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

[Kumquat]

Agreed. Though this has a title that is quite obvious whereas the other one could be about literally anything.

I thought we'd signed a striker when I saw it................

 

[Albumen]

Clegg always delivers and has never gone against his word by being happily buggered by his opposition. Never. He'll be forgotten very soon.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Class or income doesn't define how good a meal a parent is capable of producing so narrowing it down to those types of sterotypes is pointless. I've seen some horrific packed lunches in private schools where quite clearly the parents have more money than intelligence.

Income should do because you can afford better ingredients. There are various data out there suggesting that obesity is not just linked to class or income and yet it has been part of poverty measurement in the past. You get fat middle class kids and well fed working class ones. I haven't actually said anything different. You and TLO have just read a two line post wearing blinkers.

The point is that feeding kids of any class should be the parent's responsibility not the schools. All this new initiative is is a financial incentive that GOES AWAY at the age of 8 at which stage the parent of whichever class is still unable to feed their child correctly. We are chucking tax payers money at a bribe rather than a solution.

And yes it is a tax break for the middle classes. If you can afford school meals then you should pay for them.

 

[The Large One]

Income should do because you can afford better ingredients. There are various data out there suggesting that obesity is not just linked to class or income and yet it has been part of poverty measurement in the past. You get fat middle class kids and well fed working class ones. I haven't actually said anything different. You and TLO have just read read a two line post wearing blinkers.

You actually said 'Rather than giving free food to the middle classes how about we spend the money educating parents about food and nutrition?'

As a solution to your above point, how about both?

The point is that feeding kids of any class should be the parent's responsibility not the schools. All this new initiative is is a financial incentive that GOES AWAY at the age of 8 age which stage the parent of whichever class is still unable to feed their child correctly. We are chucking tax payers money at a bribe rather than a solution.

Yes, feeding a child well is the parents' responsibility, but when that falls down - for whatever reason - there is a mechanism in place to ensure the school does. What is wrong with that? Any school has a duty of care, so when a parent is failing their child in on nutritional issues, you can't be so dismissive to say the school has no responsibility; of course it does.

Added to this, education can be provided to children and parents at the same time.

Do you honestly believe this will buy any votes? I mean... really?

No blinkers here - my eyes are wide open to the possibilities of improved children's welfare.

 

[MissGull]

Will this be means tested, because I'm not sure about subsidising wealthy families whose kids eat better than the Queen.

 

[chimneys]

Will this be means tested, because I'm not sure about subsidising wealthy families whose kids eat better than the Queen.

Oh do please pay attention! Its free school meals for ALL school kids in years Reception, 1 and 2 as opposed to the current means testing.

 

[BigGully]

Oh do please pay attention! Its free school meals for ALL school kids in years Reception, 1 and 2 as opposed to the current means testing.

Isnt that her point

 

[Guinness Boy]

Isnt that her point

It's certainly one of mine.

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

Do they still do custard with a really thick skin on top?

 

[Guinness Boy]

You actually said 'Rather than giving free food to the middle classes how about we spend the money educating parents about food and nutrition?'

As a solution to your above point, how about both?

Because it would cost even more and there is already no new budget for this change.

Yes, feeding a child well is the parents' responsibility, but when that falls down - for whatever reason - there is a mechanism in place to ensure the school does. What is wrong with that? Any school has a duty of care, so when a parent is failing their child in on nutritional issues, you can't be so dismissive to say the school has no responsibility; of course it does.

But that mechanism only lasts three years under these proposals. At an all through primary the safety net is whipped away half way through.

Do you honestly believe this will buy any votes? I mean... really?

Of course not. It's not bribing people in to voting Lib Dem that I meant. It's bribing people to use school dinners instead of packed lunches. Dinner that are - incidentally - not actually that high quality. As an example my son last year moved from school dinners to packed lunches because he was being fed shoddy quality ingredients that were cooked at another school and then microwaved. I feel I'm retyping my blog post from this morning but clearly you're going to misconstrue any short answers.

 

[beorhthelm]

Do you honestly believe this will buy any votes? I mean... really?

considering that some people still bleat on about someone removing free milk over 40 years ago, then yes it might. at least it must be part of Clegg's calculation, why else extend to everyone a benefit that is already available to the poor?

 

[BigGully]

I think you are mistaking the poor with those on benefits .......

 

[Guy Fawkes]

I have been saying this for years but at long last Nick Clegg has said that his party are going to give a free hot meal everyday to all primary school children. The cost wll be £600m but I think that this should be partly deducted from child benefit paid and ensures that every child has a hot meal rather than the money be spent down the pub or in the bookies.

So much for the thought that families may want to sit down together after work / school and eat a cooked (possibly healthy) meal together as a family and the benefits that may bring, instead you could end up with kids eating a sandwich in front of the tv with no social interaction between family members.

Is that better? - Shouldn't it be a choice of the families rather than a blanket policy paid for by tax payers? If families want their kids to eat a hot meal at school, wouldn't it better to ensure that these meals were healthy for those who choose this option rather than tar everyone with the same brush as 'the only way kids will eat a healthy hot meal is if the state provides it'

 

[Billy the Fish]

This thread is classic NSC - jumping to conclusions, extreme scenarios, bullsh*t and counter-bullsh*t!

 

[Pevenseagull]

they could start by giving them their milk back.

 

[MissGull]

I've not read a lot into this, but I absolutely don't agree that tax payers who struggle to eat themselves should be paying for rich kids to get free school dinners, and in the same vein to subsidise the 'full time' parents (unemployed) who breed lots of kids and live off the state and see nothing wrong with this, and chose to spend their benefits on fags and nights in the pub and whatever.

Im not personally struggling to eat, but can I have free lunches at work?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I've not read a lot into this, but I absolutely don't agree that tax payers who struggle to eat themselves should be paying for rich kids to get free school dinners, and in the same vein to subsidise the 'full time' parents (unemployed) who breed lots of kids and live off the state and see nothing wrong with this, and chose to spend their benefits on fags and nights in the pub and whatever.

Im not personally struggling to eat, but can I have free lunches at work?

Tax payers who struggle to eat themselves pay very little tax, so therefore wouldn't be subsidising much.
Parents who live off the state can already claim free school meals.
The vast majority of people who receive benefits are pensioners and working parents.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

So much for the thought that families may want to sit down together after work / school and eat a cooked (possibly healthy) meal together as a family and the benefits that may bring, instead you could end up with kids eating a sandwich in front of the tv with no social interaction between family members.

I'm not sure that would happen. If a family stills down now to a cooked meal I'd suggest they still will still do so. My youngest would qualify for these meals if they were in place now and at weekends he easily eats a cooked lunch and cooked dinner because of all the energy he expends ( and no he's not obese ).

 

[El Presidente]

At last

My other half is a school head and she thinks it is a crazy decision. It is not targeting those poor families who need the most help with their children.

 

[somerset]

Re: At last

Will this be means tested, because I'm not sure about subsidising wealthy families whose kids eat better than the Queen.

Christ almighty.....maybe there should be a minimum IQ test level as a pre req to being able to post on nsc....this comment of yours would automatically lead to disqualification.