prime ministers question time

[muchado]

Was anybody else revolted by the Prime Minister's response of 'nonsense' to an account of a working parent who could not afford to fill his child's lunch box for school?

Elaborate please.

I grew up in a heavily council houses area. Parents still live there. Whenever I visit I see packed pubs, Sky dishes on side of houses, teenagers in expensive trainers.

So do I think its nonsense that some people claim the poor can't afford to fill a lunch box? What do you think?

Sorry but this is nonsense. You can quite easily pack a lunch box for less than £2 per day (I do it everyday with healthy ingredients to boot) and if you can't afford to pack a lunchbox then you can apply for free school meals for the low paid/those on benefits, so really the Prime Minister is correct in this instance.

I can't remember which TV chef (probably Jamie Olliver) but I saw a program showing how people can cook a cheap dinner. Maybe it was Wife Swap.

Anyway, it countered the argument that poor people eat junk because they can't afford prime cuts and the like.

DP has worked in schools where children are not fed properly at home. including 3 yr olds hiding food (early years unit)....

he has never thought the solution was to give the parents more money

"he has never thought the solution was to give the parents more money"

.... so that they can buy more fags and beer?

One of DD's best friends at primary school had a single parent mum who was on benefits. The mum had two children from two dads, neither of which were contributing (not sure what the Child Support people were doing to rectify this). Obviously the kids didn't have a lot of stuff than mine took for granted and treats like ice cream has to be carefully budgetted for. But the DD certainly didn't have to hoard food while at school.

So unless some 'poor' people get paid less in benefits then 'poor' people in my area then this mom manages so why can't others?

i dont think he alway knew what the parents were spending their money on, just they werent prioritising feeding their children.

I use to live near Peckham in SE London. It is supposed to be a deprived area but every third house had a Sky dish outside and come the weekend the pubs were always full. At the supermarket checkout it wasn't uncommon to see trolleys laden with loaves of bread and cans of beer in equal quantities. (so much for the argument that the poor can't afford to eat healthy).

I am in no way suggesting that low income people should be at home huddling in front of the candlelight, listening to the radio and wearing two coats so as to save on the heating but come on. If you can't afford to feed your kids then there is definitely something wrong with your priorities.

I come from a Council Estate and my father works for the council there, please be aware that thanks to Thatcher many people on them are home owners.

On the estate that I come from, 80% of whats left of the estate are on full benefits, the biggest ethnic group on the estate are migrants from Africa mainly Somalia and there are a few people rehoused there by the police for there own protection, but over all more then 40% of the flats are privately owned, having been bought in the 80's they have changed hands 2-3 times since then.

the block I lived in had 10 properties in it (including mine) of which 4 where no longer owned by the council, the one above me was sold for just under 200,000k a couple of years ago, so don't go judging things simply because you see nice cars in the car park and Sky dishes on the wall (my parents have a dish anyway for watching free stuff not Sky, how can you tell if the dish is pay for TV or not by just looking at it?).

Orwellian: "Sorry but this is nonsense. You can quite easily pack a lunch box for less than £2 per day (I do it everyday with healthy ingredients to boot) and if you can't afford to pack a lunchbox then you can apply for free school meals for the low paid/those on benefits, so really the Prime Minister is correct in this instance."

You are aware, I suppose, that low earners are NOT eligible for free school meals if they are in receipt of working tax credits (WTC). If you are in work and earning less than £15,800/year you will, by definition, receive WTC unless you work too few hours to qualify. This nonsensical criteria means that most low paid families will not receive free school meals. £2/day per child is a heavy burden for many low waged families. In fact, £2 a day seems like a huge amount for a child's lunchbox.

Clearly this is a thread for Tory apologists who refuse to believe that there is poverty in this country and that people are struggling to buy food, hence the rise of food banks etc. In my affluent hometown in the sunny south east we have at least two food banks serving the local population. You might be surprised at the type of working people who find it necessary to use them.

wolly you dont know everybody's experiences so ha ha to your 'this is a thread for Tory apologists'.

my DP works in the rough schools in london & has done for the last 15 years. he is a life long labour voter.

is that not enough experience for him to have an opinion different to yours?

Woolyideas. What a strange reply. Surely if people cannot afford to feed their children via a packed lunch when they are in work, then they should stop working and be eligible for free school meals for their children. I understand people have pride and want to work but surely if they are on such low wages that are not topped up by benefits and they are unable to afford

Wasabi, this is MN. You are not allowed an opinion unless you are a righteous socialist (rolls eyes).

Orwellian you are aware are you not that you don't get benefits if you walk out of a job?, if you quit you can go on the list but you will not be given a penny for about 3 months I think it is (well it was last time I signed on).