Last night I spoke to a good friend of mine who had a baby two weeks ago. He isn't really political but he said something quite interesting to me.
"I've just had a kid so I'm looking at this election a bit differently, one party is offering free education and an increase in childcare, the other wants to take school dinners away."
This is a lad who is fairly middle class, privately educated and has a very good job.
But when he laid it out as simply as that about the future it seems so simple a choice.
If he does have a very good job and is middle class etc, he shouldn't have to take free childcare, free school dinners etc off the state. In that situation then you manage your finances to a point where you pay for it yourself. There shouldnt be free school dinners en masse. If you cant afford to feed your kids then thats one thing and thats what it should be used for.
A friend at work was moaning about free school dinners being taken away. He has just got back from St Lucia on hols............ Classic example of overspending beyond his means and one that puts undue pressure on the state.
It was more about the mentality of the type of person he and I would like to be and the direction we'd like to see the country going in.
One party is offering more equality for children, the other wants them to go hungry.
It wasn't him looking to suddenly start "scrounging" off the state.
No my point was that if Labour are offering free school dinners for all children, that in my opinion is not a fair way to spend the taxpayers money. If it were means tested, we can ensure that people who need school dinners and genuinely cant afford them get them.
And then the rest of us (including your friend) pay our own. There is no reason why a family on an average UK wage shouldnt be able to feed their kids. Feeding your kids comes before a new widescreen TV, car etc etc. If someone genuinely cant afford even food, then thats when the state needs to step in for this.
Why does the country need to go in a direction when everyone gets a free lunch when a massive number of us should be able to afford it?
I don't know the particular ins and outs regarding this proposal but generally speaking there are some very good arguments against means testing. Means testing inevitably introduces a layer of bureaucracy which is often more expensive to manage than the money it saves. Providing benefits only to those who are needy, stigmatizes the beneficiaries. This can prevent those that need it the most from claiming. Also, it doesn't take too much imagination to see how in a school scenario it could lead to an increase in bullying.
He actually seems to know about football and like it.
Looks like he actually enjoyed the interview as well.
Nice interview.
Yes. I think it sums up his appeal to the many people who like him, i.e. he seems a genuine person. A real human being even, unlike so many politicians from both sides or the house. He says he likes football because he actually likes football, noty because he's seeking to gain political capital out of it like, for example, Cameron the Villa/West Ham fan.
Last night I spoke to a good friend of mine who had a baby two weeks ago. He isn't really political but he said something quite interesting to me.
"I've just had a kid so I'm looking at this election a bit differently, one party is offering free education and an increase in childcare, the other wants to take school dinners away."
This is a lad who is fairly middle class, privately educated and has a very good job.
But when he laid it out as simply as that about the future it seems so simple a choice.
If he does have a very good job and is middle class etc, he shouldn't have to take free childcare, free school dinners etc off the state. In that situation then you manage your finances to a point where you pay for it yourself. There shouldnt be free school dinners en masse. If you cant afford to feed your kids then thats one thing and thats what it should be used for.
A friend at work was moaning about free school dinners being taken away. He has just got back from St Lucia on hols............ Classic example of overspending beyond his means and one that puts undue pressure on the state.
It was more about the mentality of the type of person he and I would like to be and the direction we'd like to see the country going in.
One party is offering more equality for children, the other wants them to go hungry.
It wasn't him looking to suddenly start "scrounging" off the state.
No my point was that if Labour are offering free school dinners for all children, that in my opinion is not a fair way to spend the taxpayers money. If it were means tested, we can ensure that people who need school dinners and genuinely cant afford them get them.
And then the rest of us (including your friend) pay our own. There is no reason why a family on an average UK wage shouldnt be able to feed their kids. Feeding your kids comes before a new widescreen TV, car etc etc. If someone genuinely cant afford even food, then thats when the state needs to step in for this.
Why does the country need to go in a direction when everyone gets a free lunch when a massive number of us should be able to afford it?
I don't know the particular ins and outs regarding this proposal but generally speaking there are some very good arguments against means testing. Means testing inevitably introduces a layer of bureaucracy which is often more expensive to manage than the money it saves. Providing benefits only to those who are needy, stigmatizes the beneficiaries. This can prevent those that need it the most from claiming. Also, it doesn't take too much imagination to see how in a school scenario it could lead to an increase in bullying.
Isnt this primary school children we are talking about?
My 8 year old wouldn't have a clue about who is getting free school meals, never mind what it means. That bullying claim is simply not accurate IMO.
We can't have a situation where we are handing out benefits en masse funded by taxpayers money just so the people getting said benefit feel better about receiving it.
Last night I spoke to a good friend of mine who had a baby two weeks ago. He isn't really political but he said something quite interesting to me.
"I've just had a kid so I'm looking at this election a bit differently, one party is offering free education and an increase in childcare, the other wants to take school dinners away."
This is a lad who is fairly middle class, privately educated and has a very good job.
But when he laid it out as simply as that about the future it seems so simple a choice.
If he does have a very good job and is middle class etc, he shouldn't have to take free childcare, free school dinners etc off the state. In that situation then you manage your finances to a point where you pay for it yourself. There shouldnt be free school dinners en masse. If you cant afford to feed your kids then thats one thing and thats what it should be used for.
A friend at work was moaning about free school dinners being taken away. He has just got back from St Lucia on hols............ Classic example of overspending beyond his means and one that puts undue pressure on the state.
It was more about the mentality of the type of person he and I would like to be and the direction we'd like to see the country going in.
One party is offering more equality for children, the other wants them to go hungry.
It wasn't him looking to suddenly start "scrounging" off the state.
No my point was that if Labour are offering free school dinners for all children, that in my opinion is not a fair way to spend the taxpayers money. If it were means tested, we can ensure that people who need school dinners and genuinely cant afford them get them.
And then the rest of us (including your friend) pay our own. There is no reason why a family on an average UK wage shouldnt be able to feed their kids. Feeding your kids comes before a new widescreen TV, car etc etc. If someone genuinely cant afford even food, then thats when the state needs to step in for this.
Why does the country need to go in a direction when everyone gets a free lunch when a massive number of us should be able to afford it?
I don't know the particular ins and outs regarding this proposal but generally speaking there are some very good arguments against means testing. Means testing inevitably introduces a layer of bureaucracy which is often more expensive to manage than the money it saves. Providing benefits only to those who are needy, stigmatizes the beneficiaries. This can prevent those that need it the most from claiming. Also, it doesn't take too much imagination to see how in a school scenario it could lead to an increase in bullying.
Isnt this primary school children we are talking about?
My 8 year old wouldn't have a clue about who is getting free school meals, never mind what it means. That bullying claim is simply not accurate IMO.
We can't have a situation where we are handing out benefits en masse funded by taxpayers money just so the people getting said benefit feel better about receiving it.
Thats utterly ridiculous
Bullying was an offshoot from the policy of means testing. The crux was that it just didn't save anything and could be more expensive. You just seem to want to punish children for the hell of it
Last night I spoke to a good friend of mine who had a baby two weeks ago. He isn't really political but he said something quite interesting to me.
"I've just had a kid so I'm looking at this election a bit differently, one party is offering free education and an increase in childcare, the other wants to take school dinners away."
This is a lad who is fairly middle class, privately educated and has a very good job.
But when he laid it out as simply as that about the future it seems so simple a choice.
If he does have a very good job and is middle class etc, he shouldn't have to take free childcare, free school dinners etc off the state. In that situation then you manage your finances to a point where you pay for it yourself. There shouldnt be free school dinners en masse. If you cant afford to feed your kids then thats one thing and thats what it should be used for.
A friend at work was moaning about free school dinners being taken away. He has just got back from St Lucia on hols............ Classic example of overspending beyond his means and one that puts undue pressure on the state.
It was more about the mentality of the type of person he and I would like to be and the direction we'd like to see the country going in.
One party is offering more equality for children, the other wants them to go hungry.
It wasn't him looking to suddenly start "scrounging" off the state.
No my point was that if Labour are offering free school dinners for all children, that in my opinion is not a fair way to spend the taxpayers money. If it were means tested, we can ensure that people who need school dinners and genuinely cant afford them get them.
And then the rest of us (including your friend) pay our own. There is no reason why a family on an average UK wage shouldnt be able to feed their kids. Feeding your kids comes before a new widescreen TV, car etc etc. If someone genuinely cant afford even food, then thats when the state needs to step in for this.
Why does the country need to go in a direction when everyone gets a free lunch when a massive number of us should be able to afford it?
I don't know the particular ins and outs regarding this proposal but generally speaking there are some very good arguments against means testing. Means testing inevitably introduces a layer of bureaucracy which is often more expensive to manage than the money it saves. Providing benefits only to those who are needy, stigmatizes the beneficiaries. This can prevent those that need it the most from claiming. Also, it doesn't take too much imagination to see how in a school scenario it could lead to an increase in bullying.
Add in the idea of making sure every child is eating one balanced and healthy meal a day.
Might indirectly reduce childhood obesity and lower health costs because of it. Better some pasta at lunch rather than several chocolate bars + crisps from their parents.
Last night I spoke to a good friend of mine who had a baby two weeks ago. He isn't really political but he said something quite interesting to me.
"I've just had a kid so I'm looking at this election a bit differently, one party is offering free education and an increase in childcare, the other wants to take school dinners away."
This is a lad who is fairly middle class, privately educated and has a very good job.
But when he laid it out as simply as that about the future it seems so simple a choice.
If he does have a very good job and is middle class etc, he shouldn't have to take free childcare, free school dinners etc off the state. In that situation then you manage your finances to a point where you pay for it yourself. There shouldnt be free school dinners en masse. If you cant afford to feed your kids then thats one thing and thats what it should be used for.
A friend at work was moaning about free school dinners being taken away. He has just got back from St Lucia on hols............ Classic example of overspending beyond his means and one that puts undue pressure on the state.
It was more about the mentality of the type of person he and I would like to be and the direction we'd like to see the country going in.
One party is offering more equality for children, the other wants them to go hungry.
It wasn't him looking to suddenly start "scrounging" off the state.
No my point was that if Labour are offering free school dinners for all children, that in my opinion is not a fair way to spend the taxpayers money. If it were means tested, we can ensure that people who need school dinners and genuinely cant afford them get them.
And then the rest of us (including your friend) pay our own. There is no reason why a family on an average UK wage shouldnt be able to feed their kids. Feeding your kids comes before a new widescreen TV, car etc etc. If someone genuinely cant afford even food, then thats when the state needs to step in for this.
Why does the country need to go in a direction when everyone gets a free lunch when a massive number of us should be able to afford it?
I don't know the particular ins and outs regarding this proposal but generally speaking there are some very good arguments against means testing. Means testing inevitably introduces a layer of bureaucracy which is often more expensive to manage than the money it saves. Providing benefits only to those who are needy, stigmatizes the beneficiaries. This can prevent those that need it the most from claiming. Also, it doesn't take too much imagination to see how in a school scenario it could lead to an increase in bullying.
Isnt this primary school children we are talking about?
My 8 year old wouldn't have a clue about who is getting free school meals, never mind what it means. That bullying claim is simply not accurate IMO.
We can't have a situation where we are handing out benefits en masse funded by taxpayers money just so the people getting said benefit feel better about receiving it.
Thats utterly ridiculous
You obviously don't remember what school was like.
Last night I spoke to a good friend of mine who had a baby two weeks ago. He isn't really political but he said something quite interesting to me.
"I've just had a kid so I'm looking at this election a bit differently, one party is offering free education and an increase in childcare, the other wants to take school dinners away."
This is a lad who is fairly middle class, privately educated and has a very good job.
But when he laid it out as simply as that about the future it seems so simple a choice.
If he does have a very good job and is middle class etc, he shouldn't have to take free childcare, free school dinners etc off the state. In that situation then you manage your finances to a point where you pay for it yourself. There shouldnt be free school dinners en masse. If you cant afford to feed your kids then thats one thing and thats what it should be used for.
A friend at work was moaning about free school dinners being taken away. He has just got back from St Lucia on hols............ Classic example of overspending beyond his means and one that puts undue pressure on the state.
It was more about the mentality of the type of person he and I would like to be and the direction we'd like to see the country going in.
One party is offering more equality for children, the other wants them to go hungry.
It wasn't him looking to suddenly start "scrounging" off the state.
No my point was that if Labour are offering free school dinners for all children, that in my opinion is not a fair way to spend the taxpayers money. If it were means tested, we can ensure that people who need school dinners and genuinely cant afford them get them.
And then the rest of us (including your friend) pay our own. There is no reason why a family on an average UK wage shouldnt be able to feed their kids. Feeding your kids comes before a new widescreen TV, car etc etc. If someone genuinely cant afford even food, then thats when the state needs to step in for this.
Why does the country need to go in a direction when everyone gets a free lunch when a massive number of us should be able to afford it?
I don't know the particular ins and outs regarding this proposal but generally speaking there are some very good arguments against means testing. Means testing inevitably introduces a layer of bureaucracy which is often more expensive to manage than the money it saves. Providing benefits only to those who are needy, stigmatizes the beneficiaries. This can prevent those that need it the most from claiming. Also, it doesn't take too much imagination to see how in a school scenario it could lead to an increase in bullying.
Add in the idea of making sure every child is eating one balanced and healthy meal a day.
Might indirectly reduce childhood obesity and lower health costs because of it. Better some pasta at lunch rather than several chocolate bars + crisps from their parents.
Last night I spoke to a good friend of mine who had a baby two weeks ago. He isn't really political but he said something quite interesting to me.
"I've just had a kid so I'm looking at this election a bit differently, one party is offering free education and an increase in childcare, the other wants to take school dinners away."
This is a lad who is fairly middle class, privately educated and has a very good job.
But when he laid it out as simply as that about the future it seems so simple a choice.
If he does have a very good job and is middle class etc, he shouldn't have to take free childcare, free school dinners etc off the state. In that situation then you manage your finances to a point where you pay for it yourself. There shouldnt be free school dinners en masse. If you cant afford to feed your kids then thats one thing and thats what it should be used for.
A friend at work was moaning about free school dinners being taken away. He has just got back from St Lucia on hols............ Classic example of overspending beyond his means and one that puts undue pressure on the state.
It was more about the mentality of the type of person he and I would like to be and the direction we'd like to see the country going in.
One party is offering more equality for children, the other wants them to go hungry.
It wasn't him looking to suddenly start "scrounging" off the state.
No my point was that if Labour are offering free school dinners for all children, that in my opinion is not a fair way to spend the taxpayers money. If it were means tested, we can ensure that people who need school dinners and genuinely cant afford them get them.
And then the rest of us (including your friend) pay our own. There is no reason why a family on an average UK wage shouldnt be able to feed their kids. Feeding your kids comes before a new widescreen TV, car etc etc. If someone genuinely cant afford even food, then thats when the state needs to step in for this.
Why does the country need to go in a direction when everyone gets a free lunch when a massive number of us should be able to afford it?
I don't know the particular ins and outs regarding this proposal but generally speaking there are some very good arguments against means testing. Means testing inevitably introduces a layer of bureaucracy which is often more expensive to manage than the money it saves. Providing benefits only to those who are needy, stigmatizes the beneficiaries. This can prevent those that need it the most from claiming. Also, it doesn't take too much imagination to see how in a school scenario it could lead to an increase in bullying.
Isnt this primary school children we are talking about?
My 8 year old wouldn't have a clue about who is getting free school meals, never mind what it means. That bullying claim is simply not accurate IMO.
We can't have a situation where we are handing out benefits en masse funded by taxpayers money just so the people getting said benefit feel better about receiving it.
Thats utterly ridiculous
Bullying was an offshoot from the policy of means testing. The crux was that it just didn't save anything and could be more expensive. You just seem to want to punish children for the hell of it
I am a father of two kids who I love with all my heart so dont question my attitude towards kids ffs.
Dont be sensationalist. It isnt about punishing children. It is about spending what isnt a bottomless pit of taxpayers money in the best way possible.
A child who needs financial support to receive a meal should get that. Every primary school kid doesnt need it. I am saying I am willing to pay for my own kids school meals, taking the pressure off of being able to give support to children who need it.
Thus I am supporting children, and allowing the pot to go further.
Last night I spoke to a good friend of mine who had a baby two weeks ago. He isn't really political but he said something quite interesting to me.
"I've just had a kid so I'm looking at this election a bit differently, one party is offering free education and an increase in childcare, the other wants to take school dinners away."
This is a lad who is fairly middle class, privately educated and has a very good job.
But when he laid it out as simply as that about the future it seems so simple a choice.
If he does have a very good job and is middle class etc, he shouldn't have to take free childcare, free school dinners etc off the state. In that situation then you manage your finances to a point where you pay for it yourself. There shouldnt be free school dinners en masse. If you cant afford to feed your kids then thats one thing and thats what it should be used for.
A friend at work was moaning about free school dinners being taken away. He has just got back from St Lucia on hols............ Classic example of overspending beyond his means and one that puts undue pressure on the state.
It was more about the mentality of the type of person he and I would like to be and the direction we'd like to see the country going in.
One party is offering more equality for children, the other wants them to go hungry.
It wasn't him looking to suddenly start "scrounging" off the state.
No my point was that if Labour are offering free school dinners for all children, that in my opinion is not a fair way to spend the taxpayers money. If it were means tested, we can ensure that people who need school dinners and genuinely cant afford them get them.
And then the rest of us (including your friend) pay our own. There is no reason why a family on an average UK wage shouldnt be able to feed their kids. Feeding your kids comes before a new widescreen TV, car etc etc. If someone genuinely cant afford even food, then thats when the state needs to step in for this.
Why does the country need to go in a direction when everyone gets a free lunch when a massive number of us should be able to afford it?
I don't know the particular ins and outs regarding this proposal but generally speaking there are some very good arguments against means testing. Means testing inevitably introduces a layer of bureaucracy which is often more expensive to manage than the money it saves. Providing benefits only to those who are needy, stigmatizes the beneficiaries. This can prevent those that need it the most from claiming. Also, it doesn't take too much imagination to see how in a school scenario it could lead to an increase in bullying.
Add in the idea of making sure every child is eating one balanced and healthy meal a day.
Might indirectly reduce childhood obesity and lower health costs because of it. Better some pasta at lunch rather than several chocolate bars + crisps from their parents.
Having worked in various schools, I can confirm that kids who are not entitled to free meals are given absolute rubbish by their parents to eat at school and it definitely affects their attention levels and learning ability. It also creates an issue with them stealing each other's food or throwing it at each other, and even though school meals are provided, there is also the issue of kids rocking up with not enough money or forgetting their smart card so there is a whole admin side there as well. Why not just have a system where those who can pay a little bit extra then every kid gets the same meal each day. Problem solved.
Last night I spoke to a good friend of mine who had a baby two weeks ago. He isn't really political but he said something quite interesting to me.
"I've just had a kid so I'm looking at this election a bit differently, one party is offering free education and an increase in childcare, the other wants to take school dinners away."
This is a lad who is fairly middle class, privately educated and has a very good job.
But when he laid it out as simply as that about the future it seems so simple a choice.
If he does have a very good job and is middle class etc, he shouldn't have to take free childcare, free school dinners etc off the state. In that situation then you manage your finances to a point where you pay for it yourself. There shouldnt be free school dinners en masse. If you cant afford to feed your kids then thats one thing and thats what it should be used for.
A friend at work was moaning about free school dinners being taken away. He has just got back from St Lucia on hols............ Classic example of overspending beyond his means and one that puts undue pressure on the state.
It was more about the mentality of the type of person he and I would like to be and the direction we'd like to see the country going in.
One party is offering more equality for children, the other wants them to go hungry.
It wasn't him looking to suddenly start "scrounging" off the state.
No my point was that if Labour are offering free school dinners for all children, that in my opinion is not a fair way to spend the taxpayers money. If it were means tested, we can ensure that people who need school dinners and genuinely cant afford them get them.
And then the rest of us (including your friend) pay our own. There is no reason why a family on an average UK wage shouldnt be able to feed their kids. Feeding your kids comes before a new widescreen TV, car etc etc. If someone genuinely cant afford even food, then thats when the state needs to step in for this.
Why does the country need to go in a direction when everyone gets a free lunch when a massive number of us should be able to afford it?
I don't know the particular ins and outs regarding this proposal but generally speaking there are some very good arguments against means testing. Means testing inevitably introduces a layer of bureaucracy which is often more expensive to manage than the money it saves. Providing benefits only to those who are needy, stigmatizes the beneficiaries. This can prevent those that need it the most from claiming. Also, it doesn't take too much imagination to see how in a school scenario it could lead to an increase in bullying.
Add in the idea of making sure every child is eating one balanced and healthy meal a day.
Might indirectly reduce childhood obesity and lower health costs because of it. Better some pasta at lunch rather than several chocolate bars + crisps from their parents.
Having worked in various schools, I can confirm that kids who are not entitled to free meals are given absolute rubbish by their parents to eat at school and it definitely affects their attention levels and learning ability. It also creates an issue with them stealing each other's food or throwing it at each other, and even though school meals are provided, there is also the issue of kids rocking up with not enough money or forgetting their smart card so there is a whole admin side there as well. Why not just have a system where those who can pay a little bit extra then every kid gets the same meal each day. Problem solved.
Creates terrific incentives for wayward parents to treat their kids better?
Last night I spoke to a good friend of mine who had a baby two weeks ago. He isn't really political but he said something quite interesting to me.
"I've just had a kid so I'm looking at this election a bit differently, one party is offering free education and an increase in childcare, the other wants to take school dinners away."
This is a lad who is fairly middle class, privately educated and has a very good job.
But when he laid it out as simply as that about the future it seems so simple a choice.
If he does have a very good job and is middle class etc, he shouldn't have to take free childcare, free school dinners etc off the state. In that situation then you manage your finances to a point where you pay for it yourself. There shouldnt be free school dinners en masse. If you cant afford to feed your kids then thats one thing and thats what it should be used for.
A friend at work was moaning about free school dinners being taken away. He has just got back from St Lucia on hols............ Classic example of overspending beyond his means and one that puts undue pressure on the state.
It was more about the mentality of the type of person he and I would like to be and the direction we'd like to see the country going in.
One party is offering more equality for children, the other wants them to go hungry.
It wasn't him looking to suddenly start "scrounging" off the state.
No my point was that if Labour are offering free school dinners for all children, that in my opinion is not a fair way to spend the taxpayers money. If it were means tested, we can ensure that people who need school dinners and genuinely cant afford them get them.
And then the rest of us (including your friend) pay our own. There is no reason why a family on an average UK wage shouldnt be able to feed their kids. Feeding your kids comes before a new widescreen TV, car etc etc. If someone genuinely cant afford even food, then thats when the state needs to step in for this.
Why does the country need to go in a direction when everyone gets a free lunch when a massive number of us should be able to afford it?
I don't know the particular ins and outs regarding this proposal but generally speaking there are some very good arguments against means testing. Means testing inevitably introduces a layer of bureaucracy which is often more expensive to manage than the money it saves. Providing benefits only to those who are needy, stigmatizes the beneficiaries. This can prevent those that need it the most from claiming. Also, it doesn't take too much imagination to see how in a school scenario it could lead to an increase in bullying.
Add in the idea of making sure every child is eating one balanced and healthy meal a day.
Might indirectly reduce childhood obesity and lower health costs because of it. Better some pasta at lunch rather than several chocolate bars + crisps from their parents.
Having worked in various schools, I can confirm that kids who are not entitled to free meals are given absolute rubbish by their parents to eat at school and it definitely affects their attention levels and learning ability. It also creates an issue with them stealing each other's food or throwing it at each other, and even though school meals are provided, there is also the issue of kids rocking up with not enough money or forgetting their smart card so there is a whole admin side there as well. Why not just have a system where those who can pay a little bit extra then every kid gets the same meal each day. Problem solved.
Creates terrific incentives for wayward parents to treat their kids better?
You'd be surprised. Most I wouldn't call 'wayward parents'. Mum could easily be a nurse or a teacher or a lawyer and dad could be an actuary or a barrister or an architect, both are too busy to bother with proper packed lunches so they send Cynthia and Tarquin off to school with a Red Bull, a cheesestring and a bag of Percy Pigs. They probably get a decent meal when they get home but otherwise just rubbish for school. Hardly a case for child services isn't it. I imagine the parents would be thrilled if the schools insisted on feeding their kids and packed lunches were banned. Once it became the norm there would be little controversy, although when it is first implemented I imagine we'll see those sad scenes of mums jamming bags of chips through school gates.
Last night I spoke to a good friend of mine who had a baby two weeks ago. He isn't really political but he said something quite interesting to me.
"I've just had a kid so I'm looking at this election a bit differently, one party is offering free education and an increase in childcare, the other wants to take school dinners away."
This is a lad who is fairly middle class, privately educated and has a very good job.
But when he laid it out as simply as that about the future it seems so simple a choice.
If he does have a very good job and is middle class etc, he shouldn't have to take free childcare, free school dinners etc off the state. In that situation then you manage your finances to a point where you pay for it yourself. There shouldnt be free school dinners en masse. If you cant afford to feed your kids then thats one thing and thats what it should be used for.
A friend at work was moaning about free school dinners being taken away. He has just got back from St Lucia on hols............ Classic example of overspending beyond his means and one that puts undue pressure on the state.
It was more about the mentality of the type of person he and I would like to be and the direction we'd like to see the country going in.
One party is offering more equality for children, the other wants them to go hungry.
It wasn't him looking to suddenly start "scrounging" off the state.
No my point was that if Labour are offering free school dinners for all children, that in my opinion is not a fair way to spend the taxpayers money. If it were means tested, we can ensure that people who need school dinners and genuinely cant afford them get them.
And then the rest of us (including your friend) pay our own. There is no reason why a family on an average UK wage shouldnt be able to feed their kids. Feeding your kids comes before a new widescreen TV, car etc etc. If someone genuinely cant afford even food, then thats when the state needs to step in for this.
Why does the country need to go in a direction when everyone gets a free lunch when a massive number of us should be able to afford it?
I don't know the particular ins and outs regarding this proposal but generally speaking there are some very good arguments against means testing. Means testing inevitably introduces a layer of bureaucracy which is often more expensive to manage than the money it saves. Providing benefits only to those who are needy, stigmatizes the beneficiaries. This can prevent those that need it the most from claiming. Also, it doesn't take too much imagination to see how in a school scenario it could lead to an increase in bullying.
Isnt this primary school children we are talking about?
My 8 year old wouldn't have a clue about who is getting free school meals, never mind what it means. That bullying claim is simply not accurate IMO.
We can't have a situation where we are handing out benefits en masse funded by taxpayers money just so the people getting said benefit feel better about receiving it.
Thats utterly ridiculous
Bullying was an offshoot from the policy of means testing. The crux was that it just didn't save anything and could be more expensive. You just seem to want to punish children for the hell of it
I am a father of two kids who I love with all my heart so dont question my attitude towards kids ffs.
Dont be sensationalist. It isnt about punishing children. It is about spending what isnt a bottomless pit of taxpayers money in the best way possible.
A child who needs financial support to receive a meal should get that. Every primary school kid doesnt need it. I am saying I am willing to pay for my own kids school meals, taking the pressure off of being able to give support to children who need it.
Thus I am supporting children, and allowing the pot to go further.
It's ridiculous arguing about the specific benefits and drawbacks of free school meals and whether the "country" can afford it.
To me it's obvious that kids should be encouraged to share a meal at lunchtime and be treated the same whatever their background, colour, sex or preferred football club. It's got something to do with learning to be part of society or a team.
If we can't even afford to provide this sort of environment for our kids without squabbling about who pays we haven't got a chance!
Last night I spoke to a good friend of mine who had a baby two weeks ago. He isn't really political but he said something quite interesting to me.
"I've just had a kid so I'm looking at this election a bit differently, one party is offering free education and an increase in childcare, the other wants to take school dinners away."
This is a lad who is fairly middle class, privately educated and has a very good job.
But when he laid it out as simply as that about the future it seems so simple a choice.
If he does have a very good job and is middle class etc, he shouldn't have to take free childcare, free school dinners etc off the state. In that situation then you manage your finances to a point where you pay for it yourself. There shouldnt be free school dinners en masse. If you cant afford to feed your kids then thats one thing and thats what it should be used for.
A friend at work was moaning about free school dinners being taken away. He has just got back from St Lucia on hols............ Classic example of overspending beyond his means and one that puts undue pressure on the state.
It was more about the mentality of the type of person he and I would like to be and the direction we'd like to see the country going in.
One party is offering more equality for children, the other wants them to go hungry.
It wasn't him looking to suddenly start "scrounging" off the state.
No my point was that if Labour are offering free school dinners for all children, that in my opinion is not a fair way to spend the taxpayers money. If it were means tested, we can ensure that people who need school dinners and genuinely cant afford them get them.
And then the rest of us (including your friend) pay our own. There is no reason why a family on an average UK wage shouldnt be able to feed their kids. Feeding your kids comes before a new widescreen TV, car etc etc. If someone genuinely cant afford even food, then thats when the state needs to step in for this.
Why does the country need to go in a direction when everyone gets a free lunch when a massive number of us should be able to afford it?
I don't know the particular ins and outs regarding this proposal but generally speaking there are some very good arguments against means testing. Means testing inevitably introduces a layer of bureaucracy which is often more expensive to manage than the money it saves. Providing benefits only to those who are needy, stigmatizes the beneficiaries. This can prevent those that need it the most from claiming. Also, it doesn't take too much imagination to see how in a school scenario it could lead to an increase in bullying.
Isnt this primary school children we are talking about?
My 8 year old wouldn't have a clue about who is getting free school meals, never mind what it means. That bullying claim is simply not accurate IMO.
We can't have a situation where we are handing out benefits en masse funded by taxpayers money just so the people getting said benefit feel better about receiving it.
Thats utterly ridiculous
I completely agree with that, as long as the system of means testing doesn't cost more than the money saved. However, on school meals, as others have said, is as much, if not more, a health initiative - even the wealthiest of people will feed their kids crap.
I would go further with means testing - winter fuel allowance, free prescriptions for the over 60's, free bus passes - and dare I say it, the state pension for those who have an occupational pension above a certain amount. How dare you I hear some people say, they have paid all their lives for that state pension! But they have also had the tax breaks on contributions to that pension and their employer has thrown in their share also. All in this together!!
The savings (again assuming the means testing is efficient) can then be redistributed to those in greatest need.
Last night I spoke to a good friend of mine who had a baby two weeks ago. He isn't really political but he said something quite interesting to me.
"I've just had a kid so I'm looking at this election a bit differently, one party is offering free education and an increase in childcare, the other wants to take school dinners away."
This is a lad who is fairly middle class, privately educated and has a very good job.
But when he laid it out as simply as that about the future it seems so simple a choice.
If he does have a very good job and is middle class etc, he shouldn't have to take free childcare, free school dinners etc off the state. In that situation then you manage your finances to a point where you pay for it yourself. There shouldnt be free school dinners en masse. If you cant afford to feed your kids then thats one thing and thats what it should be used for.
A friend at work was moaning about free school dinners being taken away. He has just got back from St Lucia on hols............ Classic example of overspending beyond his means and one that puts undue pressure on the state.
It was more about the mentality of the type of person he and I would like to be and the direction we'd like to see the country going in.
One party is offering more equality for children, the other wants them to go hungry.
It wasn't him looking to suddenly start "scrounging" off the state.
No my point was that if Labour are offering free school dinners for all children, that in my opinion is not a fair way to spend the taxpayers money. If it were means tested, we can ensure that people who need school dinners and genuinely cant afford them get them.
And then the rest of us (including your friend) pay our own. There is no reason why a family on an average UK wage shouldnt be able to feed their kids. Feeding your kids comes before a new widescreen TV, car etc etc. If someone genuinely cant afford even food, then thats when the state needs to step in for this.
Why does the country need to go in a direction when everyone gets a free lunch when a massive number of us should be able to afford it?
I don't know the particular ins and outs regarding this proposal but generally speaking there are some very good arguments against means testing. Means testing inevitably introduces a layer of bureaucracy which is often more expensive to manage than the money it saves. Providing benefits only to those who are needy, stigmatizes the beneficiaries. This can prevent those that need it the most from claiming. Also, it doesn't take too much imagination to see how in a school scenario it could lead to an increase in bullying.
Add in the idea of making sure every child is eating one balanced and healthy meal a day.
Might indirectly reduce childhood obesity and lower health costs because of it. Better some pasta at lunch rather than several chocolate bars + crisps from their parents.
Having worked in various schools, I can confirm that kids who are not entitled to free meals are given absolute rubbish by their parents to eat at school and it definitely affects their attention levels and learning ability. It also creates an issue with them stealing each other's food or throwing it at each other, and even though school meals are provided, there is also the issue of kids rocking up with not enough money or forgetting their smart card so there is a whole admin side there as well. Why not just have a system where those who can pay a little bit extra then every kid gets the same meal each day. Problem solved.
My kids go to a school where the meals are free. I've been told by my daughter that the only time most of the kids touch the food that's been cooked on site is on a Friday when they'll give them fish fingers and chips or something similar. The rest of the time they bring in crappy pack lunches because the children are fussy and the parents/school indulge them.
I think the school meals at my daughter's primary school are £1.80 a day. Ok it adds up but in the scheme of things isn't massive. And it sounds better than it is, like free prescriptions (the overwhelming majority or prescriptions are free anyway)
The latest I have heard is that Labour want to clear student debts currently incurred by graduates but I need to check on the details.... Is this the case?
Nobody cleared mine - why do people get a free pass to get their debts cleared rather than do what everyone else has to do which is go to work? It was my choice to go to uni and I don't expect the taxpayer to cover my bill at the end of it
Students debts are only repaid out of earnings. Effectively it's an income tax paid by graduates employed in the UK. Nothing wrong with that.
On the other hand, high taxes just encourage talented people to work abroad. Surely removing this debt will encourage hard working talented graduates to stay in the UK which will eventually result in more tax overall and a better economy?
Or is this just me applying typical political logic to a problem and getting a ridiculous answer?
The latest I have heard is that Labour want to clear student debts currently incurred by graduates but I need to check on the details.... Is this the case?
Nobody cleared mine - why do people get a free pass to get their debts cleared rather than do what everyone else has to do which is go to work? It was my choice to go to uni and I don't expect the taxpayer to cover my bill at the end of it
Students debts are only repaid out of earnings. Effectively it's an income tax paid by graduates employed in the UK. Nothing wrong with that.
On the other hand, high taxes just encourage talented people to work abroad. Surely removing this debt will encourage hard working talented graduates to stay in the UK which will eventually result in more tax overall and a better economy?
Or is this just me applying typical political logic to a problem and getting a ridiculous answer?
Student loans are currently attracting an interest rate of 4.6% when BoE Base rate is 0.25%. I believe theses rates will increase with inflation at the RPI which means that students may be paying north of 20% in less than a decade. Stick that in your manifesto Thearesa.
So outside of putting the bill on those who have fought to better themselves - a standard socialist approach - there are not any surprises. So at least they are staying consistent with their beliefs!
Do we consider if the higher corporation tax bills incurred by companies will have any effect on those people working there? The companies will look to make up the money elsewhere......
Income tax increases for the top 5%. Aside from the arguments I have already made here..... Think about the kinds of jobs that pay this kind of salary. People will likely have options to move to offices in other countries. And if you squeeze them and they have less money to spend into the economy - then there will be an element of one cancelling out the other.
Inheritance Tax raids? Will more and more people not find ways around this - such as downsizing on property and then passing on the cash to their kids / grandkids before they actually die? Meaning that the inheritance bill that Labour expect to tax is essentially lower?
Charging VAT on private school fees? Whether you like it or not, kids in private schools are afforded smaller classes and more attention from teachers. As they grow up - that attention they are afforded can then be paid back to society in the form of jobs that require high levels of qualification and expertise. Why punish the parents who choose to give their kids that opportunity?
Cracking down on Tax avoidance? I actually think in principle this sounds the fairest of the lot. However, if they think in practice these kinds of people wont find new ways to keep their money or leave the country all together then they are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Or perhaps we can do something to give kids in the state school system the opportunity to have the time and attention afforded to them so that they too can have a crack at getting jobs that require high levels of qualification and expertise. why continue to cement the status quo and punish those that have to send their kids to state schools by confining them to a life of jobs that require less skill and qualifications
You make going to state school sound like going to the work house. I know plenty of successful people that haven't didn't even go to grammar school and are earning great money and leading prosperous careers
Changing tack slightly, it was curious that on more than one occasion Corbyn used the 'homeless people in our train stations' soundbite as if homelessness was invented in 2010.
In fact in the UK it peaked in 2003, fully six years into a Labour government.
I don't have the figures for 2003, but the number of rough sleepers in the UK has increased by 134% in the past six years
Homelessness includes more than just rough sleepers and yes it has increased since 2010, but my point was that it actually peaked at much higher levels in 2003 under Labour.
So if you believe that Tory cuts have caused the recent spike in homelessness (seems fair to assume it has been a partial contributory factor), then one needs an alternative explanation for what happened under Labour last time (unsurprisingly Corbyn keeps quiet on this one!).
What happened between 2003 and 2010 then?
I don't think anyone can say with a straight face that Labour failed the homeless.
If you ignore the brief six years to 2003 and the absolute levels it reached!
So during the Labour years it rose by about 70 before falling by 210, so a net improvement of 140 to record lows, and you're seriously trying to paint this as a Labour failure?
Did you expect it to drop overnight once Blair crushed Major? Should Tony, Prezza, Campbell, Gordon and co been out Friday the morning after with the cement mixers building new homes?
Might you understand how Maggie selling off over half the housing stock may have been a factor in Labour not immediately solving the issue?
No. Still the same number of houses and (without Labour's laissez-faire attitude to immigration) still the same number of people. Now, add in Labour's deliberate policy of getting as many immigrants as possible through the door +3.6mn and might you understand that, partially, the housing shortage is of Labour's making? (Of course, it's got worse since as numbers of people that live in the UK has increased further. But that doesn't give Labour absolution does it?)
CAFC FAN it may have escaped your notice but the Tories have been in power for SEVEN years and during most of this time Theresa May was in charge of immigration with 330k slipping through through net each year. But let's not ignore the positive contribution they make to our society as mentioned elsewhere by non-racists. On housing, big house builders are only interested in £750k+ gaffes and social housing is an inconvenient add-on. I worked in the industry for 5 years. We need to build properties specifically for those on low incomes to prevent working families squandering money on ever increasing rents, often to money launderers from abroad. Please research my post on another thread about the scandal of land ownership in this country.
The latest I have heard is that Labour want to clear student debts currently incurred by graduates but I need to check on the details.... Is this the case?
Nobody cleared mine - why do people get a free pass to get their debts cleared rather than do what everyone else has to do which is go to work? It was my choice to go to uni and I don't expect the taxpayer to cover my bill at the end of it
Just another gimmick to try & get the under 25's to vote for them. Like free tuition fees, more bank holidays, free schools meals, free nursery places etc etc. They haven't had the life experiences that the over 40's have had & don't know what its like living in the real world.
I'm not even under 25 and I find this comment ridiculous.
Maybe you don't know what the real world feels like? Maybe your experiences whether better or worse differ to another 40+ year old. Maybe you're an individual just like everyone else on this planet.
Please list out what you think these extra 'experiences' are? Genuinely I am interested to know what triggered your disgustingly ageist comment.
Having to pay a mortgage with rate of 12% in the early 90's compared to an average 2% now. Inflation in double digits compared to 2.5% now.
To answer a previous post - I'm not saying the Under 25's are getting free school meals or nursery places - but their children are (if they have any) . I'm not denying other parties are targeting other age groups - its well known that the Conservatives rely v heavily on the retired - I was merely answering a post saying why are Labour looking to wipe off existing tuition fees.
The latest I have heard is that Labour want to clear student debts currently incurred by graduates but I need to check on the details.... Is this the case?
Nobody cleared mine - why do people get a free pass to get their debts cleared rather than do what everyone else has to do which is go to work? It was my choice to go to uni and I don't expect the taxpayer to cover my bill at the end of it
Just another gimmick to try & get the under 25's to vote for them. Like free tuition fees, more bank holidays, free schools meals, free nursery places etc etc. They haven't had the life experiences that the over 40's have had & don't know what its like living in the real world.
I'm not even under 25 and I find this comment ridiculous.
Maybe you don't know what the real world feels like? Maybe your experiences whether better or worse differ to another 40+ year old. Maybe you're an individual just like everyone else on this planet.
Please list out what you think these extra 'experiences' are? Genuinely I am interested to know what triggered your disgustingly ageist comment.
Having to pay a mortgage with rate of 12% in the early 90's compared to an average 2% now. Inflation in double digits compared to 2.5% now.
To answer a previous post - I'm not saying the Under 25's are getting free school meals or nursery places - but their children are (if they have any) . I'm not denying other parties are targeting other age groups - its well known that the Conservatives rely v heavily on the retired - I was merely answering a post saying why are Labour looking to wipe off existing tuition fees.
To be fair inflation is good when you have debts :-)
For me, the scandal of abolishing free school meals is that in 2014, the Tories pressed schools to invest millions in kitchens and facilities to provide decent food. Little did that moron Gove know that 'U turn' May would want to abolish the project a bare three years later. Strong and stable ha ha ha. And I'm still laughing about the Daiiy Mail filled with fury that anyone could do something biased over an election.
For me, the scandal of abolishing free school meals is that in 2014, the Tories pressed schools to invest millions in kitchens and facilities to provide decent food. Little did that moron Gove know that 'U turn' May would want to abolish the project a bare three years later. Strong and stable ha ha ha. And I'm still laughing anout the Daiiy Mail filled with fury that anyone could do something biased over an election.
The sad thing is the Mail wouldn't have batted an eyelid if the crowd was full of white male skinheads all screaming about taking their country back from the immigints.
Comments
My 8 year old wouldn't have a clue about who is getting free school meals, never mind what it means. That bullying claim is simply not accurate IMO.
We can't have a situation where we are handing out benefits en masse funded by taxpayers money just so the people getting said benefit feel better about receiving it.
Thats utterly ridiculous
You just seem to want to punish children for the hell of it
Might indirectly reduce childhood obesity and lower health costs because of it. Better some pasta at lunch rather than several chocolate bars + crisps from their parents.
Dont be sensationalist. It isnt about punishing children. It is about spending what isnt a bottomless pit of taxpayers money in the best way possible.
A child who needs financial support to receive a meal should get that. Every primary school kid doesnt need it. I am saying I am willing to pay for my own kids school meals, taking the pressure off of being able to give support to children who need it.
Thus I am supporting children, and allowing the pot to go further.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/election-2017-40125166/general-election-2017-lib-dem-leader-pushed-on-brexit
To me it's obvious that kids should be encouraged to share a meal at lunchtime and be treated the same whatever their background, colour, sex or preferred football club. It's got something to do with learning to be part of society or a team.
If we can't even afford to provide this sort of environment for our kids without squabbling about who pays we haven't got a chance!
I would go further with means testing - winter fuel allowance, free prescriptions for the over 60's, free bus passes - and dare I say it, the state pension for those who have an occupational pension above a certain amount. How dare you I hear some people say, they have paid all their lives for that state pension! But they have also had the tax breaks on contributions to that pension and their employer has thrown in their share also. All in this together!!
The savings (again assuming the means testing is efficient) can then be redistributed to those in greatest need.
https://voteforpolicies.org.uk/
(For those viewing on mobile and over 50, Charlton sticker left, labour flag right)
To answer a previous post - I'm not saying the Under 25's are getting free school meals or nursery places - but their children are (if they have any) . I'm not denying other parties are targeting other age groups - its well known that the Conservatives rely v heavily on the retired - I was merely answering a post saying why are Labour looking to wipe off existing tuition fees.
And I'm still laughing about the Daiiy Mail filled with fury that anyone could do something biased over an election.
Next.