Anthony Higginbotham

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
TVC15
Posts: 8211
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 3321 times
Has Liked: 601 times

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by TVC15 » Fri Oct 23, 2020 9:12 am

AndrewJB wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 9:07 am
The idea appears to be that by giving the children food directly, we prevent their parents from spending the money on other things. I’m asking why the same moral concern doesn’t operate with the parents who are receiving furlough money.
With all due respect it’s probably not the “same” level of concern because the majority of kids in poverty or going to school hungry are probably from parents not working.
But I get your point and whatever the working situation of a parent who has children going hungry there needs to be concern.

There is no easy solution but the priority and anything that is done to fix it temporarily or long term has to have the actual children at the heart of any solution.

Steve-Harpers-perm
Posts: 5744
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:52 am
Been Liked: 1868 times
Has Liked: 835 times

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by Steve-Harpers-perm » Fri Oct 23, 2020 9:13 am

Great to see local businesses across the north on the back of Rashford’s campaign offering to feed children over the half term holidays.
These 3 users liked this post: TVC15 THEWELLERNUT70 JohnDearyMe

dsr
Posts: 15139
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by dsr » Fri Oct 23, 2020 9:49 am

AndrewJB wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 9:07 am
The idea appears to be that by giving the children food directly, we prevent their parents from spending the money on other things. I’m asking why the same moral concern doesn’t operate with the parents who are receiving furlough money.
Because people assume that the hungry children are the children whose parents are on benefits. I have no moral concern about people who are feeding their children, are spending the rest of their money.

Now, you may be able to produce statistics that say there is a problem with children of parents on furlough going hungry. When you do, I will take a moral stance. But until you show me a problem - and I don't believe that problem exists - I'm not going to worry about solving it.

THEWELLERNUT70
Posts: 3382
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 11:13 pm
Been Liked: 997 times
Has Liked: 2007 times

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by THEWELLERNUT70 » Fri Oct 23, 2020 9:58 am

Jakubclaret wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 7:35 pm
Why would that be difficult? You would have 2 incomes or alternatively 1 income plus benefits, you can feed the children perfectly fine well you should be able to if you go about it the right way, you cook in bulk invest in a chest freezer buy some labels & a marker pen to date away you go, it’s a struggle because easy quick meals are preferred often the more expensive option. It’s how you go about doing things the money should be sufficient if applied properly.
Oh where to begin.

I actually think jakubclaret is crackers
These 2 users liked this post: GodIsADeeJay81 Jakubclaret

TVC15
Posts: 8211
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 3321 times
Has Liked: 601 times

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by TVC15 » Fri Oct 23, 2020 10:02 am

THEWELLERNUT70 wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 9:58 am
Oh where to begin.

I actually think jakubclaret is crackers
That’s politely giving him the benefit of the doubt.
I took a different route in my views on him !
This user liked this post: THEWELLERNUT70

CrosspoolClarets
Posts: 5231
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:00 pm
Been Liked: 1623 times
Has Liked: 397 times

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by CrosspoolClarets » Fri Oct 23, 2020 10:38 am

I’m seeing lots of tweets by prominent people, such as sports journalists, slating the government and praising Rashford to the hilt (I also praise him even if he is muddying the waters by getting involved in things he doesn’t have a full grasp of).

What I’m not seeing though is any evidence about what these vouchers are spent on, and ensuring spending has gone up in these stores with these vouchers,

My concerns about the effectiveness of this measure are that the kids most genuinely in need have parents who, frankly, don’t make good decisions. I would have concerns that a parent spending a voucher down at Tesco Express may not spend it on healthy food, and may not spend it on food for the kids, and even if they do, is that instead of their normal spending which now can be spent, say, down the pub?

The only restriction as far as I can see is that they cannot be spent on alcohol or tobacco etc.

That’s why I favour wage support (people on benefits should be unaffected by the jobs crisis, but if they are, support them too). Wage support coupled with food bank funding, sure start, holiday clubs - all things that have a better chance of the kids themselves benefitting.

That’s the nuance I’m not sure Rashford gets, just saying “I was poor once” doesn’t do it, he’s right to care and do something about it, but it seems unfair the Tories are getting a huge amount of stick due to Starmer tactically using this against them, when many Tories care deeply, but simply disagree with the approach (many don’t of course - I’m not generally a fan of all of them).

Goodclaret
Posts: 1070
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:44 pm
Been Liked: 543 times
Has Liked: 1506 times

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by Goodclaret » Fri Oct 23, 2020 10:44 am

It is absolutely amazing, and very sad, that people on this thread criticise the poor getting any help they can and question the morality of these families yet don't seem to bat an eye when £billions (not £millions) gets distributed to the, already, very well off?!! How does your mind work?

Giving money as benefits to people who, for whatever reason, don't work, "have children to increase their claim" or are just "dossers" is nothing compared to the amount of money the rich get away with. Just because the Daily Mail blame the problems on immigrants and benefit scroungers it doesn't mean it's true.

So what if a few people overclaim a few benefits? So what if a few "blow" their little bit of money on a flat screen TV? So what if we, as a society have to foot that bill? I'd much rather foot that bill than the one I am doing so at the minute. £12bn spent on a useless track and trace with no accountability of where/who that money has gone to. You are seriously happy to question FSM but not question things like that? It actually makes my mind boggle!

The bottom line is each and everyone of us could have been born in to a less privileged or poor family. It is down to luck whether you have good parents who help educate you about work ethics and what are the basic rights and wrongs. It is never the childs fault. And anything we can do to help children like this, we should do it.
These 7 users liked this post: THEWELLERNUT70 Juan Tanamera longsidepies tiger76 ngsobob jrgbfc BFCmaj

Burnley Ace
Posts: 3525
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:03 pm
Been Liked: 651 times
Has Liked: 2879 times

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by Burnley Ace » Fri Oct 23, 2020 10:46 am

Lancashire County Council should fund this and just add it onto our Council Tax bill. It will be a few quid per house, probably less than a night out (a night out we won’t be having anyway!)

Who could argue against that?

TVC15
Posts: 8211
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 3321 times
Has Liked: 601 times

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by TVC15 » Fri Oct 23, 2020 10:46 am

You seem to be doing Rashford a bit of a disservice here.
At the moment he is talking about extending FSM so that kids don’t go hungry during the holidays and in the midst of a pandemic. I haven’t seen anything which suggests he thinks it’s a long term solution.

The things that you seem to be mentioning and trying to deal with exceptions, those that abuse the systems, a more targeted or nutritional solution etc are all worthy of debate but we know that they are much longer term solutions and often lead to expensive and botched up government projects which are frequently just as bad.

Tories taking the whip and voting against it have only achieved one thing - and that is that they just guaranteed more children will be going without food in the short term.
These 2 users liked this post: THEWELLERNUT70 Juan Tanamera

Pimlico_Claret
Posts: 1302
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 10:08 am
Been Liked: 614 times
Has Liked: 680 times

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by Pimlico_Claret » Fri Oct 23, 2020 11:08 am

I started this topic because I wanted to highlight the irony of Burnley's MP effectively voting to make children hungry, in the same week as many of us donated to the local food bank instead of PPV.
Obviously it has brought up many different opinions.
I would like to ask if any of the posters who agree with his actions can explain why the taxpayer continues to subsidise Parliaments bars and restaurants to the tune of £57k a week.

TVC15
Posts: 8211
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 3321 times
Has Liked: 601 times

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by TVC15 » Fri Oct 23, 2020 11:18 am

Pimlico_Claret wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 11:08 am
I started this topic because I wanted to highlight the irony of Burnley's MP effectively voting to make children hungry, in the same week as many of us donated to the local food bank instead of PPV.
Obviously it has brought up many different opinions.
I would like to ask if any of the posters who agree with his actions can explain why the taxpayer continues to subsidise Parliaments bars and restaurants to the tune of £57k a week.
Or why for example they pay Robert Jenrick thousands each month for his second home allowance when he owns 3 homes all worth several millions of pounds each ?

Pigs with their snouts deep deep into the troughs

AndrewJB
Posts: 3808
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:20 pm
Been Liked: 1159 times
Has Liked: 754 times

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by AndrewJB » Fri Oct 23, 2020 11:36 am

dsr wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 9:49 am
Because people assume that the hungry children are the children whose parents are on benefits. I have no moral concern about people who are feeding their children, are spending the rest of their money.

Now, you may be able to produce statistics that say there is a problem with children of parents on furlough going hungry. When you do, I will take a moral stance. But until you show me a problem - and I don't believe that problem exists - I'm not going to worry about solving it.
I think the assumption here, and it's a lazy and incorrect one, is that poor people on benefits are morally inferior to those in receipt of the much more generous benefit scheme called furlough.

AndrewJB
Posts: 3808
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:20 pm
Been Liked: 1159 times
Has Liked: 754 times

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by AndrewJB » Fri Oct 23, 2020 11:42 am

TVC15 wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 11:18 am
Or why for example they pay Robert Jenrick thousands each month for his second home allowance when he owns 3 homes all worth several millions of pounds each ?

Pigs with their snouts deep deep into the troughs
Jenrick has already been caught out with things that in previous years he would have been sacked for. The development with Richard Desmond, not declaring a conflict of interest immediately (link below), and getting £25 Million for his own constituency out of a levelling up budget.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ining-heir

In a decent world, any of those three would have seen him turfed from the cabinet.

Billy Balfour
Posts: 3979
Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 3:00 pm
Been Liked: 1857 times
Has Liked: 652 times

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by Billy Balfour » Fri Oct 23, 2020 11:42 am

Pimlico_Claret wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 11:08 am
would like to ask if any of the posters who agree with his actions can explain why the taxpayer continues to subsidise Parliaments bars and restaurants to the tune of £57k a week.
Yesterday's generously subsidised menu for those on a minimum of 85K a year plus a whole heap of personal expenses.
Ek8bFFGXIAAlaWh.jpg
Ek8bFFGXIAAlaWh.jpg (63.22 KiB) Viewed 2568 times

Corky
Posts: 1431
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 3:37 pm
Been Liked: 535 times
Has Liked: 414 times

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by Corky » Fri Oct 23, 2020 11:49 am

This is for Pimlico and TV15. The answer is a messy evolution from when MPs were not paid back in the good old days before emancipation. You see the idea was if you pay people to become MPs then ordinary working class folk can do the job and it is not exclusive to those of independent wealth. It all started going wrong in 1911.

TVC15
Posts: 8211
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 3321 times
Has Liked: 601 times

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by TVC15 » Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:00 pm

Corky wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 11:49 am
This is for Pimlico and TV15. The answer is a messy evolution from when MPs were not paid back in the good old days before emancipation. You see the idea was if you pay people to become MPs then ordinary working class folk can do the job and it is not exclusive to those of independent wealth. It all started going wrong in 1911.
Cheers Corky
I studied political history at University and continued to be interested ever since.
I get what you are saying but my view is that the reason why many people choose to be MPs has changed little throughout the centuries.
The official salary they get paid is merely a smokescreen for the public. The individuals know that becoming an MP is a ticket to so much more in terms of potential financial benefits. Many MPs come from money / pretty privileged backgrounds anyway. A number come from jobs which on the face of it paid better than a MPs salary does.

But they know that becoming an MP or eventually a junior or senior minister opens up so many more avenues and that is why so many do it.

Not all MPs do it for this reason - but ask yourself how many MPs do you see that are not wealthy or end up wealthy ? And it’s a complete disproportionate amount of wealth than them getting a salary of only about £4K a month after tax - which is what they would earn if the MP salary was their only source of income (which for a small fraction of MPs we know that is the case)

All about power, influence and getting your way to the front of that trough !!

dsr
Posts: 15139
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by dsr » Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:03 pm

AndrewJB wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 11:36 am
I think the assumption here, and it's a lazy and incorrect one, is that poor people on benefits are morally inferior to those in receipt of the much more generous benefit scheme called furlough.
In which case I presume it would be better to oppose Rashford's suggestion and instead add a few quid onto social security benefits.

Corky
Posts: 1431
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 3:37 pm
Been Liked: 535 times
Has Liked: 414 times

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by Corky » Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:14 pm

TVC15 wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:00 pm
Cheers Corky
I studied political history at University and continued to be interested ever since.
I get what you are saying but my view is that the reason why many people choose to be MPs has changed little throughout the centuries.
The official salary they get paid is merely a smokescreen for the public. The individuals know that becoming an MP is a ticket to so much more in terms of potential financial benefits. Many MPs come from money / pretty privileged backgrounds anyway. A number come from jobs which on the face of it paid better than a MPs salary does.

But they know that becoming an MP or eventually a junior or senior minister opens up so many more avenues and that is why so many do it.

Not all MPs do it for this reason - but ask yourself how many MPs do you see that are not wealthy or end up wealthy ? And it’s a complete disproportionate amount of wealth than them getting a salary of only about £4K a month after tax - which is what they would earn if the MP salary was their only source of income (which for a small fraction of MPs we know that is the case)

All about power, influence and getting your way to the front of that trough !!
I agree with all of the above. For me the whole system both Commons and Lords needs to change dramatically. The bare faced hypocrisy of some, mainly tories, is staggering. The likes of Jo Gideon being a fine example. In my view if you choose to become an MP then for the whole of your tenure that is the only job you do. Easier said than done but we need change. 850 and rising, the number of members of the Lords, it is just crazy. Nearly 30 of whom are CofE clergy. Bonkers doesn't even begin to cover it.

Burnley Ace
Posts: 3525
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:03 pm
Been Liked: 651 times
Has Liked: 2879 times

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by Burnley Ace » Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:15 pm

TVC15 wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 11:18 am
Or why for example they pay Robert Jenrick thousands each month for his second home allowance when he owns 3 homes all worth several millions of pounds each ?

Pigs with their snouts deep deep into the troughs
Should it be means tested?

Spijed
Posts: 17112
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 12:33 pm
Been Liked: 2892 times
Has Liked: 1294 times

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by Spijed » Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:16 pm

AndrewJB wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 11:36 am
I think the assumption here, and it's a lazy and incorrect one, is that poor people on benefits are morally inferior to those in receipt of the much more generous benefit scheme called furlough.
That's right.

No one on the furlough scheme who gets say £400 pw has absolutely no right whatsoever to complain about someone on benefits getting free school meals for their kids when they only receive around £100 pw.

Burnley Ace
Posts: 3525
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:03 pm
Been Liked: 651 times
Has Liked: 2879 times

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by Burnley Ace » Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:20 pm

dsr wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:03 pm
In which case I presume it would be better to oppose Rashford's suggestion and instead add a few quid onto social security benefits.
Not necessarily morally inferior, unless you’re implying that they don’t care about their children. They are probably inferior in terms of levels of education, attainment, prosperity, fiscal contribution and cognitive ability.

Burnley Ace
Posts: 3525
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:03 pm
Been Liked: 651 times
Has Liked: 2879 times

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by Burnley Ace » Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:25 pm

Corky wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 11:49 am
This is for Pimlico and TV15. The answer is a messy evolution from when MPs were not paid back in the good old days before emancipation. You see the idea was if you pay people to become MPs then ordinary working class folk can do the job and it is not exclusive to those of independent wealth. It all started going wrong in 1911.
Why would an ordinary working class person want to be an MP? You’d have a better life being a tradesman running your own business!! Peter Pike, Kitty Usher, Julie Cooper, Gordon Birtwistle - have they got power, riches and influence?

TVC15
Posts: 8211
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 3321 times
Has Liked: 601 times

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by TVC15 » Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:28 pm

Burnley Ace wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:25 pm
Why would an ordinary working class person want to be an MP? You’d have a better life being a tradesman running your own business!! Peter Pike, Kitty Usher, Julie Cooper, Gordon Birtwistle - have they got power, riches and influence?
Yes....a lot more than they would have had without being an MP or involved in politics.

Burnley Ace
Posts: 3525
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:03 pm
Been Liked: 651 times
Has Liked: 2879 times

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by Burnley Ace » Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:33 pm

Billy Balfour wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 11:42 am
Yesterday's generously subsidised menu for those on a minimum of 85K a year plus a whole heap of personal expenses.

Ek8bFFGXIAAlaWh.jpg
Nice menu! Do you have any other examples from subsidised work’s canteens?

Burnley Ace
Posts: 3525
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:03 pm
Been Liked: 651 times
Has Liked: 2879 times

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by Burnley Ace » Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:33 pm

TVC15 wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:28 pm
Yes....a lot more than they would have had without being an MP or involved in politics.
Really? Have you got any examples?

dsr
Posts: 15139
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by dsr » Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:34 pm

Burnley Ace wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:20 pm
Not necessarily morally inferior, unless you’re implying that they don’t care about their children. They are probably inferior in terms of levels of education, attainment, prosperity, fiscal contribution and cognitive ability.
I'm not the one making moral or other judgements on parents who don't feed their children. Marcus Rashford is the one saying these hungry children should be given food rather than giving more money to their parents.

My own view is that of the 820,000 (according to one report quoted above) children who sometimes or always go to school without breakfast because there is nothing for them, I do not believe that all 820,000 come from homes where the parents can't afford 10p for a bowl of porridge or two slices of bread and jam. I reckon a lot of them are from homes where they either are not sufficiently savvy about finance to ensure they have either food or money left at the end of the week, or else they are too clueless to get round to seeing that the children eat breakfast, or that for some other reason they don't feed the child. No moral judgement there.

What Andrew is objecting to is that I think the best solution for this is food for the children. He prefers to pay money to the parents.

dsr
Posts: 15139
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by dsr » Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:43 pm

Burnley Ace wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:25 pm
Why would an ordinary working class person want to be an MP? You’d have a better life being a tradesman running your own business!! Peter Pike, Kitty Usher, Julie Cooper, Gordon Birtwistle - have they got power, riches and influence?
They've got the riches. Quite apart from the annual salary, even if you do just 5 years as an MP, at the end of the period you get a payout of a year's salary (about £85,000, and tax free under the special law MPs passed to ensure they don't have to pay the tax that everyone else does on severance pay of over £30k) and have accrued pension rights, on reaching state retirement age, a pension of £9k per annum. This is based on contributions over 5 years of £55k total.

I doubt that many tradesmen running their own business can find a pension with a practical annuity rate of 20%. And none of them can have an £85 tax free payout.

TVC15
Posts: 8211
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 3321 times
Has Liked: 601 times

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by TVC15 » Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:44 pm

Burnley Ace wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:33 pm
Really? Have you got any examples?
Kitty Usher - check out her expenses scandal and the amounts she was claiming for the second home in Burnley she never occupied but refurbished at taxpayers expenses and then sold

That’s the one out there in the public - I’d potentially get into trouble if I gave examples on the other ones you mention...but I’ve had involvement with every single one of them and I know some of the other roles and benefits they all obtained directly on the back of being either an MP or in one case a local counsellor and subsequently an MP.

But I will point out they are no different to what the vast majority of other MPs have always done or do now. The differences are merely the extent of benefits they end up with some obviously obtaining vastly more than the local MPs who sit on the back bench and only serve a term or two.

Are you saying that you think that most MPs just do the one role, live off just their £90k salary and when they finish go back to their lives before they became MPs ?

Corky
Posts: 1431
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 3:37 pm
Been Liked: 535 times
Has Liked: 414 times

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by Corky » Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:50 pm

Burnley Ace wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:25 pm
Why would an ordinary working class person want to be an MP? You’d have a better life being a tradesman running your own business!! Peter Pike, Kitty Usher, Julie Cooper, Gordon Birtwistle - have they got power, riches and influence?
I imagine to provide a service to the community within which they live.
Perhaps you'd like it if we went back to the days of the Peterloo massacre when the best part of a million people of Lancashire were being represented by only 2 elected county MPs and a further 2 members for Liverpool. I wouldn't but then I consider myself fairly sane.

SingaporeClarets
Posts: 212
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 5:31 am
Been Liked: 43 times
Has Liked: 12 times
Location: The Little Red Dot

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by SingaporeClarets » Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:54 pm

All MPs have these benefits right, not just Anthony Higginbotham and others representing the government?

Bigbopper
Posts: 290
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 7:21 pm
Been Liked: 91 times
Has Liked: 17 times

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by Bigbopper » Fri Oct 23, 2020 1:23 pm

Corky wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:50 pm
I imagine to provide a service to the community within which they live.
Perhaps you'd like it if we went back to the days of the Peterloo massacre when the best part of a million people of Lancashire were being represented by only 2 elected county MPs and a further 2 members for Liverpool. I wouldn't but then I consider myself fairly sane.
The thing about Burnley MPs is that none of them were very good and never reached any real position of power. Tony B Liar seems to have done ok from it.

tiger76
Posts: 25697
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
Been Liked: 4644 times
Has Liked: 9849 times
Location: Glasgow

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by tiger76 » Fri Oct 23, 2020 1:54 pm

Bigbopper wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 1:23 pm
The thing about Burnley MPs is that none of them were very good and never reached any real position of power. Tony B Liar seems to have done ok from it.
Peter Pike was decent enough back in the day, and he at least had links in the community, and probably still does even now, that Usher woman was a blatant carpetbagger, and it was no surprise that her tenure led to Labour losing the seat for the 1st time since the 1930's, Birtwistle was never going to survive after voting for many of the austerity measures supported by the coalition, and Julie Cooper was a staunch remainer in a heavily brexit voting area, so she was always going to struggle to hold on whatever the national picture.

If Labour have serious ambitions about forming a government in 2024 then they simply have to regain seats like Burnley, Higginbotham's majority is slim, and I doubt either the BP or UKIP will run a candidate next time, so there's a sizeable % up for grabs for either main party if they can grasp the nettle. I'd make Labour slight favourites to retake Burnley, but a lot depends on their candidate selection, surely they've learned their lesson after the Usher fiasco, and they'll select somebody local, I have no knowledge if Cooper will throw her hat into the ring again, and even if she does I'd say Labour are better off looking for a fresh face, surely they must have someone out of their 20+ councillors that is capable of performing the role of a constituency MP. if they haven't then the outlook is bleak for them.

I do think Anthony Higginbotham has been damaged by his decision to vote with the government on this issue, and if the economy is the pivotal theme of the next election, which many commentators believe will be the case, then he needs to hope that our post-covid landscape is showing improvement by then, if it isn't I can see the seat changing hands once again, and yet another Burnley MP only serving one term.

Jakubclaret
Posts: 9434
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 1180 times
Has Liked: 778 times

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by Jakubclaret » Fri Oct 23, 2020 2:30 pm

THEWELLERNUT70 wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 9:58 am
Oh where to begin.

I actually think jakubclaret is crackers
If I may, can I second that :D I still think TVC talks a load of b*llocks, quite amusing actually.

Burnley Ace
Posts: 3525
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:03 pm
Been Liked: 651 times
Has Liked: 2879 times

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by Burnley Ace » Fri Oct 23, 2020 2:31 pm

TVC15 wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:44 pm


Are you saying that you think that most MPs just do the one role, live off just their £90k salary and when they finish go back to their lives before they became MPs ?
Perhaps it’s the definition of riches? When a newly qualified solicitor in London law firm earns more than an MP, they are hardly in it for the money.

It’s no surprise that we have the quality of MPs that we do.

AndrewJB
Posts: 3808
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:20 pm
Been Liked: 1159 times
Has Liked: 754 times

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by AndrewJB » Fri Oct 23, 2020 2:33 pm

dsr wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:34 pm
I'm not the one making moral or other judgements on parents who don't feed their children. Marcus Rashford is the one saying these hungry children should be given food rather than giving more money to their parents.

My own view is that of the 820,000 (according to one report quoted above) children who sometimes or always go to school without breakfast because there is nothing for them, I do not believe that all 820,000 come from homes where the parents can't afford 10p for a bowl of porridge or two slices of bread and jam. I reckon a lot of them are from homes where they either are not sufficiently savvy about finance to ensure they have either food or money left at the end of the week, or else they are too clueless to get round to seeing that the children eat breakfast, or that for some other reason they don't feed the child. No moral judgement there.

What Andrew is objecting to is that I think the best solution for this is food for the children. He prefers to pay money to the parents.
I'm questioning the double standard. When the furlough scheme was announced, nobody said; "they'll just blow it all on avocadoes and Rioja." Nobody said; "Well they should have thought twice before taking on that mortgage, and credit card debt." Nobody said; "it's their responsibility to pay these things themselves, not the government's responsibility." Yet now a comparatively tiny sum is being requested - not to cover bills, but to feed children - I see a disturbingly lot of; "they'll blow it on booze and fags." "they should have considered this before having children" and "feeding children is the responsibility of the parents." and all of this to absolve the government of their responsibility to ensure children don't go hungry.

And on the subject of being money savvy, most of the people I've met who are on benefits - many of whom also work - live on stricter, and more efficient budgets than you or I would be able to devise and get by on.
This user liked this post: Goodclaret

AndrewJB
Posts: 3808
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:20 pm
Been Liked: 1159 times
Has Liked: 754 times

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by AndrewJB » Fri Oct 23, 2020 2:41 pm

tiger76 wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 1:54 pm
Peter Pike was decent enough back in the day, and he at least had links in the community, and probably still does even now, that Usher woman was a blatant carpetbagger, and it was no surprise that her tenure led to Labour losing the seat for the 1st time since the 1930's, Birtwistle was never going to survive after voting for many of the austerity measures supported by the coalition, and Julie Cooper was a staunch remainer in a heavily brexit voting area, so she was always going to struggle to hold on whatever the national picture.

If Labour have serious ambitions about forming a government in 2024 then they simply have to regain seats like Burnley, Higginbotham's majority is slim, and I doubt either the BP or UKIP will run a candidate next time, so there's a sizeable % up for grabs for either main party if they can grasp the nettle. I'd make Labour slight favourites to retake Burnley, but a lot depends on their candidate selection, surely they've learned their lesson after the Usher fiasco, and they'll select somebody local, I have no knowledge if Cooper will throw her hat into the ring again, and even if she does I'd say Labour are better off looking for a fresh face, surely they must have someone out of their 20+ councillors that is capable of performing the role of a constituency MP. if they haven't then the outlook is bleak for them.

I do think Anthony Higginbotham has been damaged by his decision to vote with the government on this issue, and if the economy is the pivotal theme of the next election, which many commentators believe will be the case, then he needs to hope that our post-covid landscape is showing improvement by then, if it isn't I can see the seat changing hands once again, and yet another Burnley MP only serving one term.
I can remember listening to Pike stand up and explain why he wasn't voting for war in Iraq, during that late night parliamentary session. I never met him but understand he was a good person with his heart in the right place. The next I heard of Usher after she stood down was an article she wrote calling for the lowering of the top rate of income tax, at the beginning of austerity. Obviously Labour through and through.

BurnleyFC
Posts: 5058
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:51 am
Been Liked: 1596 times
Has Liked: 888 times

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by BurnleyFC » Fri Oct 23, 2020 3:11 pm

Billy Balfour wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 11:42 am
Yesterday's generously subsidised menu for those on a minimum of 85K a year plus a whole heap of personal expenses.

Ek8bFFGXIAAlaWh.jpg
That’s probably why most of them are as rotund as they are.

tiger76
Posts: 25697
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
Been Liked: 4644 times
Has Liked: 9849 times
Location: Glasgow

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by tiger76 » Fri Oct 23, 2020 3:17 pm

Rashford not letting up in his cause, he clearly isn't going to let this lie, and unlike some celebs this is a genuine conviction of his, and not just a chance to promote a new book, or a film or photo op, credit to him for persevering in this fight.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54657796

martin_p
Posts: 10368
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 3764 times
Has Liked: 696 times

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by martin_p » Fri Oct 23, 2020 3:17 pm

AndrewJB wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 11:36 am
I think the assumption here, and it's a lazy and incorrect one, is that poor people on benefits are morally inferior to those in receipt of the much more generous benefit scheme called furlough.
I think the fact that the NAO estimate there was up to £3.5bn in furlough scheme fraud should but paid to that one. That would’ve paid for free school meals in the holidays several times over I suspect.
This user liked this post: AndrewJB

CrosspoolClarets
Posts: 5231
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:00 pm
Been Liked: 1623 times
Has Liked: 397 times

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by CrosspoolClarets » Fri Oct 23, 2020 3:17 pm

TVC15 wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 10:46 am
You seem to be doing Rashford a bit of a disservice here.
At the moment he is talking about extending FSM so that kids don’t go hungry during the holidays and in the midst of a pandemic. I haven’t seen anything which suggests he thinks it’s a long term solution.

The things that you seem to be mentioning and trying to deal with exceptions, those that abuse the systems, a more targeted or nutritional solution etc are all worthy of debate but we know that they are much longer term solutions and often lead to expensive and botched up government projects which are frequently just as bad.

Tories taking the whip and voting against it have only achieved one thing - and that is that they just guaranteed more children will be going without food in the short term.
All that is true, I would agree, but I do some charitable work in this area and I have also done some consultancy with local authorities in the past looking at free school meals. I simply think that putting vouchers in the hands of the parents won’t fill these children's bellies with healthy nutritious food to the extent that school meals do, other than in a small percentage of cases (I would guess at less than 25%).

For example, I know of one school who offered free packed lunches to kids who were sent home and having to do temporary home learning due to a close by Covid case - not one parent took them up on it, not even the FSM ones. Would they treat a voucher any differently?

This is an area where I tend to have more of a socialist streak rather than a free market one - we simply have to get these left behind kids achieving. Something is of course better than nothing, I don’t disagree. I’m just questioning if the “something” is the right solution.

Rashford probably hasn’t quite appreciated that the way Labour used his appeal to force a vote almost forced the government, politically, to vote against it (just like how Johnson cannot now have a national circuit breaker, now that Starmer has called for one, he’ll be seem as a follower not a leader, it is how politics works). That’s why I don’t like Starmer, he knows this stuff and is just being opportunistic. Probably actually, it would be better of me to suggest that it is Labour not Rashford who would have known that they were ensuring it never got voted in - so they were using these kids as pawns to score points off the government. Better for Labour to keep shtum, and then maybe Rashford’s pressure would have worked, like it did the first time. Anyway, my political observation is a totally separate issue to the policy one earlier in this post.

Billy Balfour
Posts: 3979
Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 3:00 pm
Been Liked: 1857 times
Has Liked: 652 times

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by Billy Balfour » Fri Oct 23, 2020 3:20 pm

BurnleyFC wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 3:11 pm
That’s probably why most of them are as rotund as they are.
Aye, and then there's the subsidised bar. Can't have them drinking on an empty stomach. Subsidised fine food and a belly full of subsidised beer, then it's off into the Commons Chamber to do a bit of food-snatching.

dsr
Posts: 15139
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by dsr » Fri Oct 23, 2020 3:26 pm

AndrewJB wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 2:33 pm
I'm questioning the double standard. When the furlough scheme was announced, nobody said; "they'll just blow it all on avocadoes and Rioja." Nobody said; "Well they should have thought twice before taking on that mortgage, and credit card debt." Nobody said; "it's their responsibility to pay these things themselves, not the government's responsibility." Yet now a comparatively tiny sum is being requested - not to cover bills, but to feed children - I see a disturbingly lot of; "they'll blow it on booze and fags." "they should have considered this before having children" and "feeding children is the responsibility of the parents." and all of this to absolve the government of their responsibility to ensure children don't go hungry.

And on the subject of being money savvy, most of the people I've met who are on benefits - many of whom also work - live on stricter, and more efficient budgets than you or I would be able to devise and get by on.
If you think Mr and Mrs Average on furlough live of avocadoes and rioja, then it's perhaps no wonder you're stuffed to the gills with class envy. Is that what it's about - furlough people living off the fat of the land while people on benefits (most of whom, you tell us, are excellent at managing their budgets) can't afford 10p for their children's breakfast? No wonder you're cross. Panic not, the real world isn't like that.

You're looking at it cockeyed. It isn't the government's responsibility to feed children. It's the parents' responsibility. The government's responsibility is to provide a feedback for the benefit of children whose parents can't do that.

Most of my points have been talking about the money it costs to feed a child. These points don't need raising in falmilies where they have enough and to spare. That's why they aren't raised.
This user liked this post: Burnley Ace

Clarets4me
Posts: 4948
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:31 pm
Been Liked: 2307 times
Has Liked: 1033 times
Location: Ightenhill,Burnley

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by Clarets4me » Fri Oct 23, 2020 3:54 pm

tiger76 wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 1:54 pm
Peter Pike was decent enough back in the day, and he at least had links in the community, and probably still does even now, that Usher woman was a blatant carpetbagger, and it was no surprise that her tenure led to Labour losing the seat for the 1st time since the 1930's, Birtwistle was never going to survive after voting for many of the austerity measures supported by the coalition, and Julie Cooper was a staunch remainer in a heavily brexit voting area, so she was always going to struggle to hold on whatever the national picture.

If Labour have serious ambitions about forming a government in 2024 then they simply have to regain seats like Burnley, Higginbotham's majority is slim, and I doubt either the BP or UKIP will run a candidate next time, so there's a sizeable % up for grabs for either main party if they can grasp the nettle. I'd make Labour slight favourites to retake Burnley, but a lot depends on their candidate selection, surely they've learned their lesson after the Usher fiasco, and they'll select somebody local, I have no knowledge if Cooper will throw her hat into the ring again, and even if she does I'd say Labour are better off looking for a fresh face, surely they must have someone out of their 20+ councillors that is capable of performing the role of a constituency MP. if they haven't then the outlook is bleak for them.

I do think Anthony Higginbotham has been damaged by his decision to vote with the government on this issue, and if the economy is the pivotal theme of the next election, which many commentators believe will be the case, then he needs to hope that our post-covid landscape is showing improvement by then, if it isn't I can see the seat changing hands once again, and yet another Burnley MP only serving one term.
I doubt very many former Brexit Party /UKIP voters in Burnley will vote Labour in 2023/24 ....

Also the proposed change from 650 MP's down to 600 has been quietly shelved, so the new Boundaries for Constituencies will end up adding a nominal 6/7 seats for the Conservatives with Labour losing another 3/4 before anything happens ....

AndrewJB
Posts: 3808
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:20 pm
Been Liked: 1159 times
Has Liked: 754 times

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by AndrewJB » Fri Oct 23, 2020 4:11 pm

dsr wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 3:26 pm
If you think Mr and Mrs Average on furlough live of avocadoes and rioja, then it's perhaps no wonder you're stuffed to the gills with class envy. Is that what it's about - furlough people living off the fat of the land while people on benefits (most of whom, you tell us, are excellent at managing their budgets) can't afford 10p for their children's breakfast? No wonder you're cross. Panic not, the real world isn't like that.

You're looking at it cockeyed. It isn't the government's responsibility to feed children. It's the parents' responsibility. The government's responsibility is to provide a feedback for the benefit of children whose parents can't do that.

Most of my points have been talking about the money it costs to feed a child. These points don't need raising in falmilies where they have enough and to spare. That's why they aren't raised.
You can’t see the double standard? I pointed out that nobody questioned the furlough scheme in terms of what people will spend the money on. “Nobody suggested they’d blow it all on avocados and Rioja.” The opposite of what you’re suggesting. Where the envy has come into it is the reaction by people at the idea the government should kick money in to help hungry children. You say the government shouldn’t be responsible for feeding people (actually, ultimately they are). By your reasoning they shouldn’t be responsible for paying mortgages and credit card repayments - even less so. It’s a double standard. Huge welfare payments are fine, you appear to believe, as long as they go to the right kind of people.

As for the ability to make ends meet - I can live very frugally, but I would struggle to make ends meet on benefits, and I think the vast majority of middle class people (such as I am) would. So the people who do it have my admiration. It’s all well and good look at inexpensive food such as porridge or liver, but the real problems kick in with the two child cap, for people with more than two children, and rising costs such as rent and utilities (in the background of benefit cuts). Yes porridge might only cost 10p a bowl (or 35p with milk and a banana), but if rent has left you in debt, it’s not going to help.

Jakubclaret
Posts: 9434
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 1180 times
Has Liked: 778 times

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by Jakubclaret » Fri Oct 23, 2020 4:29 pm

Spijed wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 9:54 pm
Do you respect what Marcus Rashford is trying to do?
Can I ask why you asked that question? Did you expect me to say no I wonder, no children should go hungry anywhere & anybody trying to do there best to fill kids belly's up (within reason) deserves the upmost credit, the supermarkets I feel should be doing more & have stop off pitch points with tables erected & flasks of hot soup & bread baskets.

dsr
Posts: 15139
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by dsr » Fri Oct 23, 2020 5:14 pm

AndrewJB wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 4:11 pm
You can’t see the double standard? I pointed out that nobody questioned the furlough scheme in terms of what people will spend the money on. “Nobody suggested they’d blow it all on avocados and Rioja.” The opposite of what you’re suggesting. Where the envy has come into it is the reaction by people at the idea the government should kick money in to help hungry children. You say the government shouldn’t be responsible for feeding people (actually, ultimately they are). By your reasoning they shouldn’t be responsible for paying mortgages and credit card repayments - even less so. It’s a double standard. Huge welfare payments are fine, you appear to believe, as long as they go to the right kind of people.

As for the ability to make ends meet - I can live very frugally, but I would struggle to make ends meet on benefits, and I think the vast majority of middle class people (such as I am) would. So the people who do it have my admiration. It’s all well and good look at inexpensive food such as porridge or liver, but the real problems kick in with the two child cap, for people with more than two children, and rising costs such as rent and utilities (in the background of benefit cuts). Yes porridge might only cost 10p a bowl (or 35p with milk and a banana), but if rent has left you in debt, it’s not going to help.
I never mentioned liver. Roast chicken was my dish of choice.

And why exaggerate the price of milk and bananas? Bananas are 8 for £1.10 at Sainsbury's, which I know because I got some yesterday. That's 14p each. And the porridge for 10p already had milk in it, half milk half water. Milk costs £1.50 for 7 pints at Farm foods. A bag of bog standard porridge oats costs £1 and makes 20 bowls; 5p each; the milk costs another 5p. 10p a bowl.

The furlough scheme is a different argument to hungry children. The furlough scheme is to keep the economy running. We all know that you would prefer the economy to come to a halt and everyone be put on food parcels and basic income; that isn't relevant to this discussion. What you're on about isn't a double standard or anything like it. If you answer two different questions in two different ways, it's not a double standard - it's just a different answer.

tiger76
Posts: 25697
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
Been Liked: 4644 times
Has Liked: 9849 times
Location: Glasgow

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by tiger76 » Fri Oct 23, 2020 5:43 pm

Clarets4me wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 3:54 pm
I doubt very many former Brexit Party /UKIP voters in Burnley will vote Labour in 2023/24 ....

Also the proposed change from 650 MP's down to 600 has been quietly shelved, so the new Boundaries for Constituencies will end up adding a nominal 6/7 seats for the Conservatives with Labour losing another 3/4 before anything happens ....
Hard to say where the Brexit Party/UKIP vote will go, it's possible some won't vote at all, equally some might switch to the Greens as a protest vote, or many could vote for an independent as has happened in recent Burnley elections.

Yes I had noted that the reduction in MP'S has been dropped, just what we need during an economic crisis more snouts with their noses in the trough, there's a word commonly used in America and that word is gerrymandering, and that's even before we get onto the farce that is the HOL, that place is long past it's sell by date. I don't see much point in leaving the EU to take back control when we have nearly 900 unelected members of that building leeching off the hard pressed taxpayer, either make it elected, or drastically cut the numbers, I'd say at a push 200-300 is sufficient if we must have a 2nd chamber.

dsr
Posts: 15139
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by dsr » Fri Oct 23, 2020 5:55 pm

tiger76 wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 5:43 pm
Hard to say where the Brexit Party/UKIP vote will go, it's possible some won't vote at all, equally some might switch to the Greens as a protest vote, or many could vote for an independent as has happened in recent Burnley elections.

Yes I had noted that the reduction in MP'S has been dropped, just what we need during an economic crisis more snouts with their noses in the trough, there's a word commonly used in America and that word is gerrymandering, and that's even before we get onto the farce that is the HOL, that place is long past it's sell by date. I don't see much point in leaving the EU to take back control when we have nearly 900 unelected members of that building leeching off the hard pressed taxpayer, either make it elected, or drastically cut the numbers, I'd say at a push 200-300 is sufficient if we must have a 2nd chamber.
If the proposed reduction to 600 MPs had gone through it would certainly have helped the Conservatives because it would have reduced the number of city constituencies in favour of rural constituencies, where the population has tended to move to. Inner city constituencies tend to have much smaller electorates and tend to vote Labour.

Not sure how it's gerrymandering, though.

tiger76
Posts: 25697
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
Been Liked: 4644 times
Has Liked: 9849 times
Location: Glasgow

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by tiger76 » Fri Oct 23, 2020 6:03 pm

dsr wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 5:55 pm
If the proposed reduction to 600 MPs had gone through it would certainly have helped the Conservatives because it would have reduced the number of city constituencies in favour of rural constituencies, where the population has tended to move to. Inner city constituencies tend to have much smaller electorates and tend to vote Labour.

Not sure how it's gerrymandering, though.
It's an accusation that is commonly thrown about every time a boundary review is due, either way we have far too many MP'S in my view, and it shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to cut some fat from the bone, this has been promised since Blair and then Cameron so it's not party political.

AndrewJB
Posts: 3808
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:20 pm
Been Liked: 1159 times
Has Liked: 754 times

Re: Anthony Higginbotham

Post by AndrewJB » Fri Oct 23, 2020 6:23 pm

dsr wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 5:14 pm
I never mentioned liver. Roast chicken was my dish of choice.

And why exaggerate the price of milk and bananas? Bananas are 8 for £1.10 at Sainsbury's, which I know because I got some yesterday. That's 14p each. And the porridge for 10p already had milk in it, half milk half water. Milk costs £1.50 for 7 pints at Farm foods. A bag of bog standard porridge oats costs £1 and makes 20 bowls; 5p each; the milk costs another 5p. 10p a bowl.

The furlough scheme is a different argument to hungry children. The furlough scheme is to keep the economy running. We all know that you would prefer the economy to come to a halt and everyone be put on food parcels and basic income; that isn't relevant to this discussion. What you're on about isn't a double standard or anything like it. If you answer two different questions in two different ways, it's not a double standard - it's just a different answer.
I mentioned liver. An inexpensive food.

I add milk to the porridge afterward, and a little sugar syrup. Don’t forget the cost of heating it, and the cost of hot water and dish soap for cleaning it afterward. 35p is still inexpensive for a breakfast.

If the furlough scheme is about keeping the economy going, then it’s a terribly inefficient way of doing it, as most of the money disappears up the food chain, and it doesn’t cover everyone. Still, the FSM program also benefits the economy, so even beyond the ethical element of not letting children go hungry, it’s in line with what the government wish to achieve. It’s a double standard to be pro furlough, and anti feeding hungry children by that measure.

Post Reply