So the Tory response to try and help some kids not actually starve is met with a "“Children have gone hungry for years” by MP Paul Scully
Seems fair enough to me. "Your Mum and Grandma starved, so you have to do so as well"
What i don't understand is how this plays out from a political point of view, i've seen people saying Starmer isn't voting against the torture and Spycops bill because he is playing a long game, but what is the political angle on voting against this bill by the Tories?
* It isn't expensive (relatively, it's 20mill a week)
* it's temporary (for half term, Christmas and Easter holidays)
* voting against it makes them look like cruel cunts who don't give a fuck, especially when you scratch the surface of how much money has been so willingly spent over the last few months on other things (eat out to help out, track and trace etc)
I've seen the arguments for a better, different long term solution - fine, well vote this in and come up with that over the next few months, you have an overwhelming majority so do that, use this as a temporary measure.
Also 2 weeks ago Boris was congratulating Rashford on his MBE, now his government are calling him a virtue signaller!? What is that about!?