Tory MP blames food bank use on people not knowing how to cook or budge

I wanted to say to everyone I have learned a lot today from this thread.

Heather Wheeler said on tv today that if you go to the Coop you can get three chickens for £10 and 5 pieces of fruit for 80 pence. If it wasn’t for the fact that I’m still not going shopping I’d drive there now to check it out. And she said her mailbag was full of letters supporting what Anderson had said. Funny how she never seems to comment about anything I write to her about I do agree that things like cooking should be taught in schools. But it was recent Conservative governments that ignored Jamie’s Oliver’s attempts to get children eating more healthily.

Franbern

Think that MP's should only be able to claim for meal e prnses 30p

???

I'm very generous - £1 per day because sometimes they have to stay for late sessions.
But only on the days they are sitting

We have DaisyAnne. Perhaps trying to reconcile how someone like Anderson got elected.

Did you hear Radio 4 Broadcasting House this morning? Jane Garvey visited Anderson at an Ashfield foodbank last Friday and he verbally attacked her almost as soon as she began to speak. Hard to know what his man stands for as more and more stories about him emerge.

I see he gets substantial payments from the Cayzer Trust the 'posh cash' that funds the Tories' attempts to court the Northern working class.

www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?p=25894

morningstaronline.co.uk/article/f/blue-collar-cayzer

The £1000 he refers to in the Jane Garvey piece looks to be a payment he received from the Mail for two hours work in January this year - (same theyworkforyou link) for this piece I suspect:

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10361215/My-voters-dont-care-COP26-just-gas-bills-says-Tory-MP-LEE-ANDERSON.html

We do seem to have strayed a long way from the topic. We have strayed from one individual Tory. A man who uses the fascist model which takes a group of people who are not able to defend themselves and sets up the rhetoric to blame them for their difficulties.

I'm not sure where the voting in the 2019 Brexit election comes into this - but happy to be enlightened.

The 'lower tax rate' is usually an illusion, anyway. Governments know that most people only equate 'tax' with income tax. Cuts to income tax look good politically, but are usually accompanied by increases in other taxes, such as fuel duty, increased charges for government services, increased NI etc. Things that people don't associate with 'tax' because they don't have the word in their title, but which are taxes none the less..

MOnica

This survey shows quite clearly, that if you are highly educated, and therefore more likely to earn a higher income, you are less likely to vote Conservative. This report is worth reading and upturns a lot of apple carts over how people really vote as distinct from how people suppose they vote.

Those earning a higher income are not necessarily "highly educated" though! There are those with native intelligence and considerable ability who make the grade. Then there are others who aspire to be in this higher income bracket and say things like "why should my hard-earned money be taxed to support 'benefit scroungers' when the subject of the redistribution of wealth is raised. Even highly educated people are not automatically philanthropic.

So in answer to your other question...

The real question is are there enough well off people for their vote to make a difference.

... yes, I think there are. And our current PM who himself appears to be motived by a huge dollop of self-interest doesn't hesitate to ascribe to others the same trait. He knows that there are probably enough people who are 'buyable'. Low taxes - "keeping more of your money in your pockets" is not new bait, Tories have espoused this ever since I can remember being interested in politics.

I do have friends that vote for the Conservatives, but not many.

I have similar friends. They are all nice people - and none of them that I know well approve of Johnson. My own MP is a Conservative and has fought persistently and diligently to keep our local hospital's A&E department open (successfully) which has benefitted our pensioner-dense town enormously. He did vote against keeping the £20 'uplift' though... So I won't be voting for him, much as I appreciate his effort. In this current economic climate since the (apparent) end of the pandemic, that £20 could make a heck of a difference to those who are going to be faced with acute hardship. And yes, I would rather forego a lower tax rate if that is the price to be paid. Having once been poor myself - but helped by the State to clamber out of my own poverty at a time when the 'State' was more generous and compassionate in its dealings with impoverishment...

M0nica

MaizieD It is a quote from the YouGov report, for which I gave the link. Yes, some of the results are a surprise.

I don't think the results are surprising at all. I thought they might upset our Gnet tories, though...

MaizieD It is a quote from the YouGov report, for which I gave the link. Yes, some of the results are a surprise.

Oh, Franbern,I love that ! Good thinking ?

Think that MP's should only be able to claim for meal e prnses 30p

This survey shows quite clearly, that if you are highly educated, and therefore more likely to earn a higher income, you are less likely to vote Conservative. This report is worth reading and upturns a lot of apple carts over how people really vote as distinct from how people suppose they vote.

That's a bit explosive, isn't it? It is much the same profile for non tory voters as it was for people who voted Remain in 2016 and referring to it caused great indignation and upset among Leave voters on here...

It does cause a problem for Labour, though, which is continually being accused of having lost its connection to the 'working classes' and being taken over by a metropolitan elite.

I think the results of the last election was distorted.

I know many people, who had never voted Tory before, that did vote for them in 2019.

For two reasons- they wanted Brexit completed and/or they didn't want Corbyn.

Most of them are, now, disillusioned with the government, and wouldn't vote for them again.

At the next election, neither Brexit or Corbyn will come into play.

I would imagine voting will get back to the normal voting reasons - cost of living, performance of the incumbent party, and how people view the two main parties.

I do have friends that vote for the Conservatives, but not many.

The real question is are there enough well off people for their vote to make a difference.

Average household income in the UK is roughly £650 and those earning that amount or less accounts for 75% of all households. Increase that figure by £50 a week, to £700 and you have 80% of the elctorate. www.gov.uk/government/statistics/households-below-average-income-for-financial-years-ending-1995-to-2021/households-below-average-income-an-analysis-of-the-income-distribution-fye-1995-to-fye-2021

The main driver of the Conservative vote is age, and low formal eductaion achievement yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election

This survey shows quite clearly, that if you are highly educated, and therefore more likely to earn a higher income, you are less likely to vote Conservative. This report is worth reading and upturns a lot of apple carts over how people really vote as distinct from how people suppose they vote.

M0nica

^Presumably she's referring to the lowering of income tax. Which will obviously appeal to the more affluent. A sure vote-winner.^

I am sorry, I think that is an unjustified slur on better off people, many of whom have a strong social beliefs and would be most unhappy to know people, especially the PM, thought they were that venal and self-centred.

The fact that although Mrs Braverman said I’m a conservative because I want to keep more of your money in your pockets not the government's 'the audience continued to laugh and heckle her' surely proves my point

I am sorry, I think that is an unjustified slur on better off people, many of whom have a strong social beliefs and would be most unhappy to know people, especially the PM, thought they were that venal and self-centred.

It wasn't a slur MOnica.

Whilst it would be an exaggeration to say that all affluent / rich people vote Conservative - every voter is an individual - and the Tories have also now become the party of the working-class, it is true to say that the Conservatives are still the party of the rich. And I think it is naïve to think they are not swayed by a proposal to lower their - often quite hefty - tax bill.

Back in 2017 when Theresa May called a snap election. The then Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell, proposed a tax hike on those earning over £70k. The party had very few votes to lose by this proposal because only around 10% / 11% in this bracket supported it, whilst the Conservatives picked up around 60% of this demographic (Lib Dems catching some of the remainder).

The Conservatives have traditionally been the party of low-tax. It is a vote-winner.

That doesn't mean there are no affluent or wealthy people who have a 'social conscience' - some do believe in the redistribution of wealth, but generally speaking, the rich like tax cuts and they vote Conservative. Mrs Braverman knows that, hence her comment.

The Tory party has not done well in the local elections and its leader is fighting for his political survival. They are not inexperienced in the art of winning over or maintaining their support base, proposing lower taxes is part of that 'art'. It is a vote-winner.

There might be "many" better-off people with strong social beliefs. I'm one of the better-off and like to think I'm among them, but we are a minority. If we were not, lower taxes would not have the appeal that this current Tory party knows it does have.

DiamondLily

I'd like to pay less tax on our pensions, especially as the triple lock was dropped on the state one, but there are other and better priorities really.

Tax cuts would also help many low paid workers, but, as you say, would do nothing for those who don't pay tax.

A cut in VAT would help everyone, especially with fuel, but I can't see that happening.?

If you have tax cuts on higher incomes but do not replace the triple lock you are making in poorest pensioners poorer.

Presumably she's referring to the lowering of income tax. Which will obviously appeal to the more affluent. A sure vote-winner.

I am sorry, I think that is an unjustified slur on better off people, many of whom have a strong social beliefs and would be most unhappy to know people, especially the PM, thought they were that venal and self-centred.

The fact that although Mrs Braverman said I’m a conservative because I want to keep more of your money in your pockets not the government's 'the audience continued to laugh and heckle her' surely proves my point

Dickens: fascinating and terrifying, if someone wrote a book about a government that just didn't care enough about its poorest members in the hope that they would just wither away - in years gone by we would have said it was far fetched.

I'd like to pay less tax on our pensions, especially as the triple lock was dropped on the state one, but there are other and better priorities really.

Tax cuts would also help many low paid workers, but, as you say, would do nothing for those who don't pay tax.

A cut in VAT would help everyone, especially with fuel, but I can't see that happening.?

DiamondLily

The Conservative Attorney General, Suella Braverman, caused more than a little laughter, on QT, when she claimed that single parents were better off, in this crisis, than they were a year ago:

uk.news.yahoo.com/top-tory-claims-single-mums-better-off-amid-cost-of-living-crisis-111638236.html

"I’m a conservative because I want to keep more of your money in your pockets not the governments," Braverman added - as the audience continued to laugh and heckle her.

Presumably she's referring to the lowering of income tax. Which will obviously appeal to the more affluent. A sure vote-winner. And which will do little or nothing for those who are on or close to the poverty line.

To attract investors we need a low-tax, low-wage economy with a "flexible" workforce. And I know exactly what that means. And so does she.

The reason that all the BOGOFs are on sweet carbs and not on fresh fruit and veg is because the profit margin on fruit and veg is usually quite slim.

Because the cost of raw ingredients (flour, sugar fat) for empty caloried foods like bread, cakes, biscuits are so cheap, these are the food items that supermarkets make their money on, they can sell them cheaply and make a high profit.

It also means that they can drop the price for BOGOFs and still make a profit. Drop the price on fruit and veg and they make a loss. I know people sometimes refer to these BOGOfs as 'loss' leaders, but they very rarely are.

The Conservative Attorney General, Suella Braverman, caused more than a little laughter, on QT, when she claimed that single parents were better off, in this crisis, than they were a year ago:

uk.news.yahoo.com/top-tory-claims-single-mums-better-off-amid-cost-of-living-crisis-111638236.html

Oh dear, another example of ' haven't got a clue' experts.

Because I can feed 170 people for £50, it does not follow that one person, on their own, can prepare a meal for 30p.

Where can you buy 50grms of pasta, for example for the same weight for weight price as a large bag, quarter of an onion, half a teaspoon of mixed herbs?

The idea is so absurd that you have to be really really stupid not to see how flawed the idea is.

Oh my, WW2, that's pretty terrifying ?

Contributing to the cost of living crises. This should be used to increase wages.