Well if they do then at least they will have done one good thing in government.

The thing that got me was when Currie criticised the bloke in charge of a foodbank for providing Super Noodles in one of the food packages as it wasn't proper food in her eyes. When you're that hard up and starving food is food.

It's been in the loacal paper recently that food banks are now putting together special packages for people which only need them to add boiled water as they cant afford the gas/electric to cook a proper meal, don't have access to a cooker or don't have the cooking skills.

The likes of Currie don't live in the real world.

There is truth in all of this including the fact that Currie has a very skewed version of reality in her head, or maybe she deliberately ignores reality to stick to the party line that its not their fault and not really their job to address issues such as poverty and unemployment because they are mainly caused by the individual and a lack of individual control - its a mantra that is used in America by Republicans all the time so its not a new one, just its application during this term of government.

For instance - a 5lb bag of potatoes in your foodbank box or a couple of packets of instant Smash (or similar) ?

Currie would immediately point to the potatoes as being the healthy sustenance and in this she may well be correct, she'd point to the fact that potatoes are very versatile and can be used in many ways to feed a family and a 5lb bag would last for quite a few days, and in this she'd be correct too.

Where she would start to fluster and divert attention (a job that she is VERY skilled at) is when the recipient points out that his/her electricity is on a meter, their cooker is electric and they have no cash for the next five days with which to top up their credit, so with the last remaining couple of quids worth of electricity in the house do we boil a kettle of water to make some Smash or do we boil a pan of spuds for 20 mins or bake the potatoes in the oven for half an hour - the politicians answer would be "Why have you no money left for credit, what have you spent it on, you've probably got booze in the cupboard and fags in your pocket and is that a new tattoo there" none of which answers the question "How the fook am I going to eat these potatoes raw ?"

By the way - although the title of the thread is not literal, it could be literal very soon.

According to the Sunday Times today "a panel of experts" have advised the government that the BBC should not be funded via a licence but from subscription instead and that this should happen from 2020 onwards.

The Centenary Review is a bit of a talking shop for ex politicians and ex media bosses but it is an official government review and apparently the BBC are looking to charge for digital downloads of programs in the near future in what will be their equivalent of iTunes.

Its also suggested that £20 a month (£240 a year) would be a level to aim for against the current licence fee of £145.

I use a lot of the online functionality of the BBC and watch very little live TV because of other distractions in my life and would probably subscribe if the full array of radio and TV services were still maintained in their present form, however popular it is to b1tch and whine about the BBC it is still a bloody good product.

The Tories HATE the BBC for pointing out the truth and not being biased. That woman and here cronies did despicable things to broadcasting in this country but her inbred hatred and the way she gerrymandered her people into positions at the beeb was disgraceful.

While huge chunks of the left see it as biased the other way – in its reporting (or lack thereof) of the privatisation of the NHS, for instance.