You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Has anyone blamed Thatcher for the poor diet of today's yoof yet?
She was responsible for me changing to packed lunches!
If I could choose where my taxes went I'd put them towards educating petty minded ignorant tossers about compassion.
Given I'm not a petty minded ignorant tosser, and neither is any of my family, I object to my taxes being spent in that way.
"Its not the kids fault though, is it? They didn't asked to be born into that, did they? And I'd question your assumption that anyone who can't supply their kids with decent lunches everyday is automatically ****less. Maybe they're just genuinely poor?"
Yeah....and under the current scheme they qualify for free school meals. So your point is?
They reckon up to half of the kids eligible for free school meals never claim them due to the stigma. The guy on 5 Live this morning from Cumbria said their rate was 40%
This removes that stigma. That was my point. Yours?
Yeah....and under the current scheme they qualify for free school meals. So your point is?
Not everyone who is poor qualifies and not everyone who is poor claims them.
Junkyard has mad some valid points
Mad ...mad I was livid 😉
binners - Member
They reckon up to half of the kids eligible for free school meals never claim them due to the stigma
Do they get free trips to the opticians to sort that out too? I bloody well hope so. 😉
They do, but their ****less parents just strap the bottom of 2 jam jars together and gaffer tape them to their faces instead
Do primary schools all operate differently with regard paying for school meals? There is no way in my kids school you could know who was on free meals unless the kids told their mates .
Your whole argument is based on the premise that people who are too poor to be able to feed their kids should get some assistance from the government in the form of free school meals. They do, so why do we need to extend it to now be everybody's children?
If people are too ****less to accept free food due to some 'stigma' why should every tax payer in Britain have to fund that. If they're truly poor and hungry they will eat whatever you put in front of them for free.
Can't comment on the "not everybody who's poor gets them" as I have no experience and am unwilling to go digging around to find out for myself. If you chose not to accept help your eligible for that is entirely up to you as an individual. All I can say is that, as above, if you really need it you will get it under the current system.
Can't see any reason to change.
Stigma? Maybe they feel responsible for feeding their own kids. Not all poor are ****less (as as been pointed out before).
Can't comment on the "not everybody who's poor gets them" as I have no experience and am unwilling to go digging around to find out for myself
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/aug/17/food-banks-inquiries-poverty-cuts-wages ]Your compassion is truly humbling[/url]
Can't comment on the "not everybody who's poor gets them" as I have no experience
Thankfully no experience is no bar to expressing an opinion on a subject
and am unwilling to go digging around to find out for myself.
I know who wants to be informed when having a debate
I salute you
Your whole argument is based on the premise that people who are too poor to be able to feed their kids should get some assistance from the government in the form of free school meals. They do, so why do we need to extend it to now be everybody's children?If people are too ****less to accept free food due to some 'stigma' why should every tax payer in Britain have to fund that. If they're truly poor and hungry they will eat whatever you put in front of them for free.
Can't comment on the "not everybody who's poor gets them" as I have no experience and am unwilling to go digging around to find out for myself. If you chose not to accept help your eligible for that is entirely up to you as an individual. All I can say is that, as above, if you really need it you will get it under the current system.
Can't see any reason to change.
Trans: I'm alright jack.
If you chose not to accept help your eligible for that is entirely up to you as an individual. All I can say is that, as above, if you really need it you will get it under the current system.
Wasn't this argument used in support of the old Work Houses? No stigma attached to them either right?
Again the argument is if people can afford to feed their kids why should they be subsidised by others? The point that they are our future is irrelevant, again I'm all for subsidises meals for kids with parent's that can't afford them but not for those that can - kids of wealthy parents aren't going to starve to death (so they remain our future) if I'm not subsidising them it just means their parents might have to cut back on their own luxuries (holidays, bottles of wine, whatever). And where does it stop? If supporting kids of middle-class families is so important to all of our futures then maybe we should be paying for all their meals not just when they're at school?
To put some perspective on the £600 million figure, we already pay [url= http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/house-commons-lords-food-drink-2163757 ]£7.2 million a year[/url] to help feed another terribly disadvantaged section of society. I don't know whether withdrawing this would adversely effect their attention spans, and make them more disruptive
As you can probably tell....I think the proposed changes are ridiculous. As I see it:
Now:
if you're too poor to feed your kids, you will get free school meals provided. If there are problems with the criteria in order to become eligible that's a different argument and a revamp of the benefits system is a different topic and one that looks likely.
Proposed:
everybody gets school meals for free. We all pay for it from our taxes.
I just don't see why we're spending money to provide meals for kids who's parents can afford it?
Your argument about work houses is just silly, for one thing living and working in a house 24 hours a day is in no way comparable to one meal.....and going by the propositions of others ^^^ the workhouse should be made compulsory across the board for everyone - sounds very 1984ish.
What happens when the kids reach 8 years old?
He he, RE: the workhouse, okay I was being flippant. Your way with words just made me think of that!
I kind of agree about the why pay for the meals of those parents who can afford it, but that's simplifying it too much. The current system doesn't work, the stigma of free school meals is too great to overide the need. I'm not talking about starvation here, just food enough to function well. Obviously people will do anything when at starvation level, we are no where near that level in 99% of cases.
So the system needs to change to ensure that those who aren't getting what they need, do. If that means free school meals for all, then so be it. When you look at the sums involved compared to other areas it's really pocket momey.
I don't get the stigma thing in primary schools how do the kids know who get free school meals?
If there are problems with the criteria in order to become eligible that's a different argument and a revamp of the benefits system is a different topic and one that looks likely.
Indeed. The government is very keen on revamping the benefits system. You may have noticed that Ian Duncan Smith and George Osbourne have an almost missionary zeal to make the benefit system far more inclusive and generous, to ensure that the poor are able to feed their kids, and live a life in dignity.
They're equally as determined, bordering on evangelical, to make sure all employers pay a living wage, so the working poor don't end up living in poverty too.
I'm not so convinced that the stigma is anything to do with them being free.
When I was at primary school my parents would insist on me having school dinners. Most of my mates would come in with their packed lunches and would start them as soon as the bell went and would be out playing 10 mins later....we got corralled into the dinning room and it took the best part of 45 mins before we were finished what was not fantastic food (still can't eat shortbread and custard to this day because of it!). I used to hate it and always wished I was allowed to take a packed lunch and get a longer time playing.
And, as far as I know....no body got free meals in our school so it had nothing to do with how they were funded.
lastuphills - Member
I don't get the stigma thing in primary schools how do the kids know who get free school meals?
At my son's school you have to bring money in each day (in little brown envelopes) you want school lunch and give it to the teacher first thing. It doesn't take a genius to work out that some kids have school lunch but don't ever hand in envelopes. My son noticed last year when he was 4 and asked why.
Again the argument is if people can afford to feed their kids why should they be subsidised by others?
If people can afford their own healthcare, why should they be subsidized by others?
At my son's school you have to bring money in each day (in little brown envelopes) you want school lunch and give it to the teacher first thing. It doesn't take a genius to work out that some kids have school lunch but don't ever hand in envelopes. My son noticed last year when he was 4 and asked why.
I would call that poor practice by the school.
At our lads school money is sent in weekly/monthly/termly (up to you) and the kids has an account they can draw on for their meal. No-one ever gets to know who actually puts the money in the account be it parent, LEA or little green man.
just don't see why we're spending money to provide meals for kids who's parents can afford it?
You could just as easily say the same thing for education or healthcare or any number of 'free' services. What about the other end of the scale, the people who send their children to private school and use private healthcare, should they get a tax break?
I think the naysayers labouring the point about free school meals being available already are missing one of the fundamental points. There are lots of people who provide their childrens with meals who don't qualify for free meals. Unfortunately what some of them provide is rubbish, Waitrose sells unhealthy food as well as Lidl, it is these children that the proposed scheme will help.
There are lots of people who provide their childrens with meals who don't qualify for free meals. Unfortunately what some of them provide is rubbish, Waitrose sells unhealthy food as well as Lidl, it is these children that the proposed scheme will help.
And a lot of schools provide poor food too despite that celebrity chefs efforts.
But we aren't discussing education or healthcare are we?
aye poor practice by the school at my kids school the parents pay at reception so the kids dont even know if they get free meals or not
oliwb - you make an interesting point there, as I always had packed lunches for the reason that I could get more football time in. So it makes you wonder if the alleged improvement in food with school dinners, will lead to a drop in active playtime.
It might explain partly why the pilot study saw now change in the BMI of the kids (although I'm not convinced the study looked into BMI thoroughly enough for it to be totally meaningful).
So the 'stigma' argument in the extended provision model for primary schools is a red herring then?
But we aren't discussing education or healthcare are we?
We're discussing why people might receive a subsidy for a service, regardless of whether or not they can afford it.
Lets just introduce communism as that works so well...
No, not a red herring - if everyone was forced to do the same then there would be equality. But making school meals compulsory doesn't automatically mean you have to make them free for everyone. Although, if I were a parent affected by this I would be a bit miffed that I didn't get the choice.....again, another discussion.
Nobody is proposing making anything compulsory. What do you think they're going to do? March kids into canteens at gun point and force feed them like Bobby Sands?
if everyone was forced to do the same then there would be equality
You are Chairman Mao and I claim my Little red book
As for forced I assume they cannot force you to have the meal.
The cooks are going to be annoyed doing one vegan meal per day for my kid - current vegan options per week equals nill.
I bet on chips and salad every day with some fizzy pop so thanks for improving his diet Nick Gawd bless yah
Still think its a good idea
Oliwb...maybe I'm not getting the gist of your post, the extended provision model was one where the criteria for 'free school meals' was relaxed to allow more kids to qualify for them but not the free for all model that is being introduced. If I'm remembering correctly the study report said there was not a big increase in those who now qualified taking them up due to the stigma and parents not being aware. I was just wondering if at primary school level the stigma thing is a red herring.
Back a few pages....can't remember who posted but there were a few suggestions to make it compulsory across the board to deal with the stigma (think maybe page 6 or 7?).
'Extended provision' seems like a good idea - neatly deals with the not everyone who is poor qualifies angle. Again, fundamentally I (and others who have replied) don't have an issue with funding school meals to those kids who need them. It's just the one's who could afford to pay that should continue to do so.
The education, healthcare etc that keeps getting brought up is a silly argument. As others have said, you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. God bless the UK for believing that people should have the right to decent free healthcare and free-ish education. The opposite argument can be applied though that everyone should be provided for to exactly the same degree across the board regardless of wealth....sounding very Orwell-esque again.
Like it or not, a line needs to exist. All I'm saying is that currently / with extended provision it appears to me that those that need get and those that can afford can buy. It's nice to live in the UK where you have that option. Just seems like a waste of money to provide free meals for everyone 5, 6 & 7 when some of them will get anyway by virtue of affluence. Also, I totally agree that we waste a heck of a lot of money on crap (nuclear deterrent, MP's drinking habits etc) and that I'd be much more supportive of free meals than a 3rd runway or whatever....but that's not what is being discussed is it?
The education, healthcare etc that keeps getting brought up is a silly argument. As others have said, you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere.
You are contradicting yourself. If you believe that one should draw the line at some arbitrary point, then there is no overriding principle for arguing that meals shouldn't be provided.
The opposite argument can be applied though that everyone should be provided for to exactly the same degree across the board regardless of wealth....sounding very Orwell-esque again.
Have you actually read Orwell? What you are describing is in fact more akin to social provision in the Scandinavian countries. Not exactly dystopian nightmares of state oppression, are they?
You are contradicting yourself. If you believe that one should draw the line at some arbitrary point, then there is no overriding principle for arguing that meals shouldn't be provided.
There is. If you have to borrow money to pay for them, which is the case now. That should be an overriding principle for all new spend.
Oliwb... On page 2 I asked a question why a scheme of extended provision would not work, but a bit like what they did with child allowance....you automatically get free meals but if you earn over x amount (or if you would rather your kids take a packed lunch for that matter) you opt out of the free meals.
Someone posted the report that (if my memory serves me correctly) said the extended provision (an opt in scheme) did not work because of the stigma and parents not knowing about it. So if it was an opt out thing, that would remove the parents not knowing about it thing and if the stigma issue can be 'managed' out by paying at a reception (or something similar).
Does it all come down to the cost of implementing the scheme? And the free for all is actually cheaper to implement
There is. If you have to borrow money to pay for them, which is the case now. That should be an overriding principle for all new spend.
No it shouldn't. The benefits of a particular state service may outweigh the costs of its provision. Those benefits could be financial or social.
Each case should be considered on its own merits.
The social impact of use being unable to pay the interest on our debt will be pretty spectacular.
5thElefant - Member
All new expenditure is funded through yet more borrowing.
Untrue. We really would be in the *^#@ if that were the case.
Junkyard - lazarus
I dont think crippling the economy and high unemployment due to severe cuts is the panacea you seem to think it is.
Which is why I find your support for fixed exchange rates so odd - forced wage deflation and high unemployment are a unavoidable consequence. Why would anyone with an interest in workers' rights want that? Very odd.
I am really finding some of this incredibly humorous... The general argument which seems to be based on '"not subsidising the rich" is a real belter. No one will be subsidising the rich. The people with real wealth don't educate children at state schools so won't qualify. The current taxation system taxes most people based on earnings (PAYE at least) so people paying more tax are paying more in so they are not getting a free ride at all.
I have nothing to gain from this personally - mine will all be too old to qualify.
The social impact of use being unable to pay the interest on our debt will be pretty spectacular.
Free school meals are loose change. I suspect they're not going to tip us over the edge.
Are you aware that in Norway, funded nursery care pays for itself?
There is. If you have to borrow money to pay for them, which is the case now. That should be an overriding principle for all new spend.
That would be why all commercial investment decisions are made based on 'hard' (financial) benefits then. Or maybe not...!
Untrue. We really would be in the *^#@ if that were the case.
How is this untrue?
We take in less in tax than is spent.
If we find something new to spend money on how could it possibly be funded by anything but borrowing?
And yes, we really are in the *^#@.
That would be why all commercial investment decisions are made based on 'hard' (financial) benefits then. Or maybe not...!
Investments make a return. This isn't an investment, it's a cost.
The Torygraph, of all places, provides a good justification and from an intersting source
Cleggie must be happy - 11 pages on a Lib Dem proposal. Is that a first?
5thE - pause a second. All new expenditure is not paid for out of borrowing.
The fact that spending exceeds revenue (tax) does not make your statement true. It isn't.
Investments make a return. This isn't an investment, it's a cost.
A number of potential benefits have been advanced, including improved educational attainment. I'd call that a worthwhile return.
5thE - pause a second. All new expenditure is not paid for out of borrowing.The fact that spending exceeds revenue (tax) does not make your statement true. It isn't.
Presumably you're implying a cut is made elsewhere to 'fund' it. As you had to borrow to pay for that, then you've just transferred the borrowed money elsewhere. You're still borrowing. The national debt still goes up.
No I am not, although it may well be the case that the £600m is taken from another part of the budget. But that is yet another story still. Your basic premise that all new expenditure if financed through yet more borrowing is simply untrue. That's why I am saying, pause a second, since you are merely weakening the point your are trying to make.
This thread is ace... 240 000 pages about something that will not happen!
Which is why I find your support for fixed exchange rates so odd
Not sure why you think i am in favour of fixed exchange rates as it is not an issue that I
a)Know very much about
b) Care very much about
Not sure how you have shoe horned that into this debate but you have clearly given it more though than I have.
I suspect some EU debate? was it in relation to the Euro zone only?
TBH I know next to nothing about exchange rates and their effects.
Are you aware that in Norway, funded nursery care pays for itself?
Oh for ****'s sake don't throw that in. The Daily Heil lot will consume themselves in a sea of frothing rage and anger. 👿
You know some of the logic being applied in this thread really is quite odd. Apparently those of us who think that making these meals compulsory, and free to those who can't afford it, are simultaneously communist and daily mail readers. Apparently it's fine if these meals are free as they will improve the educational achievement of the kids, but if you make it compulsory that's wrong inspire if the fact that it will self evidently improve the educational achievements of more kids. Apparently compulsory things are bad, in spite of the large number of things that are compulsory in schools like uniforms and attendance (well assuming the parents have decided to use the public education system. I was also under the impression that feeding your children was generally considered to be compulsory, but then I'm not a parent.
What I have learned is to not underestimate the sense of entitlement of some parents.
I think many have missed the point about why this policy is being introduced.It's not just about helping the poor or avoiding the stigma of free school meals and the susbequent lack of uptake.It's about improving the diet of as many children as possible at a crucial stage in their development by providing a healthy nutritious meal.Inculating good eating habits at an early age has multiple benefits as any responsible parent and stacks of published research can tell you.And it's not just the poor and/or kids who currently qualify for free school meals who eat junk food or have a poor diet.The nation already has a health time bomb caused by poor dietary habits.This measure is a step in the right direction.
I still hate the LibDems and after all the talk over the summer about Labour and Ed and lack of policy and direction why on earth did they not suggest this first?
As others have said, you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere.
You're talking about extending the things the poor get on a means tested basis to the whole of the population (ie universal benefits)? In which case, why do you have to draw a line in the sand?
after all the talk over the summer about Labour and Ed and lack of policy and direction why on earth did they not suggest this first?
Haven't you just answered your own question?
after all the talk over the summer about Labour and Ed and lack of policy and direction why on earth did they not suggest this first?Haven't you just answered your own question?
Indeed.
Labour appear bankrupt of ideas or too paralysed by fear to advocate such "radical" policies.
The opposition, whether lab or Tory, never comes up with ideas until just before an election or the government would nick all the good ideas from them.
Miliband does seem spectacularly inept and bereft of ideas though