Yet another £600 million down the drain

Loughton_Monkey

Late news on the free school meal menu:

First Course:

• Ming Campbell's soup
• Mock Exam soup.
• Taxpayer fritters

Main Course:

• HTB Cottage Pie
• Green Party Salad
• Complete Pollocks with white sauce (choice of black, brown, or yellow)
• Total hash potatoes

Pudding:

• Cleggie Cobblers
• Liberal Fool
• Political Crêpe
• Vince Pies [Christmas only]

To drink:

• Complete Horlicks with rich tea biscuits [means tested]

ruggedtoast

They were talking about this on the radio yesterday afternoon. Playing devils advocate the presenter asked the government spokesman whether wealthy pensioners without children might not be angered at having to pay for free school meals for infants.

The spokesman replied that he doubted even this group would be so stingy, hard hearted and mean as to begrudge food for under 8s.

Apparently he was wrong.

How fortunate government policy doesnt seem to be dictated by the popular consensus of misanthropy found on this forum.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

I don't have children (and am unlikely ever to), and I'm never ill. I certainly don't begrudge my taxes funding education and hospitals though. Why would I want to live in a society that isn't healthy and intelligent?

lazer

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

I think it's a good idea. There is evidence that universal benefits are cheaper and easier to administer than means tested. There is clear evidence from the pilot scheme that children all fed like this improved academically. Apparently in France children all eat decent quality school lunches, with just fresh water to drink, sitting at tables, supervised to ensure manners. Eating well and sociably therefore becomes the norm.

We all pay taxes to fund universal free education, surely we want to get the best value out of that? If all pupils have had a decent meal (and learn some table manners) it makes life much easier for teachers and we will all benefit in the end.

The Tory marriage tax thing is a nonsense from my point of view. I'm happy to subsidise the educational well being of those who will be paying my pension, but don't see why I should fund smug marrieds. It really is rubbish being single in this country.

You are not even if this does come in - the smug married are subsidising the single people. There is double standards in the taxation and benefits system - you are taxed on individual income but benefits are given on joint income. The marriage tax break (Which IMO should be applied to anyone living together as a couple - not just married) goes a very small way towards addressing this.

2 umemplyed single people in a house share would get £71 each in JSA (£142), 2 unemployed people living together as a couple would get the couples rate JSA - £112.

the_flying_pig

generally i don't like the suggestion much. i thought we were moving away from 'benefits for all', i thought that was specifically a libdem thing.

i'd prefer to see the cash spent on ensuring that 'breakfast clubs', free for the poorest kids, were running.

wotsthat wrote: »

My daughter's school (normal secondary school) work on a thumbprint scanner...

i really like the sound of that for some reason. like being in the Jetsons or summat.

wotsthat wrote: »

...I was a free school meals kid at various times - we had to line up in a separate queue!

yeah, i got them briefly at primary school, but there was no visibility there because there was no menu choice & all food was paid for in advance. secondary school was different but thankfully my dad was in work by then.

Perelandra

Ridiculous.

Benefits should be there, yes, but for people who need them- not for people who don't.

michaels

At my DKs school you can tell who gets the free meals as they continue to take them 5 days a week as they get older. I think on average the food quality is as good as or better than most of the sandwich lunches; even with lunch box police many families have a strange idea of what makes a healthy balanced meal. However it is definitely cheaper to do a 'home made' packed lunch than pay for the dinners - perhaps giving meals for all under 8s will help with economies of scale?

michaels

Perelandra wrote: »

Ridiculous.

Benefits should be there, yes, but for people who need them- not for people who don't.

More and more I think a model of 'minimal' universal 'benefits' works much better - admin costs are negligible and you don't get the silly withdrawal rates that mean that work doesn't pay for those not earning huge salaries.

Graham_Devon

I'm on the fence with this one. I stand to gain from it. But as an overall policy I see the £600m spent on this scheme as a nicety that wasn't required.

IF this scheme were being paid for our of reserve monies, then I'd be all for it. It's a good use of £600m, in terms of what that £600m returns.

However, I would assume it's just adding to the national debt, and therefore, it turns into a bit of a nicety that's not really required.

On the other hand, I look at £600m which will all go towards child development and then look at the collosal amount of money handed out elsewhere....and to be honest, £600m doesn't sound like much if we are going to continue with the wastage elsewhere.

CLAPTON

We got to the current benefits system by relatively small increments, all of which seemed like good ideas at the time.

who can really begrudge young children a square meal
or begrudge old people help to keep warm
or a free bus pass

or.........