Not like the rest at all ?

[MrGongGong]

But I think that these things should be left to the family to work through. And there is also something wrong with Clegg's view that we need this to bring people together from different cultures etc in this way. That can be done with any form of school dinner provisions including the existing one and has been going on for a long time in schools.

It does feel that Clegg is trying to fix something that isn't broke, or worse is cynically creating a perception that he is helping communities, when it's really just a careerist politician stunt.

And while we wait for "the family" to work this through ?
I wonder what these folks would tell you ?

http://www.kidsco.org.uk/

[Beef Oven!]

And while we wait for "the family" to work this through ?
I wonder what these folks would tell you ?

http://www.kidsco.org.uk/

Well this sort of thing could be state funded if we had our priorities right. Do we really need to give free meal provision to well-off parents who don't even want it, never mind need it?

[MrGongGong]

Well this sort of thing could be state funded if we had our priorities right.

Of course
get the "nanny" state to fund everything ?

Clegg is an arse, we know that is true
but if you look at the links i posted before you will find people who are really addressing issues of young people and food.

[Beef Oven!]

Of course
get the "nanny" state to fund everything ?

Clegg is an arse, we know that is true
but if you look at the links i posted before you will find people who are really addressing issues of young people and food.

The point is the state shouldn't fund everything, it should fund things that are vital. Feeding middle class infants for free doesn't feel like a priority.

[teamsaint]

The point is the state shouldn't fund everything, it should fund things that are vital. Feeding middle class infants for free doesn't feel like a priority.

perhaps they could just give free dinners to the short arses, regardless of family income ,and save money whilst fighting prejudice.

Clegg is untrustworthily tall, IMO.

[MrGongGong]

The point is the state shouldn't fund everything,

And you are suggesting that this trumps pragmatism ?

[Beef Oven!]

perhaps they could just give free dinners to the short arses, regardless of family income ,and save money whilst fighting prejudice.

Clegg is untrustworthily tall, IMO.

I don't trust him because of the university fees duplicity. He is tall, but I don't think that's got much to do with it.

[Beef Oven!]

And you are suggesting that this trumps pragmatism ?

Sometimes. A series of short term fixes can turn into a long-run malaise.

[teamsaint]

I don't trust him because of the university fees duplicity. He is tall, but I don't think that's got much to do with it.

Er,I never studied logic, but you will find that the Uni fees duplicity,(thanks for that you slimy git clegg) was due to the height, at least in part.

A pint sizer would never have done that.

[jean]

...Another example is tax credits and family credits and similar schemes. The nanny sate steps in and subsidises earnings instead of investing in real jobs, skilling people up, establishing a realistic minimum wage and taking the poorest workers out of income tax altogether...

But the people who are being 'naninied' here aren't the ones receiving the tax credits, but the employers who can thus get away with paying inadequate wages.

Is that what you meant?

[Beef Oven!]

But the people who are being 'naninied' here aren't the ones receiving the tax credits, but the employers who can thus get away with paying inadequate wages.

Is that what you meant?

They certainly are being nannied. And last year when the government changed the rules, many people were left high and dry. They had no way of addressing the short-fall. They were dependent on the state for a significant portion of their income.

Regarding employers, they are not being nannied, they are taking advantage of the system to increase their profit margins. When changes come about, they can just shrug their shoulders and get on with it as before. Workers can't do that.

I have already said that having a realistic minimum wage, proper job-creation and skills-training and taking the low paid out of income tax altogether is a better alternative. This would achieve the same or better results than stat-subsidy of wages, and would create a better equipped work-force more in charge of its own destiny.

[MrGongGong]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/andy-parsons/ukip-nigel-farage_b_4979571.html?utm_hp_ref=uk#comments

[MrGongGong]

The point is the state shouldn't fund everything, it should fund things that are vital. Feeding middle class infants for free doesn't feel like a priority.

Of course not
but supporting companies who sell arms is ?

[jean]

I have already said that having a realistic minimum wage, proper job-creation and skills-training and taking the low paid out of income tax altogether is a better alternative. This would achieve the same or better results than stat-subsidy of wages, and would create a better equipped work-force more in charge of its own destiny.

And you'd have difficulty finding a low paid worker who wouldn't fervently agree with you.

The employers wouldn't like it a bit, though. So who's being nannied here?

[Beef Oven!]

And you'd have difficulty finding a low paid worker who wouldn't fervently agree with you.

The employers wouldn't like it a bit, though. So who's being nannied here?

The workers are being nannied. Employers aren't being nannied, they're are enjoying a windfall. The employers are able to just shrug their shoulders and pass the problem on when the funding stops. They are still in business and able to function. They are not dependent on subsidies, they can pass their costs on. Workers can't. They are left without the means to adjust. That was the problem that hit many people last year and continues to hit people when their circumstances change.

Many employers have been very naughty here. Some, in London, offer rates of £3.00 an hour and when workers question it, they are told that they can sign-on for the rest, or remain on benefits if they are already claiming. This creates and encourages the wrong sort of entrepreneur, with the wrong relationship with their workers and also contributes to the proliferation of the wrong type of business.

But if you think that the workers and the employers are being nannied, that just makes it doubly worse.

And, by the by, I'd find it hard to find a high paid worker or low paid worker that wouldn't agree with me.