Grub Stake. - Page 2

Busman747 · 10-09-2007, 21:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lilly

Could they not also make them only redeemable against healthy food like fruit, veg, etc and prevent people from getting beer and fags with them?

I am totally against this idea on a number of counts.....but firstly, I would like to agree with Lilly on the idea of vouchers issued weekly and spent at all major supermarkets that would participate in the scheme would be the right way of going ahead with this.

Cash would in the majority of cases be spent on luxury items or simply used to pay bills. Those mothers that do not usually buy fresh fruit and veg are not likely to start just because they have some extra money in their purse!

This windfall will be available to ALL mothers wether they are below the breadline or have a seven figure bank balance........

It is estimated that this "vote earner" will cost US as tax payers £80,000,000 each year........

If it is so important, why is the scheme not being introduced until 2009?

lancsdave · 10-09-2007, 21:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lilly

Could they not also make them only redeemable against healthy food like fruit, veg, etc and prevent people from getting beer and fags with them?

Simple answer is no because we have retailers who will quite happily abuse any system in this country just as much as the person receiving the vouchers. A voucher is money in the till, they don't care what it is for.

steeljack · 10-09-2007, 21:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by West Ender

I'd rather see proper cookery lessons brought back into schools. It just might benefit future mothers.

seems a sensible idea to me , used to enjoy scrounging the odd biscuit on the way home from skoo .

Lilly · 10-09-2007, 21:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busman747

This windfall will be available to ALL mothers wether they are below the breadline or have a seven figure bank balance........

It is estimated that this "vote earner" will cost US as tax payers £80,000,000 each year........

That's another good point. This scheme should certainly be means tested.

flashy · 11-09-2007, 08:42

personally i think its a load of rubbish

jambutty · 11-09-2007, 08:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lilly

I also think that if the grant is to be given then it should be given earlier on in pregnancy but not too early i.e not at confirmation of pregnancy stage. Not a nice thing to think about, I know, but many pregnancies do end in early miscarriage (before 12 weeks) so the grant would be given and then not be able to be used for the purpose which it was intended for. I know that miscarriage is always a possibility but after 12 weeks there is a significant drop in the likelihood of this and yet it's still early enough to make a difference through healthy eating so maybe they could give people the grant at around the 12 week mark.
Could they not also make them only redeemable against healthy food like fruit, veg, etc and prevent people from getting beer and fags with them?

If vouchers were given on a weekly or monthly basis upon confirmation of pregnancy Lily, should a miscarriage occur they would be discontinued.

Of course a fairer distribution of the country’s wealth would remove the need for a grant in the first place.

jambutty · 11-09-2007, 08:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busman747

It is estimated that this "vote earner" will cost US as tax payers £80,000,000 each year........

If it is so important, why is the scheme not being introduced until 2009?

Because if the scheme were started now by the time that the next election comes along people will have forgotten about it.

It’s just a cynical ploy to try and buy votes.

jambutty · 11-09-2007, 08:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by flashytart

personally i think its a load of rubbish

So it has taken just 17 hours and 16 minutes to change your mind. See your post #2.

Claire Cal · 11-09-2007, 09:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by beechy

id rather see two hundred pounds go
to the elder citizens those who more deserve and
who would appreciate

There is just as much chance of the elder end of the population spending it on fags and booze than pregnant women. You cant tar everyone with the same brush. How can we say who deserves it the most??

jambutty · 11-09-2007, 09:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by lancsdave

Simple answer is no because we have retailers who will quite happily abuse any system in this country just as much as the person receiving the vouchers. A voucher is money in the till, they don't care what it is for.

My experience is that supermarkets will only accept vouchers for the goods that they are intended for so buying fags and booze with them is a no, no in supermarkets.

Of course there is nothing to stop a voucher being sold to a neighbour who will then use them for the purpose that they were intended for. And as you point out there are smaller retailers who see the voucher as cash in the till and will accept them for any goods. But how many of them have decent range of fruit and veg?

If I remember correctly many years ago when child allownace was paid via a book at the post office, people had to produce the book to use the milk token to get their child’s free milk.

flashy · 11-09-2007, 09:16

lol its a womans perogative to change her mind JB

no seriously after reading everything that everyones put, they make sense more than i do, i was referring to the voucher system for the people on the social when i said its a load of rubbish JB

MargaretR · 11-09-2007, 09:43

There already is a scheme for those on income support etc
Free milk, infant formula, vitamins, fruit and vegetables factsheet : Directgov - Parents

When I was pregnant mid 60s 'welfare foods' applied to all pregnant women even though working. I got milk, iron capsules and concentrated orange juice.

Since the admin of a scheme exists it would be more prudent to extend it, rather than just chuck money out - which would be subject to misuse.

Gayle · 11-09-2007, 11:18

I think it's a daft idea.

Just one point though - I think it's £120 not £200 as was reported earlier.

Any mother who is eating healthily will do so with or without that money. Anyone else will see it as a windfall and buy more fags and booze. I do not believe that it will make one jot of difference apart from the fact that the government will spend our well earned money on it and not on the things that really matter.

I thought Gordon Brown was sensible, this seems to be ridiculous.

flashy · 11-09-2007, 11:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by [email protected]

There already is a scheme for those on income support etc
Free milk, infant formula, vitamins, fruit and vegetables factsheet : Directgov - Parents

When I was pregnant mid 60s 'welfare foods' applied to all pregnant women even though working. I got milk, iron capsules and concentrated orange juice.

Since the admin of a scheme exists it would be more prudent to extend it, rather than just chuck money out - which would be subject to misuse.

the free milk and baby formula has been going on for years

jambutty · 11-09-2007, 12:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claire Cal

There is just as much chance of the elder end of the population spending it on fags and booze than pregnant women. You cant tar everyone with the same brush. How can we say who deserves it the most??

Very true.

The real answer is to make sure that the country’s wealth is distributed more fairly then there would be no need for such schemes.

I have heard it stated at 20% of the population gains 80% of the created wealth. Those receiving telephone number salaries get regular increases as a percentage, which is way over and above the rate of inflation whilst the 80% get an inflation rate increase spread over two years.