Yet another £600 million down the drain

CLAPTON

Niv wrote: »

The 20% figure is based on a comparison with another school not the same kids. i.e. school A has free meals for all, school B has free school meals for some (the current system) with paid meals for those that choose and packed lunches for the rest / no food (seems to be the general perception that kids are not eating). So the results from school A and B were compared adn the results at school A wer +20%, so the conclusion was that the only difference between the schools was free meals for all therefore that was responsible for the improvement.

In reality it is not 1 school compared to 1 school it is a group of schools compared with a group of schools but I hope you get what I mena.

Niv

that's not how I read it but it was in a newspaper so one can't expect too much

and what was 20% of ...

and one wonders if we did it for 7-11 years old would that show 20% more so we are now 40% better and maybe do it for secondary school and they would all be say 100% better


do you have a reference to the original work?

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

It's a waste of public money. Wasting money on other crap doesn't make it otherwise.

However did we manage before politicians decided they were experts on all aspects of life?

I don't share your view.

As stated, I'm on the fence. I can see why people would think it's a waste of money, but then I wonder why they don't get equally upset about the colossal waste of money on winter fuel allowance etc.

If the evidence suggests, as it does, there is an improvement, then it can't be classed as a waste of money.

Whether the improvement is a good return for the money is another matter. But to state categorically that it's a waste suggests you are not willing to look any further and have made up your mind. That's not really debating, it's brick wall stuff.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As stated, I'm on the fence. I can see why people would think it's a waste of money, but then I wonder why they don't get equally upset about the colossal waste of money on winter fuel allowance etc.

If the evidence suggests, as it does, there is an improvement, then it can't be classed as a waste of money.

Whether the improvement is a good return for the money is another matter. But to state categorically that it's a waste suggests you are not willing to look any further and have made up your mind. That's not really debating, it's brick wall stuff.

I have an issue with the principle of providing benefits to people that don't need them and have a view that it's a parents responsibility, rather than Nick Clegg's, to ensure their kids are properly fed.

If some poor kid has a parent with sufficient money but doesn't feed them then providing a free school meal will treat the symptom but doesn't really address the root cause of the problem.

I'm also reasonably consistent about government waste of money and currently write to my council 3 times each year to point out where they've wasted money after studying their supplier payments spreadsheet (all councils publish this). I'd write more often but, for some reason, they treat each 'top tip' as a freedom of information request and say it's cost £250 to process.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

I have an issue with the principle of providing benefits to people that don't need them and have a view that it's a parents responsibility, rather than Nick Clegg's, to ensure their kids are properly fed.

If some poor kid has a parent with sufficient money but doesn't feed them then providing a free school meal will treat the symptom but doesn't really address the root cause of the problem.

I'm also reasonably consistent about government waste of money and currently write to my council 3 times each year to point out where they've wasted money after studying their supplier payments spreadsheet (all councils publish this). I'd write more often but, for some reason, they treat each 'top tip' as a freedom of information request and say it's cost £250 to process.

So what about winter fuel payments and bus passes for pensioners?

Waste of money too?

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So what about winter fuel payments and bus passes for pensioners?

Waste of money too?

As a universal benefit yes?

Kennyboy66

Hadrian wrote: »

Can someone explain to me why I should, by taxation, feed someone elses children? I brought up and fed well my two children in the days when pay was by todays standards abysmal. I clothed them and housed them without any help from anybody. Oh, I forgot, I received ten shillings (50p) 'Family Allowance' for the first, nothing for the second child.
I earned £11 week in 1963. (x 14.7 for 2013 prices - Govt RPI stats.), so that works out as £161.70p a week in todays money. Some get that in, whatever it's called, "Family Allowance" today!!!
If you want children work it out before whether or not you can afford to keep them without state help. As The State has no money it's MY money.

A family (with 2 children) earning £550 per year would have paid no income tax in 1963 yet the state paid in full for their education and healthcare. If they were bright enough the state paid for them to go University and gave them a generous living grant while they were there. In the main, the UK had full employment during the 1960's.

The parents would be getting state pensions today probably well in excess of any contributions they made in NI during their lifetime.

Family allowance wasn't paid for the first child - it was paid for all subsequent children.

ruggedtoast

Hadrian wrote: »

Can someone explain to me why I should, by taxation, feed someone elses children? I brought up and fed well my two children in the days when pay was by todays standards abysmal. I clothed them and housed them without any help from anybody. Oh, I forgot, I received ten shillings (50p) 'Family Allowance' for the first, nothing for the second child.
I earned £11 week in 1963. (x 14.7 for 2013 prices - Govt RPI stats.), so that works out as £161.70p a week in todays money. Some get that in, whatever it's called, "Family Allowance" today!!!
If you want children work it out before whether or not you can afford to keep them without state help. As The State has no money it's MY money.

Because children are the future.

Loughton_Monkey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

....As stated, I'm on the fence. I can see why people would think it's a waste of money, but then I wonder why they don't get equally upset about the colossal waste of money on winter fuel allowance etc..

Well I'm not on the fence.

I abhor throwing money at everyone just because relatively few find themselves unable to afford as nice a life as they would like.

It is not just the money, although that's bad enough. More importantly, I believe it creates a dependency culture. We see plenty of symptoms of this all the time. The evasion of personal responsibility in favour of a "gimme" culture where the "rich" should pay for my own inability to save, or make anything of my life.

wotsthat

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

It is not just the money, although that's bad enough. More importantly, I believe it creates a dependency culture. We see plenty of symptoms of this all the time. The evasion of personal responsibility in favour of a "gimme" culture where the "rich" should pay for my own inability to save, or make anything of my life.

It's the downside of universal benefits. Cheaper to administer but creates an entitlement culture, removes responsibility from grown adults and it's the devil's own job to get rid of them once implemented.

Loughton_Monkey

wotsthat wrote: »

It's the downside of universal benefits. Cheaper to administer but creates an entitlement culture, removes responsibility from grown adults and it's the devil's own job to get rid of them once implemented.

Exactly. Giving is easy (and expensive) and sometimes popular. Taking away is difficult and generally unpopular.

Miliband, today, has said that the so-called 'bedroom tax' will be reversed. This would be extremely interesting. Can you imagine the furore of those that would say:

(a) Hey! 3 months ago, I was forced to move into a 1 bed flat because we have no kids. Now you are putting similar couples in 2-bed and subsidising them by an extra 20%.....

(b) Oi! My wife and I had a 3-bed. Kids grew up and moved out. So the damned Tories moved us to a 1-bed. You have undone that policy. So when can we move back into our original 3-bed?

And all the time, 'ordinary' people who don't qualify for HB have to look on..... knowing that they can only live somewhere that they can afford. It's a minefield.