a stroppy teenager striking back in somewhat futile ways at parental authority.

    The real question must surely be how much of this childish nonsense the Shadow Cabinet can take. If it goes on like this I would give it another week. Buyers remorse must already be widespread whilst those that declined get to be equally childish and say, " I told you so."
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,400
    Cookie said:

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    JackW said:

    Sky News reporting that the Coalition Universal Free School Meal Programme is facing the axe as part of Ozzie's drive to make substantial cuts to the unprotected part of the education budget.

    If accurate it's bad move by the Conservative government.

    Why is it a good use of money to subsidise well-off parents and use a large portion of the capex budget to put kitchen facilities into all schools?

    Nutrition is a fundamental factor that is at the root of so many issues (e.g. behaviour, learning rates, etc) but In my view supporting something like this would be a far better use of public money

    http://www.mayorsfundforlondon.org.uk/programme/breakfast-clubs/
    Easy to say when you are rich, for lots of children it will be the only decent meal they get.
    And for those children, presumably, free school meals will remain.

    Yes you can do means testing and mark them out as the deserving poor and spend more in administration than you save, great idea. Could stamp their brows and make it easy to recognise them.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 2,673
    Cookie said:

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    JackW said:

    Sky News reporting that the Coalition Universal Free School Meal Programme is facing the axe as part of Ozzie's drive to make substantial cuts to the unprotected part of the education budget.

    If accurate it's bad move by the Conservative government.

    Why is it a good use of money to subsidise well-off parents and use a large portion of the capex budget to put kitchen facilities into all schools?

    Nutrition is a fundamental factor that is at the root of so many issues (e.g. behaviour, learning rates, etc) but In my view supporting something like this would be a far better use of public money

    http://www.mayorsfundforlondon.org.uk/programme/breakfast-clubs/
    Easy to say when you are rich, for lots of children it will be the only decent meal they get.
    And for those children, presumably, free school meals will remain.

    But not a cookie for lunch.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 18,490
    On the school meal thing I was initially very sceptical on the basis that one of the good things the Coalition was doing was attacking Universal benefits (such as my Child Benefit) so it made little sense to introduce another one. But the evidence of improved academic performance was quite compelling if somewhat small scale. As it has now been tested on a much larger scale I think it is legitimate to inquire if the benefits are still apparent.

    On obesity one of the best ideas I heard was the daily mile. Each class took out about 15-20 minutes each day to run or walk a mile. This was staggered through the school so disruption was minimal. The consequence was a remarkable reduction in measured obesity in the school and, it was claimed, better concentration on the part of the children. Cost, zero.
  • JackW said:

    In isolation that sounds fine but it isn't good enough.

    The nation is chomping itself to death. It's a suicide by nosh and needs to tackled as if facing a substantial external threat. It really is that bad.

    The government needs to wage war on obesity and pull out all the levers of the state and take robust measures by education, encouragement, organization, bribery, tax and the law or reconcile itself to bankrupting the NHS and the decline of the country into a floating tub of lard in the mid Atlantic.

    How do we encourage people to exercise more? Large amounts are spent on sports in this country, yet most people stop activity when they leave school. Spending more on sports seems like throwing good money after bad, except for ensuring there are places where sports can be played.

    Given my background, I'm a massive fan of cubs/guides and the D of E award. But they're not for everyone either.

    So an activity-based plan, which has just been drawn out of my left buttock and is probably stupid:

    *) In schools, ensure children who are not sporty have a non-sporty activity available: e.g. D of E or equivalent over the same time periods.

    *) Rigorously enforce parking around schools, and encourage children to walk or cycle in.

    *) Every school to offer cycling proficiency classes.

    *) Every child to have at least one day-trip into countryside a year, combined with educational studies.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    It'd be interesting to know who's advice he's taking.

    I was under the impression that Kevan Jones was on the left of the Party, but he's not impressed either. Team Corbyn's self-harm strategy will surely run out of people to offend within the next few days?
    DavidL said:

    What I find interesting about the Telegraph story is the Corbyn has clearly been bullied into resigning from the Stop the War Coalition but has responded to that bullying by sending them "a message of support." It demonstrates, as clearly as anything else to date, that Corbyn is still intellectually a stroppy teenager striking back in somewhat futile ways at parental authority.

    The real question must surely be how much of this childish nonsense the Shadow Cabinet can take. If it goes on like this I would give it another week. Buyers remorse must already be widespread whilst those that declined get to be equally childish and say, " I told you so."

  • Why oh why were the other 3 candidates unable to tackle Corbyn on all the horror stories that have now come out?
  • JackW said:

    Charles said:

    JackW said:

    Sky News reporting that the Coalition Universal Free School Meal Programme is facing the axe as part of Ozzie's drive to make substantial cuts to the unprotected part of the education budget.

    If accurate it's bad move by the Conservative government.

    Why is it a good use of money to subsidise well-off parents and use a large portion of the capex budget to put kitchen facilities into all schools?

    Nutrition is a fundamental factor that is at the root of so many issues (e.g. behaviour, learning rates, etc) but In my view supporting something like this would be a far better use of public money

    http://www.mayorsfundforlondon.org.uk/programme/breakfast-clubs/
    .....The Mayoral breakfast club is also a good idea but shouldn't be regarded as a substitute but an add-on

    Quaint it may be but I'm also rather attracted to a political party keeping the odd promise or two.

    Osborne making another blunder. It should have not been in the manifesto if there was a chance of dropping it.
  • Why oh why were the other 3 candidates unable to tackle Corbyn on all the horror stories that have now come out?

    They were too busy attacking Kendall and calling her a witch.
  • Good morning, everyone.

    F1: will see about finding one of those pesky tips this morning.
  • Why oh why were the other 3 candidates unable to tackle Corbyn on all the horror stories that have now come out?

    They were too busy attacking Kendall and calling her a witch.
    True . On reflection Cooper and Burnham just wanted Kendall to do the work and suffer. Lazy and cowardly.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 12,920

    JackW said:

    In isolation that sounds fine but it isn't good enough.

    The nation is chomping itself to death. It's a suicide by nosh and needs to tackled as if facing a substantial external threat. It really is that bad.

    The government needs to wage war on obesity and pull out all the levers of the state and take robust measures by education, encouragement, organization, bribery, tax and the law or reconcile itself to bankrupting the NHS and the decline of the country into a floating tub of lard in the mid Atlantic.

    How do we encourage people to exercise more? Large amounts are spent on sports in this country, yet most people stop activity when they leave school. Spending more on sports seems like throwing good money after bad, except for ensuring there are places where sports can be played.

    Given my background, I'm a massive fan of cubs/guides and the D of E award. But they're not for everyone either.

    So an activity-based plan, which has just been drawn out of my left buttock and is probably stupid:

    *) In schools, ensure children who are not sporty have a non-sporty activity available: e.g. D of E or equivalent over the same time periods.

    *) Rigorously enforce parking around schools, and encourage children to walk or cycle in.

    *) Every school to offer cycling proficiency classes.

    *) Every child to have at least one day-trip into countryside a year, combined with educational studies.
    You should also ensure your right buttock does not remain inactive.

  • JackWJackW Posts: 12,920

    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    JackW said:

    Sky News reporting that the Coalition Universal Free School Meal Programme is facing the axe as part of Ozzie's drive to make substantial cuts to the unprotected part of the education budget.

    If accurate it's bad move by the Conservative government.

    Why is it a good use of money to subsidise well-off parents and use a large portion of the capex budget to put kitchen facilities into all schools?

    Nutrition is a fundamental factor that is at the root of so many issues (e.g. behaviour, learning rates, etc) but In my view supporting something like this would be a far better use of public money

    http://www.mayorsfundforlondon.org.uk/programme/breakfast-clubs/
    .....The Mayoral breakfast club is also a good idea but shouldn't be regarded as a substitute but an add-on

    Quaint it may be but I'm also rather attracted to a political party keeping the odd promise or two.

    Osborne making another blunder. It should have not been in the manifesto if there was a chance of dropping it.
    Let us hope that Ozzie continues to make such "blunders" and that laissez fair obesity deniers like yourself are thinned out.

  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    I see the Mail has been digging the collected speeches and events of John and Jerry
    Jeremy Corbyn’s right-hand man once demanded ‘not justice but retribution’ for the families of Republican terrorists killed in Northern Ireland.

    Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell called for vengeance at a pro-IRA rally during which protesters urged the Government to free ‘political prisoners’ and pull British troops out of the province.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3241698/Jeremy-Corbyn-branded-disgrace-parliament-laying-wreath-alleged-victims-police-violence-Centograph-Remembrance-Day.html#ixzz3mGEUlXf7

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,241
    JackW said:

    tlg86 said:

    JackW said:

    Sky News reporting that the Coalition Universal Free School Meal Programme is facing the axe as part of Ozzie's drive to make substantial cuts to the unprotected part of the education budget.

    If accurate it's bad move by the Conservative government.

    I can't say I've paid a great deal of attention to this, but did Labour criticize the (Lib Dem) policy as ineffective when it was introduced? No doubt they'll be outraged if the Tories abolish it, not that anyone cares what they say.
    The programme, despite some early infrastructure difficulties in some schools, has proved worthwhile to all pupils. They all get a decent hot nutritious meal which is an aid to learning in the afternoon rather than many eating all too often sugar filled packed lunches.

    The government and parents need to address the obesity crisis and this programme should be part of an overall strategy to tackle the problem from early years.

    The programme retention was also part of the Conservative manifesto.

    if it's pointless penny pinching it's got to be Osborne.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 2,542
    Pulpstar said:

    The market doesn't seem to be here - I'd have stuck a tenner on Corbyn bending the knee.

    I agree. His line on many superficial issues like this appears to be "It goes with the job". He won't let it get in the way of his priorities.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 18,490
    Anyway I am off to the gym to address my own personal obesity crisis. Laters.
  • Betting Post

    Pre-race piece is up here:
    http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/singapore-pre-race.html

    Bit of a guess on the betting front, to be honest.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 18,663
    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    JackW said:

    Sky News reporting that the Coalition Universal Free School Meal Programme is facing the axe as part of Ozzie's drive to make substantial cuts to the unprotected part of the education budget.

    If accurate it's bad move by the Conservative government.

    http://www.mayorsfundforlondon.org.uk/programme/breakfast-clubs/
    I'm in favour of good governance and the appropriate use of state resources. Political parties make stupid promises in the heat of the moment and if the evidence shows that something is a bad idea they should have the courage to stand up and say that is the case.

    I don't have a problem with schools providing food - I can see the benefits of hot food vs. packed lunches. But why should it be free? Even a nominal sum - to pick a number let's say £1 per day [assume that is cheaper than a packed lunch] - would generate about £200 per child*

    There are 8.6 million children aged 5-16 in the UK. From memory about 25% of kids already get free school meals, and about 7% are at private school. Hence this policy impacts 5.7 million children.

    I'm sure there are some on the margin that would benefit from free school meals, so let's say you are only charging 4.0 million children.

    That's a very useful £800 million per year for the school budget - this money should be kept by the school and invested as they see fit. And, no, it shouldn't cost any more to process bills because it could be performed by existing staff.


    * Apparently the 'average family' spend £437 per year on lunch money. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/free-school-lunch-for-every-child-in-infant-school
    In isolation that sounds fine but it isn't good enough.

    The nation is chomping itself to death. It's a suicide by nosh and needs to tackled as if facing a substantial external threat. It really is that bad.

    The government needs to wage war on obesity and pull out all the levers of the state and take robust measures by education, encouragement, organization, bribery, tax and the law or reconcile itself to bankrupting the NHS and the decline of the country into a floating tub of lard in the mid Atlantic.

    Firstly, the official definition of obesity is bullshit.

    Secondly, it is not the state's responsibility to take over the business of feeding people. Education, encouragement, organisation, tax, lots of things: yes.

    But the abrogation of personal responsibility and the extension of state spending into an area which it should not be funding: no.

    Let the rich pay for their own food.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 18,663
    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    JackW said:

    Sky News reporting that the Coalition Universal Free School Meal Programme is facing the axe as part of Ozzie's drive to make substantial cuts to the unprotected part of the education budget.

    If accurate it's bad move by the Conservative government.

    Why is it a good use of money to subsidise well-off parents and use a large portion of the capex budget to put kitchen facilities into all schools?

    Nutrition is a fundamental factor that is at the root of so many issues (e.g. behaviour, learning rates, etc) but In my view supporting something like this would be a far better use of public money

    http://www.mayorsfundforlondon.org.uk/programme/breakfast-clubs/
    Easy to say when you are rich, for lots of children it will be the only decent meal they get.
    If you read my other posts, I'm fine for the schools to organise it, but think that parents should pay for it above a certain level of income.

    Otherwise it's just a bung for well-off parents.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 8,553
    These relentless Colonel Blimpish stories in the Telegraph and Sun could well end up backfiring.

    The ability to be outraged has its limits and it doesn't take long before people tire of the complainers. There are also the the peculiarly British traits of liking fair play and admiring the rebel.

    Speaking for myself who was viscerally against his election I now am very hopefull he succeeds
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 16,095
    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    JackW said:

    Sky News reporting that the Coalition Universal Free School Meal Programme is facing the axe as part of Ozzie's drive to make substantial cuts to the unprotected part of the education budget.

    If accurate it's bad move by the Conservative government.

    http://www.mayorsfundforlondon.org.uk/programme/breakfast-clubs/
    I'm in favour of good governance and the appropriate use of state resources. Political parties make stupid promises in the heat of the moment and if the evidence shows that something is a bad idea they should have the courage to stand up and say that is the case.

    I don't have a problem with schools providing food - I can see the benefits of hot food vs. packed lunches. But why should it be free? Even a nominal sum - to pick a number let's say £1 per day [assume that is cheaper than a packed lunch] - would generate about £200 per child*

    There are 8.6 million children aged 5-16 in the UK. From memory about 25% of kids already get free school meals, and about 7% are at private school. Hence this policy impacts 5.7 million children.

    I'm sure there are some on the margin that would benefit from free school meals, so let's say you are only charging 4.0 million children.

    That's a very useful £800 million per year for the school budget - this money should be kept by the school and invested as they see fit. And, no, it shouldn't cost any more to process bills because it could be performed by existing staff.


    * Apparently the 'average family' spend £437 per year on lunch money. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/free-school-lunch-for-every-child-in-infant-school
    The nation is chomping itself to death. It's a suicide by nosh and needs to tackled as if facing a substantial external threat. It really is that bad.
    I blame the purveyors of pies with dubious fillings....

  • JackW said:

    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    JackW said:

    Sky News reporting that the Coalition Universal Free School Meal Programme is facing the axe as part of Ozzie's drive to make substantial cuts to the unprotected part of the education budget.

    If accurate it's bad move by the Conservative government.

    Why is it a good use of money to subsidise well-off parents and use a large portion of the capex budget to put kitchen facilities into all schools?

    Nutrition is a fundamental factor that is at the root of so many issues (e.g. behaviour, learning rates, etc) but In my view supporting something like this would be a far better use of public money

    http://www.mayorsfundforlondon.org.uk/programme/breakfast-clubs/
    .....The Mayoral breakfast club is also a good idea but shouldn't be regarded as a substitute but an add-on

    Quaint it may be but I'm also rather attracted to a political party keeping the odd promise or two.

    Osborne making another blunder. It should have not been in the manifesto if there was a chance of dropping it.
    Let us hope that Ozzie continues to make such "blunders" and that laissez fair obesity deniers like yourself are thinned out.

    Obesity is mainly due to a lack of burning calories. We eat less calories now than the past.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    edited September 2015
    Interesting observation in STimes - Corbyn is changing his position on almost everything, whilst his ShCab are sticking to theirs. His weak/nonexistent leadership and rebelliousness is comes home to roost.

    And half are about to side with the Tories on airstrikes in Syria http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/National/article1609597.ece and inc Corbyn only getting Restricted Access info
  • JackW said:

    tlg86 said:

    JackW said:

    Sky News reporting that the Coalition Universal Free School Meal Programme is facing the axe as part of Ozzie's drive to make substantial cuts to the unprotected part of the education budget.

    If accurate it's bad move by the Conservative government.

    I can't say I've paid a great deal of attention to this, but did Labour criticize the (Lib Dem) policy as ineffective when it was introduced? No doubt they'll be outraged if the Tories abolish it, not that anyone cares what they say.
    The programme, despite some early infrastructure difficulties in some schools, has proved worthwhile to all pupils. They all get a decent hot nutritious meal which is an aid to learning in the afternoon rather than many eating all too often sugar filled packed lunches.

    The government and parents need to address the obesity crisis and this programme should be part of an overall strategy to tackle the problem from early years.

    The programme retention was also part of the Conservative manifesto.

    if it's pointless penny pinching it's got to be Osborne.
    True.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 12,920
    edited September 2015
    Charles said:

    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    JackW said:

    Sky News reporting that the Coalition Universal Free School Meal Programme is facing the axe as part of Ozzie's drive to make substantial cuts to the unprotected part of the education budget.

    If accurate it's bad move by the Conservative government.

    http://www.mayorsfundforlondon.org.uk/programme/breakfast-clubs/
    I'm in favour of good governance and the appropriate use of state resources. Political parties make stupid promises in the heat of the moment and if the evidence shows that something is a bad idea they should have the courage to stand up and say that is the case.

    I don't have a problem with schools providing food - I can see the benefits of hot food vs. packed lunches. But why should it be free? Even a nominal sum - to pick a number let's say £1 per day [assume that is cheaper than a packed lunch] - would generate about £200 per child*

    There are 8.6 million children aged 5-16 in the UK. From memory about 25% of kids already get free school meals, and about 7% are at private school. Hence this policy impacts 5.7 million children.

    I'm sure there are some on the margin that would benefit from free school meals, so let's say you are only charging 4.0 million children.

    That's a very useful £800 million per year for the school budget - this money should be kept by the school and invested as they see fit. And, no, it shouldn't cost any more to process bills because it could be performed by existing staff.


    * Apparently the 'average family' spend £437 per year on lunch money. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/free-school-lunch-for-every-child-in-infant-school


    Firstly, the official definition of obesity is bullshit.

    Secondly, it is not the state's responsibility to take over the business of feeding people. Education, encouragement, organisation, tax, lots of things: yes.

    But the abrogation of personal responsibility and the extension of state spending into an area which it should not be funding: no.

    Let the rich pay for their own food.
    Firstly, your opening sentence require trimming. No bull required.

    Secondly, I'll not engage with you in verbal obesity as her indoors calls ....

    Let the rich Mrs JackW pay for my breakfast.

    Laters .... :smiley:

  • HaroldOHaroldO Posts: 996
    Charles said:

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    JackW said:

    Sky News reporting that the Coalition Universal Free School Meal Programme is facing the axe as part of Ozzie's drive to make substantial cuts to the unprotected part of the education budget.

    If accurate it's bad move by the Conservative government.

    Why is it a good use of money to subsidise well-off parents and use a large portion of the capex budget to put kitchen facilities into all schools?

    Nutrition is a fundamental factor that is at the root of so many issues (e.g. behaviour, learning rates, etc) but In my view supporting something like this would be a far better use of public money

    http://www.mayorsfundforlondon.org.uk/programme/breakfast-clubs/
    Easy to say when you are rich, for lots of children it will be the only decent meal they get.
    If you read my other posts, I'm fine for the schools to organise it, but think that parents should pay for it above a certain level of income.

    Otherwise it's just a bung for well-off parents.
    More like a SNP policy really.
  • Why oh why were the other 3 candidates unable to tackle Corbyn on all the horror stories that have now come out?

    Because for many who voted for him, they're positives, not horror stories. That, in miniature, is Labour's problem: reconciling the newly enthused with the average floating voter.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    edited September 2015
    Charles said:

    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    JackW said:

    Sky News reporting that the Coalition Universal Free School Meal Programme is facing the axe as part of Ozzie's drive to make substantial cuts to the unprotected part of the education budget.

    If accurate it's bad move by the Conservative government.

    http://www.mayorsfundforlondon.org.uk/programme/breakfast-clubs/
    I'm in favour of good governance and the appropriate use of state resources. Political parties make stupid promises in the heat of the moment and if the evidence shows that something is a bad idea they should have the courage to stand up and say that is the case.

    I don't have a problem with schools providing food - I can see the benefits of hot food vs. packed lunches. Even a nominal sum - to pick a number let's say £1 per day [assume that is cheaper than a packed lunch] - would generate about £200 per child*

    There are 8.6 million children aged 5-16 in the UK. From memory about 25% of kids already get free school meals, and about 7% are at private school. Hence this policy impacts 5.7 million children.

    I'm sure there are some on the margin that would benefit from free school meals, so let's say you are only charging 4.0 million children.

    That's a very useful £800 million per year for the school budget - this money should be kept by the school and invested as they see fit. And, no, it shouldn't cost any more to process bills because it could be performed by existing staff.


    * Apparently the 'average family' spend £437 per year on lunch money. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/free-school-lunch-for-every-child-in-infant-school
    In isolation that sounds fine but it isn't good enough.

    The nation is chomping itself to death. It's a suicide by nosh and needs to tackled as if facing a substantial external threat. It really is that bad.

    The government needs to wage war on obesity and pull out all the levers of the state and take robust measures by education, encouragement, organization, bribery, tax and the law or reconcile itself to bankrupting the NHS and the decline of the country into a floating tub of lard in the mid Atlantic.

    Firstly, the official definition of obesity is bullshit.

    Secondly, it is not the state's responsibility to take over the business of feeding people. Education, encouragement, organisation, tax, lots of things: yes.

    But the abrogation of personal responsibility and the extension of state spending into an area which it should not be funding: no.

    Let the rich pay for their own food.
    Who will pay the future medical bills ? Before you say they pay their taxes, so too does the non-obese, whose medical costs are , on the whole, less expensive.

  • I reckon this ICM/Sun on Sunday poll of the marginals shows Corbyn denying the Tories a majority.

    http://www.sunnation.co.uk/madcap-ideas-make-corbyn-unelectable-swing-voters-say/
  • JackWJackW Posts: 12,920

    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    JackW said:

    Sky News reporting that the Coalition Universal Free School Meal Programme is facing the axe as part of Ozzie's drive to make substantial cuts to the unprotected part of the education budget.

    If accurate it's bad move by the Conservative government.

    http://www.mayorsfundforlondon.org.uk/programme/breakfast-clubs/
    I'm in favour of good governance and the appropriate use of state resources. Political parties make stupid promises in the heat of the moment and if the evidence shows that something is a bad idea they should have the courage to stand up and say that is the case.

    I don't have a problem with schools providing food - I can see the benefits of hot food vs. packed lunches. But why should it be free? Even a nominal sum - to pick a number let's say £1 per day [assume that is cheaper than a packed lunch] - would generate about £200 per child*

    There are 8.6 million children aged 5-16 in the UK. From memory about 25% of kids already get free school meals, and about 7% are at private school. Hence this policy impacts 5.7 million children.

    I'm sure there are some on the margin that would benefit from free school meals, so let's say you are only charging 4.0 million children.

    That's a very useful £800 million per year for the school budget - this money should be kept by the school and invested as they see fit. And, no, it shouldn't cost any more to process bills because it could be performed by existing staff.


    * Apparently the 'average family' spend £437 per year on lunch money. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/free-school-lunch-for-every-child-in-infant-school
    The nation is chomping itself to death. It's a suicide by nosh and needs to tackled as if facing a substantial external threat. It really is that bad.
    I blame the purveyors of pies with dubious fillings....

    You can't blame SeanT and his Cornish pasty friends for all the ills of Eric Pickles ....

    Toodles ....

  • Charles said:

    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    JackW said:

    Sky News reporting that the Coalition Universal Free School Meal Programme is facing the axe as part of Ozzie's drive to make substantial cuts to the unprotected part of the education budget.

    If accurate it's bad move by the Conservative government.

    Why is it a good use of money to subsidise well-off parents and use a large portion of the capex budget to put kitchen facilities into all schools?

    Nutrition is a fundamental factor that is at the root of so many issues (e.g. behaviour, learning rates, etc) but In my view supporting something like this would be a far better use of public money

    http://www.mayorsfundforlondon.org.uk/programme/breakfast-clubs/




    I'm in favour of good governance and the appropriate use of state resources. Political parties make stupid promises in the heat of the moment and if the evidence shows that something is a bad idea they should have the courage to stand up and say that is the case.

    I don't have a problem with schools providing food - I can see the benefits of hot food vs. packed lunches. But why should it be free? Even a nominal sum - to pick a number let's say £1 per day [assume that is cheaper than a packed lunch] - would generate about £200 per child*

    There are 8.6 million children aged 5-16 in the UK. From memory about 25% of kids already get free school meals, and about 7% are at private school. Hence this policy impacts 5.7 million children.

    I'm sure there are some on the margin that would benefit from free school meals, so let's say you are only charging 4.0 million children.

    That's a very useful £800 million per year for the school budget - this money should be kept by the school and invested as they see fit. And, no, it shouldn't cost any more to process bills because it could be performed by existing staff.


    * Apparently the 'average family' spend £437 per year on lunch money. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/free-school-lunch-for-every-child-in-infant-school
    I think that's right. Poor children should get free school meals, but since all other parents spend ~£2 a day on crappy sugary packed lunches for their kids, I don't see why schools don't just charge that for a daily hot meal (who wouldn't take that instead) and bill the parents £100 a term for it.

    Also, make it "opt-out" rather than "opt-in" so the default is for kids to get decent lunches with parents paying - what they already pay anyway for packed lunches - for it.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 6,246

    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    JackW said:

    Sky News reporting that the Coalition Universal Free School Meal Programme is facing the axe as part of Ozzie's drive to make substantial cuts to the unprotected part of the education budget.

    If accurate it's bad move by the Conservative government.

    Why is it a good use of money to subsidise well-off parents and use a large portion of the capex budget to put kitchen facilities into all schools?

    Nutrition is a fundamental factor that is at the root of so many issues (e.g. behaviour, learning rates, etc) but In my view supporting something like this would be a far better use of public money

    http://www.mayorsfundforlondon.org.uk/programme/breakfast-clubs/
    .....The Mayoral breakfast club is also a good idea but shouldn't be regarded as a substitute but an add-on

    Quaint it may be but I'm also rather attracted to a political party keeping the odd promise or two.

    Osborne making another blunder. It should have not been in the manifesto if there was a chance of dropping it.
    Let us hope that Ozzie continues to make such "blunders" and that laissez fair obesity deniers like yourself are thinned out.

    Obesity is mainly due to a lack of burning calories. We eat less calories now than the past.
    Good morning all. I treated myself to a Fitbit last Christmas - probably one of the most useful gadgets I've ever owned. It's horrifying how few calories we burn - I'm sure most people overestimate the effect that exercise has.

    I'm losing weight, but only if I walk (at least) 10 miles and row 10k per day. That's on an intake of between 1.5k and 2k calories per day, which is not exactly sybaritic. I doubt I'd have been able to consistently achieve that level of activity when I was a working slob.
  • Roger said:

    These relentless Colonel Blimpish stories in the Telegraph and Sun could well end up backfiring.

    The ability to be outraged has its limits and it doesn't take long before people tire of the complainers. There are also the the peculiarly British traits of liking fair play and admiring the rebel.

    Speaking for myself who was viscerally against his election I now am very hopefull he succeeds

    Hmm. Of all the targets Corbyn could possibly pick being extremely rude towards HMQ isn't the best one, particularly for someone with very low political capital.
  • HaroldOHaroldO Posts: 996
    A quick musing on republicanism in the UK.

    The main stumbling block that republicans have in UK is that they are fighting against a nice old lady in a cardi, that likes a flutter on the horses, spoils her dogs and makes us look good abroad.How are you supposed to fight against that?
    Charles has more targets but even he is just a Woodehousian eccentric, a member of the landed gentry that talks to his pigs and carrots and wants us all to get along.

    There needs to be more of an argument that "we are a laughing stock abroad", because having been abroad quite a few times we plainly aren't...or if we are it isn't the Queen that is the cause.
    It has to be stronger and deeper rooted than this for republicans to succeed.
  • JackW said:

    JackW said:

    In isolation that sounds fine but it isn't good enough.

    The nation is chomping itself to death. It's a suicide by nosh and needs to tackled as if facing a substantial external threat. It really is that bad.

    The government needs to wage war on obesity and pull out all the levers of the state and take robust measures by education, encouragement, organization, bribery, tax and the law or reconcile itself to bankrupting the NHS and the decline of the country into a floating tub of lard in the mid Atlantic.

    How do we encourage people to exercise more? Large amounts are spent on sports in this country, yet most people stop activity when they leave school. Spending more on sports seems like throwing good money after bad, except for ensuring there are places where sports can be played.

    Given my background, I'm a massive fan of cubs/guides and the D of E award. But they're not for everyone either.

    So an activity-based plan, which has just been drawn out of my left buttock and is probably stupid:

    *) In schools, ensure children who are not sporty have a non-sporty activity available: e.g. D of E or equivalent over the same time periods.

    *) Rigorously enforce parking around schools, and encourage children to walk or cycle in.

    *) Every school to offer cycling proficiency classes.

    *) Every child to have at least one day-trip into countryside a year, combined with educational studies.
    You should also ensure your right buttock does not remain inactive.

    My left buttock got heavily bruised in my fall, and needs the exercise to recover :)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,895
    FPT:

    notme said:

    Alistair said:

    Corbyn's first policy

    The people's renationalised railways

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CPStQ9HXAAAjyGs.jpg


    How's he going to halve the number of passengers overnight?

    Back to when the railways were last nationalised.

    The East Coast Main Line operated a nationalised service until a few months ago. Has anything improved since Virgin took over?
    Many TOCs return a premium to the taxpayer, rather than requiring a grant. See page 4 of:
    http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/18842/rail-finance-statistical-release-2014-15.pdf
    And the Nationalised East Coast service was the second highest return to the taxpayer on a passenger kilometer basis.
    And Virgin are going to delivery twice as much!
    Who would you prefer to run the East Coast Mainline?
    PRIVATE SECTOR
    24%
    PUBLIC SECTOR
    76%
    There is an economic theory called "revealed preference". This states that if you want to know what someone really believes, you need to look at their actions rather than their words. The long-term rail passenger miles were in decline from 1950 until privatisation... and have since gone through the roof (see: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/252807/rail-trends-factsheet-2012-13.pdf).

    If people genuinely didn't like privatised railways, they wouldn't ride on them.

    (Interestingly, across Western Europe, rail privatisation - or commercialisation, like Sweden - has correlated pretty perfectly with increased passenger trends.)
  • RogerRoger Posts: 8,553
    Re Billy Bunters

    The most striking thing about the South of france is that fat people are almost non existant. The only time you see them is when a cruise ship with English or Americans pass by. It's clearly nothing to do with people's metabolism and everything to do with indulgence and laziness. I'd consider treating the obese like smokers with 'No Fat People' signs. Harsh I know but sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,711
    Roger said:

    These relentless Colonel Blimpish stories in the Telegraph and Sun could well end up backfiring.

    The ability to be outraged has its limits and it doesn't take long before people tire of the complainers. There are also the the peculiarly British traits of liking fair play and admiring the rebel.

    Speaking for myself who was viscerally against his election I now am very hopefull he succeeds

    Politics is not black or white. Corbyn despite numerous faults has managed to achieve what almost all politicians have failed to do since Blair. He has managed to generate popular enthusiasm for politics in 100s of thousands.

    Right time, right place? Maybe. But not something you can simply write off. As story x,y and z about Corbyn hits the press its getting ignored. But it is a real and interesting development that deserves analysis.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,002
    DavidL said:



    The real question must surely be how much of this childish nonsense the Shadow Cabinet can take. If it goes on like this I would give it another week. Buyers remorse must already be widespread whilst those that declined get to be equally childish and say, " I told you so."

    I'm a bit reluctant to play PB Corbyn point man on a daily basis when I'm more or less retired, but I have to say I'm not aware of any buyer's remorse at all - do we have even ONE example out of hundreds of thousands of even an ordinary member saying "I voted for him but now I wish I hadn't"? I think it's sensible to concentrate on the day job rather than trying to chair an NGO at the same time, but I don't expect him to comment on every poem that anyone writes, and would think he was letting himself he hassled unnecessarily if he did.

    As a Corbyn voter, I'm probably fairly typical - mildly encouraged that the polls show that the Tory onslaught hasn't had much effect so far, judging by the range of results yesterday. It was always going to be a difficult project, but we knew that and were not expecting a sunny honeymoon. There will be more awkward moments and compromises to make in the coming months, but you can't reshape British politics without some of that. Deciding whether to kneel as the price of Privy Council membership is another such - tricky but essentially peripheral to what we're trying to do. Most of us won't really care whether he kneels or not, and if the Government makes the sharing of issues of national importance hinge on that, then we'll know who to blame, and it won't be Corbyn.

    What we have is not buyer's remorse but opponents' dilemma - people who didn't vote for him are torn between wanting to express their opposition and not wanting to rock the boat and be blamed for consequences. I'm not at all in the "let's start deselecting Blairites" camp, but I do expect internal opponents largely to STFU except by making specific policy proposals, and by and large that's what they're doing.

    By the way, is anyone around for at the Labour conference? It'd be interesting to meet up. I'm at the Tory conference as well, but only on the Tuesday when I've got a fringe meeting.
  • Mr. M, I dislike the exercise bike. It was interesting, though, to learn how 20 minutes or so of exercise burns off about 2 KitKats' worth of calories.
  • HaroldO said:

    A quick musing on republicanism in the UK.

    The main stumbling block that republicans have in UK is that they are fighting against a nice old lady in a cardi, that likes a flutter on the horses, spoils her dogs and makes us look good abroad.How are you supposed to fight against that?
    Charles has more targets but even he is just a Woodehousian eccentric, a member of the landed gentry that talks to his pigs and carrots and wants us all to get along.

    There needs to be more of an argument that "we are a laughing stock abroad", because having been abroad quite a few times we plainly aren't...or if we are it isn't the Queen that is the cause.
    It has to be stronger and deeper rooted than this for republicans to succeed.

    Republicanism will never win here.

    That's because it's adherents and proponents main argument is about their belief the monarchy is objectionable in theory, and it doesn't fit with their ideal democratic constitutional niceties.

    But the typical British person does not think like that. They are much more interested in pragmatism, symbolism, pride and seeing and feeling what works.

    And the monarchy works - very, very well indeed*.

    (*incidentally, I think constitutional monarchy works perfectly well in theory as well as in practice, but that's a discussion for another time - must dash)
  • rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    notme said:

    Alistair said:

    Corbyn's first policy

    The people's renationalised railways

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CPStQ9HXAAAjyGs.jpg


    How's he going to halve the number of passengers overnight?

    Back to when the railways were last nationalised.

    The East Coast Main Line operated a nationalised service until a few months ago. Has anything improved since Virgin took over?
    Many TOCs return a premium to the taxpayer, rather than requiring a grant. See page 4 of:
    http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/18842/rail-finance-statistical-release-2014-15.pdf
    And the Nationalised East Coast service was the second highest return to the taxpayer on a passenger kilometer basis.
    And Virgin are going to delivery twice as much!
    Who would you prefer to run the East Coast Mainline?
    PRIVATE SECTOR
    24%
    PUBLIC SECTOR
    76%
    There is an economic theory called "revealed preference". This states that if you want to know what someone really believes, you need to look at their actions rather than their words. The long-term rail passenger miles were in decline from 1950 until privatisation... and have since gone through the roof (see: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/252807/rail-trends-factsheet-2012-13.pdf).

    If people genuinely didn't like privatised railways, they wouldn't ride on them.

    (Interestingly, across Western Europe, rail privatisation - or commercialisation, like Sweden - has correlated pretty perfectly with increased passenger trends.)
    I'm in two minds about this. Correlation does not equal causation and all that, but I can see how privatisation has enabled this increase. However, it is perfectly possible for a renationalised railway to continue these good practices. But I very much doubt it.

    But the biggest questions the pro-renationalisation people have to answer are:

    What problems are you trying to solve, and why is renationalisation the best approach? (extra points if they can fit this into the nationalised Network Rail's abject failures)
  • Jonathan said:

    Roger said:

    These relentless Colonel Blimpish stories in the Telegraph and Sun could well end up backfiring.

    The ability to be outraged has its limits and it doesn't take long before people tire of the complainers. There are also the the peculiarly British traits of liking fair play and admiring the rebel.

    Speaking for myself who was viscerally against his election I now am very hopefull he succeeds

    Politics is not black or white. Corbyn despite numerous faults has managed to achieve what almost all politicians have failed to do since Blair. He has managed to generate popular enthusiasm for politics in 100s of thousands.

    Right time, right place? Maybe. But not something you can simply write off. As story x,y and z about Corbyn hits the press its getting ignored. But it is a real and interesting development that deserves analysis.
    Lots of noise from a few does not equate to enthusiasm in the masses.

    If it did, then Labour would have won a landslide in May, given the pro-Labour posts on Twitter and Facebook.
  • F1: just watching Inside F1 on the BBC F1 page.

    Sounds like Red Bull will have a Ferrari engine in 2017-8 and then a VW/Audi engine from then on.

    As previously mentioned, Manor will have a Mercedes engine.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,711

    Jonathan said:

    Roger said:

    These relentless Colonel Blimpish stories in the Telegraph and Sun could well end up backfiring.

    The ability to be outraged has its limits and it doesn't take long before people tire of the complainers. There are also the the peculiarly British traits of liking fair play and admiring the rebel.

    Speaking for myself who was viscerally against his election I now am very hopefull he succeeds

    Politics is not black or white. Corbyn despite numerous faults has managed to achieve what almost all politicians have failed to do since Blair. He has managed to generate popular enthusiasm for politics in 100s of thousands.

    Right time, right place? Maybe. But not something you can simply write off. As story x,y and z about Corbyn hits the press its getting ignored. But it is a real and interesting development that deserves analysis.
    Lots of noise from a few does not equate to enthusiasm in the masses.

    If it did, then Labour would have won a landslide in May, given the pro-Labour posts on Twitter and Facebook.
    Nah, there is something new going on here that needs understanding.
  • HaroldOHaroldO Posts: 996

    Jonathan said:

    Roger said:

    These relentless Colonel Blimpish stories in the Telegraph and Sun could well end up backfiring.

    The ability to be outraged has its limits and it doesn't take long before people tire of the complainers. There are also the the peculiarly British traits of liking fair play and admiring the rebel.

    Speaking for myself who was viscerally against his election I now am very hopefull he succeeds

    Politics is not black or white. Corbyn despite numerous faults has managed to achieve what almost all politicians have failed to do since Blair. He has managed to generate popular enthusiasm for politics in 100s of thousands.

    Right time, right place? Maybe. But not something you can simply write off. As story x,y and z about Corbyn hits the press its getting ignored. But it is a real and interesting development that deserves analysis.
    Lots of noise from a few does not equate to enthusiasm in the masses.

    If it did, then Labour would have won a landslide in May, given the pro-Labour posts on Twitter and Facebook.
    Are they need political people, or old ones that now have a membership? If he has managed to enthuse new people then good on him, but so far all I have seen are typical Labour/leftist voters that already voted and already were pro-Labour, making noise and joining the party.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    DavidL said:



    The real question must surely be how much of this childish nonsense the Shadow Cabinet can take. If it goes on like this I would give it another week. Buyers remorse must already be widespread whilst those that declined get to be equally childish and say, " I told you so."

    I'm a bit reluctant to play PB Corbyn point man on a daily basis when I'm more or less retired, but I have to say I'm not aware of any buyer's remorse at all - do we have even ONE example out of hundreds of thousands of even an ordinary member saying "I voted for him but now I wish I hadn't"? I think it's sensible to concentrate on the day job rather than trying to chair an NGO at the same time, but I don't expect him to comment on every poem that anyone writes, and would think he was letting himself he hassled unnecessarily if he did.

    As a Corbyn voter, I'm probably fairly typical - mildly encouraged that the polls show that the Tory onslaught hasn't had much effect so far, judging by the range of results yesterday. It was always going to be a difficult project, but we knew that and were not expecting a sunny honeymoon. There will be more awkward moments and compromises to make in the coming months, but you can't reshape British politics without some of that. Deciding whether to kneel as the price of Privy Council membership is another such - tricky but essentially peripheral to what we're trying to do. Most of us won't really care whether he kneels or not, and if the Government makes the sharing of issues of national importance hinge on that, then we'll know who to blame, and it won't be Corbyn.

    What we have is not buyer's remorse but opponents' dilemma - people who didn't vote for him are torn between wanting to express their opposition and not wanting to rock the boat and be blamed for consequences. I'm not at all in the "let's start deselecting Blairites" camp, but I do expect internal opponents largely to STFU except by making specific policy proposals, and by and large that's what they're doing.

    By the way, is anyone around for at the Labour conference? It'd be interesting to meet up. I'm at the Tory conference as well, but only on the Tuesday when I've got a fringe meeting.
    It is really stupid that in a country of equals someone has to kneel in front of another. For women, it is worse.

    Can't the Queen be shown respect without having to do this ?
  • HaroldOHaroldO Posts: 996

    HaroldO said:

    A quick musing on republicanism in the UK.

    The main stumbling block that republicans have in UK is that they are fighting against a nice old lady in a cardi, that likes a flutter on the horses, spoils her dogs and makes us look good abroad.How are you supposed to fight against that?
    Charles has more targets but even he is just a Woodehousian eccentric, a member of the landed gentry that talks to his pigs and carrots and wants us all to get along.

    There needs to be more of an argument that "we are a laughing stock abroad", because having been abroad quite a few times we plainly aren't...or if we are it isn't the Queen that is the cause.
    It has to be stronger and deeper rooted than this for republicans to succeed.

    Republicanism will never win here.

    That's because it's adherents and proponents main argument is about their belief the monarchy is objectionable in theory, and it doesn't fit with their ideal democratic constitutional niceties.

    But the typical British person does not think like that. They are much more interested in pragmatism, symbolism, pride and seeing and feeling what works.

    And the monarchy works - very, very well indeed*.

    (*incidentally, I think constitutional monarchy works perfectly well in theory as well as in practice, but that's a discussion for another time - must dash)
    Yep, I am no monarchist in theory but in practice it works fine over here and a lot of that has to do with it change after Victoria. They adapted and thus removed the bulk of any opposition.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,241
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Roger said:

    These relentless Colonel Blimpish stories in the Telegraph and Sun could well end up backfiring.

    The ability to be outraged has its limits and it doesn't take long before people tire of the complainers. There are also the the peculiarly British traits of liking fair play and admiring the rebel.

    Speaking for myself who was viscerally against his election I now am very hopefull he succeeds

    Politics is not black or white. Corbyn despite numerous faults has managed to achieve what almost all politicians have failed to do since Blair. He has managed to generate popular enthusiasm for politics in 100s of thousands.

    Right time, right place? Maybe. But not something you can simply write off. As story x,y and z about Corbyn hits the press its getting ignored. But it is a real and interesting development that deserves analysis.
    Lots of noise from a few does not equate to enthusiasm in the masses.

    If it did, then Labour would have won a landslide in May, given the pro-Labour posts on Twitter and Facebook.
    Nah, there is something new going on here that needs understanding.
    No there isn't it's just lots of activists egging each other on and ignoring the politics lite mass of disinterested voters.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    Why on Earth would we expect Jezbollah to disassociate himself from a group of hardcore left-wingers that posts nasty diatribes about the Royal Family? The man won't even disassociate himself from hardcore Islamists that kill civilians for a living.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,241
    ROFL

    LDs give old scare story an outing - 2 years to save the NHS.

    Farron's stealing Labour's clothing.

    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/sep/19/nhs-collapse-former-health-minister-norman-lamb
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    I see Sadiq is rowing away a tout vitesse.
    Asked to comment on Corbyn's Hamas and Hezbollah connections, he said Labour had to ditch its 'anti-Jewish' image, which was not acceptable' in Britain.

    Khan said there was a direct link between Middle East tension and anti-Semitic attacks in London, saying synagogues and Jewish schools in London needed 24-hour guards as a result.

    Khan also disowned Corbyn's and McDonnell's policies including a 'ridiculous' 60p top tax rate, scrapping nuclear weapons, leaving Nato and nationalising banks, and said he would not take orders from Corbyn if he became mayor. 'I will be my own man,' he vowed.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3241649/Labour-s-Mayor-savages-Corbyn-Party-star-Khan-damns-leader-anti-Semitism.html#ixzz3mGScc6h6
  • saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,143
    Roger said:

    Re Billy Bunters

    The most striking thing about the South of france is that fat people are almost non existant. The only time you see them is when a cruise ship with English or Americans pass by. It's clearly nothing to do with people's metabolism and everything to do with indulgence and laziness. I'd consider treating the obese like smokers with 'No Fat People' signs. Harsh I know but sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind

    It's another way of insulating yourself from the poor, so I can see why you'd like it.


    On topic, he's been married three times so doesn't really appear to have any objections to participating in pointless ceremony, when it suits him.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    Jonathan said:

    Roger said:

    These relentless Colonel Blimpish stories in the Telegraph and Sun could well end up backfiring.

    The ability to be outraged has its limits and it doesn't take long before people tire of the complainers. There are also the the peculiarly British traits of liking fair play and admiring the rebel.

    Speaking for myself who was viscerally against his election I now am very hopefull he succeeds

    Politics is not black or white. Corbyn despite numerous faults has managed to achieve what almost all politicians have failed to do since Blair. He has managed to generate popular enthusiasm for politics in 100s of thousands.

    Right time, right place? Maybe. But not something you can simply write off. As story x,y and z about Corbyn hits the press its getting ignored. But it is a real and interesting development that deserves analysis.
    But the enthusiasm he has generated is not one of decency and optimism but of bitterness and revenge: screw the bankers, screw the rich, screw the energy companies, screw the railway owners, screw the media, screw the Tories, screw the Blairites.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 6,246
    Jonathan said:

    Roger said:

    These relentless Colonel Blimpish stories in the Telegraph and Sun could well end up backfiring.

    The ability to be outraged has its limits and it doesn't take long before people tire of the complainers. There are also the the peculiarly British traits of liking fair play and admiring the rebel.

    Speaking for myself who was viscerally against his election I now am very hopefull he succeeds

    Politics is not black or white. Corbyn despite numerous faults has managed to achieve what almost all politicians have failed to do since Blair. He has managed to generate popular enthusiasm for politics in 100s of thousands.

    Right time, right place? Maybe. But not something you can simply write off. As story x,y and z about Corbyn hits the press its getting ignored. But it is a real and interesting development that deserves analysis.
    I know that everyone needs to live in hope. However, Labour have terrible form here.

    Remember "Not Flash, just Gordon"? Or "Ed speaks human" (presumably unlike most members of his species)? You have elected a net vote loser.
  • I have just spent most of the week deep in Leftie territory.. The BBC..where the air of despondency about Corbyn is palpable
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,711

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Roger said:

    These relentless Colonel Blimpish stories in the Telegraph and Sun could well end up backfiring.

    The ability to be outraged has its limits and it doesn't take long before people tire of the complainers. There are also the the peculiarly British traits of liking fair play and admiring the rebel.

    Speaking for myself who was viscerally against his election I now am very hopefull he succeeds

    Politics is not black or white. Corbyn despite numerous faults has managed to achieve what almost all politicians have failed to do since Blair. He has managed to generate popular enthusiasm for politics in 100s of thousands.

    Right time, right place? Maybe. But not something you can simply write off. As story x,y and z about Corbyn hits the press its getting ignored. But it is a real and interesting development that deserves analysis.
    Lots of noise from a few does not equate to enthusiasm in the masses.

    If it did, then Labour would have won a landslide in May, given the pro-Labour posts on Twitter and Facebook.
    Nah, there is something new going on here that needs understanding.
    No there isn't it's just lots of activists egging each other on and ignoring the politics lite mass of disinterested voters.
    Well it is what it is. I merely propose that it deserves figuring out. Curious that people can be quite so dismissive of something that is undeniably a bit different. I guess it doesn't compute at all in the Tory psyche, so we get a kind of willful blindness.


  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,241
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Roger said:

    These relentless Colonel Blimpish stories in the Telegraph and Sun could well end up backfiring.

    The ability to be outraged has its limits and it doesn't take long before people tire of the complainers. There are also the the peculiarly British traits of liking fair play and admiring the rebel.

    Speaking for myself who was viscerally against his election I now am very hopefull he succeeds

    Politics is not black or white. Corbyn despite numerous faults has managed to achieve what almost all politicians have failed to do since Blair. He has managed to generate popular enthusiasm for politics in 100s of thousands.

    Right time, right place? Maybe. But not something you can simply write off. As story x,y and z about Corbyn hits the press its getting ignored. But it is a real and interesting development that deserves analysis.
    Lots of noise from a few does not equate to enthusiasm in the masses.

    If it did, then Labour would have won a landslide in May, given the pro-Labour posts on Twitter and Facebook.
    Nah, there is something new going on here that needs understanding.
    No there isn't it's just lots of activists egging each other on and ignoring the politics lite mass of disinterested voters.
    Well it is what it is. I merely propose that it deserves figuring out. Curious that people can be quite so dismissive of something that is undeniably a bit different. I guess it doesn't compute at all in the Tory psyche, so we get a kind of willful blindness.


    I just don't see how it's different, it looks same old same old to me.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 18,663
    edited September 2015
    surbiton said:



    Who will pay the future medical bills ? Before you say they pay their taxes, so too does the non-obese, whose medical costs are , on the whole, less expensive.

    I'm not suggesting ignoring obesity.

    I'm just saying that well-off people should pay for their kids food.

    Not that controversial...I thought!
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656

    I see the Mail has been digging the collected speeches and events of John and Jerry

    Jeremy Corbyn’s right-hand man once demanded ‘not justice but retribution’ for the families of Republican terrorists killed in Northern Ireland.

    Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell called for vengeance at a pro-IRA rally during which protesters urged the Government to free ‘political prisoners’ and pull British troops out of the province.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3241698/Jeremy-Corbyn-branded-disgrace-parliament-laying-wreath-alleged-victims-police-violence-Centograph-Remembrance-Day.html#ixzz3mGEUlXf7

    So he said this in 1986, long before peace talks were on the ground, showing his excuse that he just wanted to allow them to come to the peace table with respect is ridiculous.

    Of course, we know that, as he said it five years after the Good Friday Agreement. But the BBC and the TV media refuses to hold him to account.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,002
    HaroldO said:



    Are they need political people, or old ones that now have a membership? If he has managed to enthuse new people then good on him, but so far all I have seen are typical Labour/leftist voters that already voted and already were pro-Labour, making noise and joining the party.

    It's a bit of both. Surprisingly little has happened so far in shifting VI, but it looks as though he's attracted some people who had given up on Labour (and typically voted Green or LibDem or maybe SNP) and enthused some passive Labour voters to get involved, while repelling a small number of Labour voters (like Southam here) and worrying others on the "can we win like this?" basis. But there's a degree of goodwill towards him from people who aren't very political but feel he's interesting and freshening up politics. I wouldn't put it more strongly than that.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    A despondent Leftie friend of mine is seriously considering rejoining Labour as a very moderate voice - he's truly embarrassed by Corbyn and despairing.

    That's a small ray of hope if he isn't an isolated case.

    I have just spent most of the week deep in Leftie territory.. The BBC..where the air of despondency about Corbyn is palpable

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,400
    HaroldO said:

    Charles said:

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    JackW said:

    Sky News reporting that the Coalition Universal Free School Meal Programme is facing the axe as part of Ozzie's drive to make substantial cuts to the unprotected part of the education budget.

    If accurate it's bad move by the Conservative government.

    Why is it a good use of money to subsidise well-off parents and use a large portion of the capex budget to put kitchen facilities into all schools?

    Nutrition is a fundamental factor that is at the root of so many issues (e.g. behaviour, learning rates, etc) but In my view supporting something like this would be a far better use of public money

    http://www.mayorsfundforlondon.org.uk/programme/breakfast-clubs/
    Easy to say when you are rich, for lots of children it will be the only decent meal they get.
    If you read my other posts, I'm fine for the schools to organise it, but think that parents should pay for it above a certain level of income.

    Otherwise it's just a bung for well-off parents.
    More like a SNP policy really.
    LOL, nasty Tory tries to justify lashing the poor by denigrating the SNP. Hope you hit your uppers some day , we will hear you wailing from up here.
Sign In or Register to comment.