[Closed] No such thing as a free school lunch...

Well my thoughts are why am I paying to feed your kids when you can clearly pay for it yourself. Helping out those in genuine need is one thing but this is something else.

Well my thoughts are why am I paying to feed your kids when you can clearly pay for it yourself. Helping out those in genuine need is one thing but this is something else.

How do you know what I can afford ?

...and will save families an [b][u]average[/u][/b] of £437 per child per year..

Are you annoyed that you will be saving more than average ?

You can buy my lunch if you don't like the idea of not paying out for stuff 😉

I think the government have already put it out to commercial tender, and awarded the school lunches contract to a well respected, high quality private sector provider....

[img] http://globaltoynews.typepad.com/.a/6a0133ec87bd6d970b017615d64955970c-320wi [/img]

I'd rather pay for some children whose parent's can afford it than run the risk of children in need not being fed.

The tax break for married couples is ****ing ridiculous though.

why am I paying to feed your kids when you can clearly pay for it yourself.

Oh here we go. Perhaps you also think that parents who can afford it should pay for their children's text books ? Why not eh ?

It's hardly the same thing ernie. Education is a right, I don't expect anyone to pay for my kids meals.

How do you know what I can afford ?

Because free meals are already available to those who can't afford to pay and have been for quite some time so if you weren't able to afford meals you would already be getting them for free.

Oh here we go. Perhaps you also think that parents who can afford it should pay for their children's text books ? Why not eh ?

No I certainly don't think that.

Education is a right

And food isn't ?

It's a fact that hungry children make worse pupils. Hot nutritious food can only help. And it's part of the learning experience, and hopefully of a life-long habit, which recognises the importance of healthy hot balanced meals.

If you lot without kids can do things like swan off to the pictures of an evening, actually ride your bikes at the weekend, go on holiday outside a hideously priced 6 week window, have a lie in on a Sunday if you fancy, and enjoy a disposable income, then surely a few school meals isn't too much to begrudge us

You bastards!!!!

I'm rather surprised by this too - I don't mind paying for my son's lunch on the days he has it (he has packed lunch three days a week usually).

But, I can see that if everyone gets a school lunch free, then almost all kids will end up having school lunches (as was the case when 'I were a kid') rather than some having packed lunches and so on. Given some of the crap I've seen kids taking in for their packed lunches every day (even though the school has, for want of a better term, a 'no junk' policy on school lunches), I can see that this might well be a good thing and mean that many of the kids get better food.

Anyway, it's for you suvverners, doesn't affect me, so argue away ernie! 😀

so argue away ernie!

I thought it was you who was arguing ? I support it.

Lifer - Member
I'd rather pay for some children whose parent's can afford it than run the risk of children in need not being fed.

The tax break for married couples is **** ridiculous though.

+1

even though im married I think its wrong

it's for you suvverners

I thought it was going to be nation-wide (eventually)

How do you know what I can afford ?

...........and after 5thelefants comment ill leave the discussiuon

Where does it stop though, showers for all kids, free clothes, etc. etc. What ever happened to responsible parenting?

This is electioneering at its worst, the Lib Dems trying to buy Middle Class votes.

If you can't afford to feed your children you shouldn't of had them.

I can't believe Tory government policy is being attacked with bollox like that.

No wonder British politics is in such a dire crises.

If you can't afford to feed your children

5thElefant +1

What if you have no children? Obviously this money hasn't appeared out of fresh air so a tax will be brought in to fund it.
Childless families be among the parents needed to cover this ridiculous idea.

Thoughts ?

I should be paying to feed my kids, if the school makes a profit that's a bonus as long as the meals are good which at the 2 schools my kids go to they're excellent.

knowing our children's school they'll find a way to make money from the scheme

Yeah those schools are always lining their own pockets. Well.. maybe the school's pockets.. and we all know those damn schools spend all their money on fast cars and coke.. well.. actually they spend it on educating our kids.. but HOW DARE THEY RAISE MONEY TO SPEND ON OUR KIDS' EDUCATION?!

Leaving aside the fact that this is a combination of another conference headline grab and a trade off with Tory tax plans for married couples (and openly admitting I don't know the specifics of what was proposed by Clegg ie, is his £600m or son of new money or does it come from elsewhere etc) I cant see the fuss.

The principle of universal benefit is supported among other factors by the fact that it leads to better uptake from those that it is meant to target. If the result is better nutrition for young kids than means testing that it seems like a good idea to me?

With that in mind I can't see why Frank Field is objecting to it this morning - need to check the link on that one.

This is electioneering at its worst, the Lib Dems trying to buy Middle Class votes.

None of the other parties would stoop to do anything so shameful and mercenary though, would they?

At least you can see the thinking behind it being broadly benevolent, and public spirited. Some kids who weren't getting a hot meal, now will.

The Tories on the other hand.... A tax break for getting married? Why on earth should you get a tax break for that? Now THAT is electoral bribery for 'our type of people'

Because free meals are already available to those who can't afford to pay and have been for quite some time so if you weren't able to afford meals you would already be getting them for free.

or like a lot of people I'm on the cusp of being able to afford it...which leaves not very much in the pot...

oohh no Im back

I cant help it

Investing in children is investing in the future of the country
all the selfish **** that resent children being fed on their tax money forget that those kids will be paying for your NHS care when you are in your dotage, so even in your small minded worlds there will be a benefit to you.

What if you have no children?

What a fantastic question.

The Tories on the other hand.... A tax break for getting married? Why on earth should you get a tax break for that?

You can then have one of the partners looking after the kids if they wish, rather than the insane system we now have of making both partners go out to work and making them employ a third party for child care. Then you have a complex benefits system to bodge the fact they can't afford it due to the huge double taxing.

Yay! I'm married and have kids 🙂

Remind me who I have to vote for now?

I've not got kids but am happy to see this introduced. It's a good thing IMO.

Investing in children is investing in the future of the country
all the selfish **** that resent children being fed on their tax money forget that those kids will be paying for your NHS care when you are in your dotage, so even in your small minded worlds there will be a benefit to you.

That may well be true but a line has to be drawn somewhere otherwise you end up wanting the state to fund the entire cost of raising a child. I don't resent paying for kids that have a genuine need; I do resent subsidising the kids of people who can well afford to pay for it themselves.

Tax break, no. Treat marriage like a company. Combining your tax allowance would do that.

IF there are kids to be looked after then yes I'd agree with that but not just because you are married. Why should you get a benefit just for being married?

It's aimed at a specific age group and designed to ensure that all children in that group get at least one nutritious balanced meal. It's probably cheaper to go for a blanket approach than means testing.

Oh, and for the "I don't have kids, why should I pay for [i]{insert moan of the moment}[/i]" who do you think will look after you should you fall ill or get old? Yup, someone else's children.

Kimbers, nice idea but wrong example perhaps? NHS will be long gone by then, but pensions on the other hand 😉

Define 'well afford' ... ?

It's like 'well good'.

Well 'ard?

Kimbers, nice idea but wrong example perhaps? NHS will be long gone by then, but pensions on the other hand

You think any of us lot will actually be able to 'retire'?

[img] [/img]

If you can't afford to feed your children you shouldn't of had them.

Well, well what a complete **** you are sunshine. It may come as a surprise but in life sometimes, just [i]sometimes[/i] circumstances can change. A few years ago I was coasting through my career quite happily when out of the blue I was made redundant. What followed was 6 very scary months whilst I struggled to get back into an already depressed job market. Thankfully I did before the money ran out, just. Others aren't so lucky and hit hard times. So what would you suggest then? You have obviously given this great consideration before making a [s]stupid idiotic comment[/s] reasoned contribution to the thread. Maybe we should totally dismantle the welfare state and make it everyone for themselves? Moron.

If you can't afford to feed your children you shouldn't of had them.

Running my own small business, when we had our kids I earned decent money. Last year we would have been entitled to free school meals, such were the size of our profits.

So, how exactly does one 'budget' for children in a scenario like that? Or should we not have had any in case I had subsequent lean years?

BTW, this year I am a high rate tax payer. But we will still get the free meals next year now 🙂

Say what you think, Coyote, don't hold back 🙂

(glad things have worked out...)

Hah Coyote - another good example of what a daft comment that was.

Just think, if he'd had free school meals when he was younger he might have been able to hav thunk that through more betterer.

Wouldn't let my kids eat free school lunches. Guaranteed to be some nasty processed food which is not very good for them.

Get with the program LHS! I think you'll find that was in the dark, terrible pre St Jamie days. He's going to kill this instead, for a Mexican rice with chipotle pork & avocado salsa, for the little dears....

[img] [/img]

Wouldn't let my kids eat free school lunches. Guaranteed to be some nasty processed food which is not very good for them.

Bloody hell. 🙄

Ok, what about tax breaks for childless couples?
No need to spend on education or health.

And another one drifts in.

OK. Tax breaks for childless couples so you don't pay into education or health. No problem with that as long at the childless couples signing up for the tax breaks also agree that when they become old and infirm they just get tossed into a lime pit. After all you didn't pay to educate the doctors and nurses...

It's got nothing to do with who can afford what, it's about what's good for children. In three pilot areas where free meals were available to all children in that age range, the result was that they were on average two months ahead of where they would otherwise have been.

If the scheme helps children achieve higher standards of education and also helps to maintain healthy lifestyles, including helping to nip in the bud some childhood obesity issues, then it might well be self-financing.

Is that, like, an actual guarantee or just you hypothesizing?

Guarantee

Have you actually seen what school meals can be like these days?

Yes, processed, packaged, mass produced crap.

Do you have any reason to think that having them funded for the first three years of education will mean they will reduce in quality?

Tongue in your cheek there?

It's a personal choice, but for far far far less money i can give my kids fresh, unprocessed food every day.

The same result could be achieved by making school meals compulsary though with those parents who can afford them paying for them. Bear in mind that any cost increase for the parents who currently do not buy a school meal would be at least partially offset by them not paying for their current lunch.

Don't parents on benefits/low income already get free school meals for their kids?

Wouldn't let my kids eat free school lunches. Guaranteed to be some nasty processed food which is not very good for them.

The quality of school food is far more rigourously regulated than anything you'd buy in a supermarket.

My point is that yet again money will be taken out of so many peoples pockets to fund this ridiculous idea giving us all less bottom line cash at the end of each month.
This is hidden by that pratt Clegg force feeding a scared kid grapes on the news saying they are saving everybody money.
For childless couples that really is not an easy pill to swallow.

The quality of school food is far more rigourously regulated than anything you'd buy in a supermarket.

Really? Proof?

Don't parents on benefits/low income already get free school meals for their kids?

Not necessarily.

But on benefits they do.
If you're out of work definitely.
My cousin's 5 kids do.

If you lot without kids can do things like swan off to the pictures of an evening, actually ride your bikes at the weekend, go on holiday outside a hideously priced 6 week window, have a lie in on a Sunday if you fancy, and enjoy a disposable income, then surely a few school meals isn't too much to begrudge us

You bastards!!!!

😀

I'll happily buy your kids a happy meal every day. Why? Because I can afford it... 8)

Good point though about having the 'luxury' of being able to take holidays outside school break times. Our trip abroad soon will be considerably cheaper than in peak season, plus we're getting a massive discount for not bringing house-wrecking children with us. We can happily get sloshed on cheap local wine each night, or go to a local restaurant without having to leave our young children unattended in a hotel room from where they can be abducted.

I think this plan is an excellent idea. I'm happy to see my taxes go towards paying for it. To put the cost of the plan into perspective; how much is the planned Trident missile replacement scheme going to cost us? Something from which none of us will ever benefit. And that's just one of many things our taxes are wasted on, which are of no benefit to us as a society.

Can't believe that anyone would think that feeding children is a waste of money.

If you can't afford to feed your children you shouldn't [b]of[/b] had them.

Shouldn't [i][u]have[/u][/i] had them.

I would elaborate on just how stupid such a statement is, but I fear it would be a waste of intellectual effort.

My point is that yet again money will be taken out of so many peoples pockets to fund this ridiculous idea giving us all less bottom line cash at the end of each month.

The whole scheme is costed at £600 million a year. In the grand scheme of things, thats eff all. And will actually achieve quite a lot. I think its exactly what we should be spending taxpayers money on. Something that benefits society. I'm going out on a limb here and assuming that you share Thatchers verdict on that particular word?

Ultimately, the cost is probably half what the government will give some London consultants for privatising the Royal Mail. Or what the MOD lost down the back of the sofa last month

For childless couples that really is not an easy pill to swallow.

I don't know why you keep going on about childless couples, this scheme will only affect children of the age of 5, 6, and 7. Couples with children above the age of 7 will not benefit anymore than childless couples.

Take that into account when speaking on behalf of all childless couples in England.

This is electioneering at its worst, the Lib Dems trying to buy Middle Class votes.

To be fair to the Lib Dems, this isn't electioneering at its worst, this is evidence based policy being actually quite good.

The story behind it is:

The (previous) government, commissioned pilot schemes, where they trialled universal free school dinners.

The result of the pilot schemes was that kids did better at school. And that the effect was greatest amongst poor kids, even those who would previously have had access to free school meals, so it possibly can help reduce inequalities between poorer and richer kids which is nice too.

You can read all about it here (search for the executive summary)

They say that as an educational intervention, it offers better value for money than some directly educational things like the 'every child a reader' program.

Essentially, the underlying aim is the same as if they'd said "we'll spend x amount of money on buying some books for every school", it's just that because it is a free lunch, people get up in arms about it.

Don't parents on benefits/low income already get free school meals for their kids?

Yes, 400,000 is quoted in the Guardian at present. Free meals will increase that to 1.9 million.

"If you can't afford to feed your children you shouldn't of had them."

Hopefully well fed pupils will concentrate and learn the difference between of & have. Have a gold star for use of apostrophes though.

For everyone on here saying "school meals are crap, my child gets a good lunch from me" I see a kid who buys a monster energy drink & a jumbo bag of crisps on the way to school.

The whole scheme is costed at £600 million a year. In the grand scheme of things, thats eff all

Stop spending money you don't have. It's not a hard concept to grasp even if it's other peoples money (that you don't have) that you're spending.

If kids who's parents are on benefits/out of work/low income get free meals already but there is a section of kids who's parents struggle for genuine reasons why not just relax the free school meal criteria rather than include everyone? Or would that cost more to implement ? Bit like what they did for child allowance you have to opt in if you meet the criteria.

ernie_lynch - Member
It's got nothing to do with who can afford what, it's about what's good for children. In three pilot areas where free meals were available to all children in that age range, the result was that they were on average two months ahead of where they would otherwise have been.

If the scheme helps children achieve higher standards of education and also helps to maintain healthy lifestyles, including helping to nip in the bud some childhood obesity issues, then it might well be self-financing.

You're looking ahead and thinking of the long term implications. That's not the done thing ernie, you should know that by now!

I see a kid who buys a monster energy drink & a jumbo bag of crisps on the way to school

That's because the school meals are so bad.

🙄

I can't think of anything I'd rather see the government spend money on. Kids going without is a f***ing scandal so it's about time the problem was dealt with.

Really? Proof?

If I could, I would post copies of the inspection reports on the canteen in the school at which I'm a governor. It is even asked of parents & pupils in the regular surveys undertaken regarding the school.

Both internal and external catering is monitored regularly with minimum standards which are similar to those previously proposed by the FSA to the supermarkets which were summarily rejected.

Edit: [url= https://www.gov.uk/school-meals-healthy-eating-standards# ]Food Standards in Schools[/url]

even if it's other peoples money

it's not your money.

Only read some of the comments in the first page ...

How about those people who work but without a family i.e. single working person.

Does that mean they too have to contribute to something they do not have/use? Is there a possibility to opt-out?

🙄

That's why we're broke

We're not broke ffs 😀 Only a couple of weeks ago as the 5th wealthiest nation on Earth we were thinking of sending cruise missiles to Syria at a million quid a throw.

And if money [b][i]is[/b][/i] in short supply, then we should spend it wisely. What better thing to spend money on than children and their health and education ?

BTW 30% of children between the ages of 2 and 15 are obese, the total cost of obesity to NHS is £5 billion a year, helping to tackle this problem makes sound financial sense.

I see another stealth tax coming?

ernie_lynch - Member

That's why we're broke

We're not broke ffs Only a couple of weeks ago as the 5 wealthiest nation on Earth we were thinking of spending cruise missiles to Syria at a million quid a throw.

Yes, we could be 5th wealthiest but we also rank 3rd in the world with external debts.

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt ]External debts from good old Wiki ... [/url]

But on benefits they do.
If you're out of work definitely.
My cousin's 5 kids do.

I was on job seeker's allowance for 6 months. My children [b]didn't[/b] get free school meals. I can't speak for your cousin, their children or their circumstances however I can assure you that all people on benefits do [b][u]not[/u][/b] get free school meals. I speak from first hand experience, not anecdotal nonsense read in the press.

That's why we're broke. £600M is actually a lot when you don't get enough money in to pay for your current outgoings.

Stop spending money you don't have. It's not a hard concept to grasp even if it's other peoples money (that you don't have) that you're spending.

The thing is that we live in a democracy. And political parties put forward what they think they should be spending our money on.

So the Lib Dems have come out and said that they will spend £600 million on providing school meals for all children under 7.

This week they have also said they'd slash the obscene amounts of money being spanked on a completely pointless nuclear detterent

I can hazard a guess from your general tone which party your cross goes next to. In fact, I suspect you may actually be George Osbourne. Are you? But I digress. What I'm saying is that looking at these policies, this sounds more appealing than anything I've heard from either of the other lot. I very much doubt that will change much over the next couple of weeks

Won't somebody please [b]not[/b] think of the children

If kids who's parents are on benefits/out of work/low income get free meals already but there is a section of kids who's parents struggle for genuine reasons why not just relax the free school meal criteria rather than include everyone? Or would that cost more to implement ? Bit like what they did for child allowance you have to opt in if you meet the criteria.

Cos they tried that in their pilot studies and it didn't work.

You can read the report on it here (search for the executive summary)

<

We're not broke ffs Only a couple of weeks ago as the 5th wealthiest nation on Earth we were thinking of sending cruise missiles to Syria at a million quid a throw.

Need to get rid of them, past their use by date, bit like free school meals, just with less mould.

That's because the school meals are so bad.

And the last time you ate one was?

A point that was raised on the recent "how much are your school dinners" thread is that there is already a growing number of families that send their kids to school with no lunch nor any money as they know the school are compelled to feed the kids. This practice is already costing schools/tax payers a fair amount and it doesn't show any signs of slowing.

Can't the parents starve instead in order to feed the children?

Put it this way fasting is good for the parents ... adult should eat less after all they have stopped growing and [u][b]the only growing adult do is side ways[/b][/u].

Try it and see the difference.

I blame the parents for eating the children's share of food ... nom nom nom ...
[b]
Parents please eat less and think of the children.[/b]

If parents find it difficult then they are really eating way too much ...

😆