In response to John's post and direct question to me (otherwise I wasn't going to post again on this thread), I didn't (nor did I imply to) blame the child for the decisions of his mother.Taken in isolation what Marcus Rashford is pressing for/write in his letter is entirely laudable. However, it's a very small part of a much bigger issue, and I do think it's rather disappointing that when someone seeks to broaden the debate to that wider perspective they are 'jumped upon' as though they are either being negative or in some way trying to change the discussion because of an alternative agenda. Simply saying "what a great guy, come on you horrible government, extend the voucher scheme to cover children's meals all summer" really doesn't probe the bigger picture, especially at a time when the Government has already shelled out billions in terms of both its furlough and self-employed support scheme.Society at the moment, in many respects, is probably as polarised as it has been for a long time, particularly in terms of the gulf between the haves and the have nots, and I fear that trend is only going to continue.It is both staggering and appalling that in 2020 we have a society where some parents are reliant upon schools to provide meals during the school holidays. And even more so when there are people in the world who have billions, including the elite professional footballers who typically earn in excess of £200k a week (Jimmy Hill unleashed a monster when he successfully campaigned for the lifting of minimum wages in the early 1960's).Whilst I don't believe in some kind of communist utopia whereby (in theory) everyone earns the same and the state supports everyone equally (and my other half is from the Eastern bloc and vehemently insists that life there was better pre-1989), nor do I believe in rampant capitalism. The state has to do more to minimise the many gulfs in society, and unfortunately (in my personal view) the current government is entirely out of touch with the average person in the street - Jenrick's conduct relating to the Isle of Dogs development is a perfect example of the favouritism this government shows to its mates at the expense of everyone else.It is also rather perverse for example that the Government has promised £63 million to Councils, yet at the same time successive government after government has cut away at the public sector. Similarly I only read at the weekend that Bournemouth Council has furloughed 500 staff, which is an indication of the precarious position that authority must find itself in, despite the support that the public sector should provide being more needed now than ever before.There's a vicious circle at play - the government cuts funding to local government so services suffer, coronavirus comes along and local government then furloughs many of its staff thereby (1) costing the government billions in the short-term and (2) further reducing services and accessibility to those members of society most in need, and ultimately once the pandemic is over the cuts will inevitably be even deeper as the government attempts to claw back the billions.Having spent a considerable time employed within the public sector (and being friends with many people who still do), on the one hand there are many occasions when Councils don't help themselves, but equally I know the ever increasing pressures being placed on them from both an ever numerically increasing population, an ever growing gulf between the have and the have nots, and ever declining funding from central government.So that is where, in my opinion, the sensitive issue of population growth is relevant to Rashford's letter - it is too simplistic to just say "oh what a wonderful letter and of course the Government should fund free meals for children outside of school times", as it begs the fundamental question of what is wrong with our society that such support is needed, and shouldn't there a longer-term strategy ?.For me, over-population is the biggest threat to this planet. People say "if we choose to have 5 kids and financially support them then that's our business" - I don't agree with that logic because it's entirely selfish and doesn't factor in the non-pecuniary demands those 5 kids will place upon the world in terms of the environment and so forth. In simple terms I don't see why kids should be treated any differently to cars, if you want to drive a gas guzzling car pumping out lots of emissions then you pay through the nose for the pleasure of doing so, not just in terms of having to fill the car up with fuel but through paying a much higher car tax, paying for entry into the forthcoming ULEZ zone and so forth.My logic is merely that perhaps if there were less people in the world, coupled with a more even distribution of wealth, the need for children to be reliant on free meals outside of term time, or for people to be reliant on food banks, would be significantly reduced. In turn, society might then be less polarised than it currently is, which can only be a good thing.
Adam Beamish ● 2331d