UK Politics Thread (Part 1)

[ISMF]

I blame the government for defining a scotch egg as a substantial meal.

[Barnestormer]

Yes, but at least post-brexit they can now be made in Slough.

[RedSeven]

@Barnestormer

Yes, but at least post-brexit they can now be made in Slough.

Shouldn’t they be made in Scotland

[Lowton_Red]

Well at least, thanks to our ability to negotiate better free trade deals post brexit, food will be cheaper…
…oh,

Tariffs charged on Ghana bananas

While the UK government managed to roll over most of the third-country trade deals it had as part of the EU, that did not include Ghana’s.

Labour MP Gareth Thomas told the Commons on Monday: “The government’s dismal treatment of Ghana - a key Commonwealth ally - is particularly surprising,” criticising the UK negotiators for turning up to talks late and poorly briefed, meaning no deal had been done.

He added the upshot of the failure to do a deal was cocoa, tuna and bananas arriving in the UK faced heavy tariffs (or import taxes), with that already having happened to two shipments.

Last week, the first of those shipments was mentioned in the House of Lords, after it emerged a tariff of £17,500 had been charged at Portsmouth on bananas from Ghana.

Brexit: Five surprising consequences

[Lowton_Red]

@Mascot

I’ve come to the conclusion that the best way to deal with this is to just give people the thirty quid in cash. Give people the basic human dignity of being trusted with money in the same way as everyone else is.

And before anyone says ‘but they’ll spend it on booze and fags’. I’ve three thoughts on this.

1. I don’t care. The number of people who abuse benefits payments is incredibly small. It is not worth the layers of admin to police the system for the majority because a small minority would piss it up again the wall.

While I agree the majority would spend the money correctly, there will be a substantial minority who won’t.

I am less bothered by this potential abuse per se, as you say the amounts are trivial compared to tax evasion and other abuses by the rich, but I am concerned for the welfare of the children of these irresponsible parents.

Consequently, I believe a voucher scheme is the best way of targeting the benefit at its intended target.

[Mascot]

@Lowton_Red

While I agree the majority would spend the money correctly, there will be a substantial minority who won’t.

I am less bothered by this potential abuse per se, as you say the amounts are trivial compared to tax evasion and other abuses by the rich, but I am concerned for the welfare of the children of these irresponsible parents.

Consequently, I believe a voucher scheme is the best way of targeting the benefit at its intended target.

I see where you are coming from, but the issues I have with voucher schemes are as follows.

1. Vouchers stigmatise poor people. I remember as a child having to pay for lunches with tokens rather than cash. It was a horrible experience. There is an issue of dignity and the role dignity plays in helping people build the self esteem to work their way out of poverty.

2. There are means of identifying particularly at risk children and working more closely with those families. There is no need to stigmatise the many to protect the few.

3. There are access problems with vouchers, such as them needing printing, having to be spent in certain shops, discriminating against rural poor or those not able to travel etc

4. I’m not convinced that the problem of fraud (for want of a better word) is so widespread it needs a protection mechanism. I expect, similar to other benefits, the costs of admin, outsourcing, means-testing etc (and a nice bit of top-slicing) outstrips any savings made through trying to eradicate the fraud.

[Redbj]

Point two is spot on.

It’s the 400 pound gorilla in the room.

[Kopstar]

@Redbj

Point two is spot on.

It’s the 400 pound gorilla in the room.

Keeping a 400 pound gorilla is going to place most children at risk. Maybe they should get rid of it? It’s probably getting through a lot of their food too.

[Flobs]

Bananas.

[Noo_Noo]

Cant get bananas now - Brexit.

[Iftikhar]

@Noo_Noo

Cant get bananas now - Brexit.

Thought you used to get that from Brazil or some Banana Republics (not USA).

[Derecho]

I think he shops in Sainsbury’s.

[Noo_Noo]

Me? nah. None round here.
The reality is that there are issues with the import of Bananas from Ghana. See @Lowton_Red’s post above.

[Derecho]

I did read it and it’s a sign of arrogance and ineptitude on our part(again)

[Noo_Noo]

I have just listened to PMQ’s. Jesus what a mess.

The school meal thing came up and Boris tried to throw the comapny issuing these meals under the bus. Starmer retorted with a government list that was provided to these companies. It bore a remarkable resemblance to the actual food provided.

In brief these companies are providing the food as specified by the government. They say it’s £15 worth but the reality is that it’s £7 or so.

[Derecho]

Is it the same list as @redfanman posted above?

I can see the resemblance between what was supplied and what is on that list,barely.

[Noo_Noo]

Looking at it again, it could be yes.

[Derecho]

@Noo_Noo

In brief these companies are providing the food as specified by the government.

So in reality the company is not providing the food as specified.
I still think the supermarkets should be involved,weekly food delivery box to qualifying children,no stigma need be attached as it’s just a supermarket delivery and no risk of the bad eggs spending the extra money.

You can vote for me to be the PM on my twitter link below or look for the hashtag #nofuckingchance

[Noo_Noo]

Not for me. Boxes from wholesalers etc. are fine. I order and get one myself. There’s no issue in principle provided the contract is set up correctly?

That same thing applies to supermarkets if you were to go there. A good and fair contract with a suitable specification behind it.

Basically this is another government botch job and I also suspect a little more of those special government contracts of late.

[redfanman]

@Derecho

So in reality the company is not providing the food as specified.

I don’t think the government has specified what should be included, merely provided an example of what it thought would be suitable in accordance with its work with an industry trade group to define the list - which interestingly is chaired by a director that has come under fire for these food ‘hampers’