To feed, or not to feed: that is the question. Whether ’tis nobler in the main to suffer the slings and arrows of outraged families – or, by opposing, end them.
“There is never enough money to do everything that we want to do,” explained Past His Prime Minister, Boris Johnson. “I don’t even feed my own children, why should I feed anyone else’s? It’s just spaffing money up the wall.”
You can see his point. The food voucher scheme costs about £20m a week. This is a huge slice of the £350m a week that the NHS isn’t actually getting. To put it into context, the money saved from cancelling the voucher scheme over the summer would pay for the much needed new royal yacht.
Feeding his children is a logistical challenge for Johnson in any case. There are complicated alimony agreements to negotiate. There is the problem of discerning whether a given child is one of his. There are children that definitely exist, but whom he doesn’t acknowledge. Then there is Wilfred, whom he acknowledges, but who probably doesn’t exist. It’s a tricky one.
Added to this confusion is the insistence from rational, empathetic people that the scheme should continue. Foremost of these is footballer Marcus Rashford. He made an intelligent, passionate case which Johnson naturally dismissed.
“He’s a soccer player and a picaninny, isn’t he?” Johnson waffled to anybody who cared to listen. “Where does he play? What? He’s a striker and a left winger? Sounds like those ghastly miner chappies that Margaret – dear Margaret – had so much trouble with. If that sort of person is in favour, then there is no way I can support it. Time for my nap! Wiff waff wiff waff!”
Back to the fridge, then. At least this way our children will become thin enough to fit up the chimneys this winter.