Free School Meals for 5-7 years old - A brave move or just another bribe? [Merged Thread]

[Indy]

Why should my taxes be spent on feeding someone elses kids or even worse potentially a Palace fans kids?

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Rubbish idea. Those who don't have any need for it whatsoever will still receive it, while a fair proportion of those who are eligible won't want to eat it anyway (school dinners have been on the decline for years as more kids take packed lunches). Clearly the "parents of small children" vote is proving crucial for the next election if this sort of crap is what's being put forward.

 

[Beach Hut]

Clearly the "parents of small children" vote is proving crucial for the next election if this sort of crap is what's being put forward.

There will be loads of touchy feely family type things as many had the child allowance withdrawn.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Why should my taxes be spent on feeding someone elses kids or even worse potentially a Palace fans kids?

You can't blame the kids for the sins of the parents

 

[BensGrandad]

Why should my taxes be spent on feeding someone elses kids or even worse potentially a Palace fans kids?

If they reduced or stopped the increase in benefits you and other tax payers would be better off.

 

[El Sid]

Rubbish idea. Those who don't have any need for it whatsoever will still receive it, while a fair proportion of those who are eligible won't want to eat it anyway (school dinners have been on the decline for years as more kids take packed lunches). Clearly the "parents of small children" vote is proving crucial for the next election if this sort of crap is what's being put forward.

Giving children a hot school meal at an early age is not a rubbish idea. Apart from the nutritional aspect it's quite a good idea to get kids sitting at a table using a knife and fork.
It would be a good idea for Cleggy and that tory geezer to collect the billions of unpaid corporation tax to pay for the meals instead of reducing child benefit.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Even when I was a child the family allowance enabled my dad to play darts on a Tuesday night as he was paid every Thursday night/Friday morning but I must admit it didnt stop me being fed good wholesome food. Times however have changed and I dont think there is as much put onto children of saying you must eat greens and other vegetables. Obviously it is an individual thing in each family but as an overall view I think that is correct and has been duly emphasized by Jamie Oliver.

When you were a child it was tax relief rather than family allowance. It was changed to child allowance that was collected from the post office so that the wives actually got the money, rather than rely on housekeeping from the wage earner. It wasn't given for the first child for many years.

 

[BensGrandad]

When you were a child it was tax relief rather than family allowance. It was changed to child allowance that was collected from the post office so that the wives actually got the money, rather than rely on housekeeping from the wage earner. It wasn't given for the first child for many years.

You are partly right in that it was paid to the mother to collect but it was set against the mans tax. I know this to be correct because many years ago I attended a county court as I was interested in the legal side of things and my mother wanted me to become a solicitor. At that hearing when giving her income a wife included her 2s 6p child allowance and the judge told her it was paid to her but it was her husbands as it was set against his tax so couldnt be included in her income.

This wasnt payable for the first child. When my children were young it was 7s 6d for our 2nd son.

 

[somerset]

Re: At last

Rubbish idea. Those who don't have any need for it whatsoever will still receive it, while a fair proportion of those who are eligible won't want to eat it anyway (school dinners have been on the decline for years as more kids take packed lunches). Clearly the "parents of small children" vote is proving crucial for the next election if this sort of crap is what's being put forward.

Its for five to seven year olds, those kids will eat together as classes, , and you cant apply cosseted leafy Sussex standards to discussions like this......in vast tracts of this country, parents ideas of a hot meal is a pot noodle, and a packed lunch is a packet of Wotsits and a chocolate bar.......this is a superb idea for those kids to have a great introduction to healthy food, dining rules, and general socialising....its a win win.

 

[Don Quixote]

It is only for infants so reception to year two, not for all primary school children.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Re: At last

it's quite a good idea to get kids sitting at a table using a knife and fork.

It's also a xxxxing brilliant idea that parents should take some responsibility for THEIR offspring, a child at school should have already been taught to use children's cutlery.

 

[somerset]

Re: At last

It's also a xxxxing brilliant idea that parents should take some responsibility for THEIR offspring, a child at school should have already been taught to use children's cutlery.

Meanwhile in the real world......

 

[wellquickwoody]

Re: At last

...its a win win.

It is if you are currently a parent of children of the ages affected.

As one parent said on BBC news, 'It's good that its' someink else that parents don't aff to pay for'.

No, just another thing that I have to pay for.

 

[The Large One]

Its for five to seven year olds, those kids will eat together as classes, , and you cant apply cosseted leafy Sussex standards to discussions like this......in vast tracts of this country, parents ideas of a hot meal is a pot noodle, and a packed lunch is a packet of Wotsits and a chocolate bar.......this is a superb idea for those kids to have a great introduction to healthy food, dining rules, and general socialising....its a win win.

On the face of it, it is an excellent idea.

It does seek to presume however that there is a minimum quality threshold within school dinners which is not interfered with by the fact that schools have to find their lowest-cost caterer. As long as a good standard is offered, I can't see the issue.

Taking more money from hard-up people to pay for it is a trick George Osborne would love to pull though.

 

[The Large One]

It is if you are currently a parent of children of the ages affected.

As one parent said on BBC news, 'It's good that its' someink else that parents don't aff to pay for'.

No, just another thing that I have to pay for.

Personally, I think it's excellent that children are offered the opportunity to have something which will improve their health, their education and the behaviour.

It makes for a better society in later years if a child is offered a good start.

 

[yxee]

Sorry, why is he doing this? Was it part of his mandate? Did anyone vote on this?

Absolute nonsense, this isn't democracy, this is a hollow man doing whatever he can to boost eligibility for 2015.

It makes for a better society in later years if a child is offered a good start.

The presumption being that a good start is only possible when the state controls your child's dietary intake.

 

[Dick Head]

If Nick Clegg is promising to abolish school dinner fees they will probably end up trebling.

 

[El Presidente]

At last

It's a political, rather than educational, decision.

There are many families who genuinely struggle to pay for school meals because they are just above the benefits threshold, so this is genuinely excellent for them.

However it is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Gove judges all other school budgetary requests by demanding evidence that they improve grades, there is little evidence to support this decision.

Meanwhile his decision to quietly drop the 30 kids in a class limit for primary schools goes unnoticed.

 

[somerset]

Re: At last

It's a political, rather than educational, decision.

.

Its a bit of both, but undoubtedly the benefits are all social....and I welcome that.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Personally, I think it's excellent that children are offered the opportunity to have something which will improve their health, their education and the behaviour.

It makes for a better society in later years if a child is offered a good start.

While I understand where you're coming from, if anybody seriously thinks that offering five year olds spaghetti bolognese and salmon cous cous every lunchtime rather than the Dairylea sandwiches that lazy mummy normally lobs in a lunchbox is going to make the slightest difference to our society, then you are truly deluded.

The ones who get given the crap food by Mummy anyway will continue to demand the crap food and turn their noses up at Jamie Oliver-style offerings, while the kids from the more privileged backgrounds will find that the mass-produced stuff that schools turn out is not remotely up to the Waitrose-sourced organic meals they get at home...yes, alright, I'm generalising a tad, but let's face it, kids are often fussy.

I could have had school dinners when I was that age if I'd asked for them: I chose not to, as I didn't like the food much. What's changed thirty years on (except there is a greater variety of instant-gratification junk food around to tempt juvenile palates away from cooked meals)? In terms of health, one decent meal a day will make sod all difference to the children this is aimed at, because they will continue to eat sugary cereals for breakfast, Birds Eye Potato Waffles and fish fingers for dinner, with a bag of Monster Munch and a packet of Skittles in between, all washed down with Coke and Kia-Ora.

It's a shameless publicity stunt that will have little or no impact on people's real lives, but might win a few votes from people who realise it will save them £500 a year on meals their kids would have eaten anyway. Or that they would have spent on Monster Munch. Utter waste of money.