Tories going to axe free school meals

[cannotbelievethistoday]

So I have 2 children in private school.

Labour want to put VAT on private school fees, and extend free school meals to all primary children.

Tories are going to remove infant free school meals.

Bloody hell. And still people will vote Tory.

(My 2 kids are in private school - I totally agree with labour on this one)

How on earth do other children know in the first place?

This puzzles me too! I presume the kids aren't segregated, i.e. those paying in one room and those getting a freebie in another? Nor segregated according to first/second sitting, etc. So, yes, how do they all know about each other. Surely it's a fairly simple matter of finding a suitable way of organising/administering it so that it's not obvious. Back in the day, decades ago, we all went to "buy" our lunch tickets once a week from the school office - you went in on your own and the admin staff gave you some tickets - presumably some people handed over money, and others were ticked off a list. Only the admin staff would know who's who. How simple is that???

There are some appallingly smug and sneering comments on this thread. You know who you are, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Times like this, posters real colours show.

At some point, champagne socialist do-gooders will realise that the great unwashed are not interested in being beholden to their Great Benevolence and Charity.

Is this the rationale you use to justify being uncharitable? Because as a statement I can't see that it serves any other purpose.

You can make your child a nice, healthy dinner for less than £1.

It's a waste of money which could go towards better things. Will it? I don't know.

yes, everyone having to pay by fingerprint makes total sense so that nobody knows who the FSMs are - it'll be the expense of rolling out the IT that'll be the main reason that hasn't happened yet.

Frankiestein401 Between 97 and 08 national debt under labour went from 342bn to 562bn. In 09 the bailout put it up to 733bn Between 10 and 16 Osborne got it up to 1610bn - when Austerity was theoretically getting it down Austerity is now conveniently forgotten just like monetarism - another failed policy.

I think your confusing the debt and the deficit. Austerity was to get the deficit down and that is working, it is coming down every year Labour is in opposition. And If Jeremy stays leader of Labour we will get it down to zero.

It Corbyn was to get into power he would push both the deficit and debt massively higher, redistributing wealth from the poor to the wealthy.

I know of one boy whose Parents were difficult with food for him. He went to private school though, so if we are wanting to treat all the same to catch all children whose parents might not choose to give them good food, I expect you should roll it out in private sector schools too.

Frankiestein401 Between 97 and 08 national debt under labour went from 342bn to 562bn. In 09 the bailout put it up to 733bn Between 10 and 16 Osborne got it up to 1610bn -

When the coalition government took over national debt was around 1trillion not 700bn.

I'm not sure people understand the economic model of a left-leaning society. It's not unheard of in other European countries; the idea is that the government guarantees everyone a basic standard of living. Rich or poor, your basic needs will be covered by the state in which you live. I believe several Scandinavian countries have a system of universal income, which is a "benefit" which everyone receives - working or not - regardless of income, to cover basic living.

The notion is that giving everyone the basics by default removes the divide between those who "need" to receive form the state and those who don't. Not having that divide is generally thought to be a good thing.

It isn't financial suicide for a country to do this because then the people who have and earn more contribute more on the basis of what they have. A greater proportion of their income is disposable, so higher taxes are less "taxing" so to speak.

So if you take the Labour manifesto as a whole, and don't just port one policy into a right-wing economic model, free school meals for all isn't a gross waste of money, it's part and parcel of a different way of managing national finances that is SUPPOSED to narrow the perceived divide between rich and poor, so that no-one is stigmatised as being the poor, needy one who can't provide for their family.

Will they supply wrist bands or colour-coded cards to those on free meals....just for "efficient administration"?

When you've come out of your hyperbolic fugue makeourfuture....

My 2 at secondary school get free school meals - they are not marked out in any way at all.
They pay with fingerprint scanner just like every other pupil, the only difference is that their account is not credited by me.

My 2 at secondary school get free school meals - they are not marked out in any way at all.
They pay with fingerprint scanner just like every other pupil, the only difference is that their account is not credited by me.

This is also the case at the primary schools I know so I can't understand the stigma unless a lot of primaries have a different system.

Mine had FSM. Being 'naice' is no guarantee against finding yourself in difficulties. Companies fail, people leave, people become ill, people die. I do hope those of you smugly boasting about your naice lives in your naice little towns, braying jokes, never have to experience it. Certainly I never thought I would.

Is this the rationale you use to justify being uncharitable? Because as a statement I can't see that it serves any other purpose.

EpoxyResin, in what way was I 'uncharitable'?

I was expressing my incredulity at Yet Another Benevolently Charitable Rich 'Socialist' not getting it.

'The poor' (me) are not all just stood there with our hands out, grateful to our masters for the crumbs they throw to us.

I have dignity & self respect, even if I'm not well off - but that does not mean I'm entirely motivated purely by how much handouts someone is willing to toss my way.

This is the mistake that champagne socialists living in their little bubbles make every single time with regard to how they view the 'deserving poor'.

*My 2 at secondary school get free school meals - they are not marked out in any way at all. They pay with fingerprint scanner just like every other pupil,

Yes exactly this. The children at our Primary school pay for their lunches to the school office - no money changes hands in the dining hall. Not everyone takes school lunch, there are so many letters flying back and forward to hte office for all sorts of reasons that children will not be "segregated".

But let's not allow that to stand in the way of frothing at the mouth about the evil Tories snatching food out of the mouths of starving kids.

Also some people appear to have lost sight of the fact that we have only had THREE YEARS of universal free meals. It's back to what it used to be.

EpoxyResin, in what way was I 'uncharitable'?

Misunderstanding, I didn't mean you were being uncharitable. I couldn't understand the context of the comment; it's the kind of thing people say to justify their own actions.

I'm a socialist lefty. I'm not a "champage" socialist because I'm waaaaay not beyond that pay grade, but in my world view I don't see myself graciously tossing crumbs to the needy. I see the state providing the basics required by all members of society (because I believe everyone within a society contributes to its success, even if their contribution does not make them independently wealthy), so not just the "needy" are provided for by the state. EVERYONE - rich or poor - is provided for as a basic right.

Just because a socialist wants the state to "give" to its residents doesn't mean they want to give handouts to the needy. They want a basic standard of living for all - regardless of personal income and wealth, basic provision of services for all, and fair taxation on anything above and beyond that.

Also some people appear to have lost sight of the fact that we have only had THREE YEARS of universal free meals. It's back to what it used to be.

Exactly. You'd think it had been in place for years the way people are going on.

NoLottery Fingerprint payment is standard in most UK Secondary schools.

I order and pay for my primary son's lunches online.

I don't think they do. Things like FSM free up money that can be used elsewhere. It's not a question of charity, rather like the NHS, our taxes are paid, in part, to provide a cushion in case something were to go wrong. The much mocked Labour model is actually remarkably similar to the highly successful Scandinavian models.

You can tell a hell of a lot about people if you look at how the view the vulnerable. And frankly, it's not pretty, and nothing to be proud of.

I'm in Scotland and the primary have finally rolled out online parentpay this month - because of shortage of IT resources. Extrapolating from my own experience!

I'm glad that this effectively means that most kids have no idea who is getting free school meals, that's great news.

Epoxy, misunderstanding - no worries

My comment was in response to the OP saying (paraphrase)
'I can't believe I've just offered to pay more taxes to fund something for the needy, and you're not grateful'

In response to a raft of posters saying that they didn't need free school meals, and they would rather they were reserved for those most in need instead (as they were up until a couple of years ago).

There's quite a bit of sense of this thread but there's also one or two smug twats taking the opportunity to shoehorn in their usual boasts regarding their own privileged status. Same old face(s) over and over again. I don't believe in karma so much as balance. I would be frightened to post as smugly as some as you do. I imagine if the life changing events that are only just round the corner for all of us were to hit, it would really sting to remember how pleased with yourselves you were and how much you sneered at others less fortunate than you.

I was thinking the same MrsGame. I've certainly reevaluated my views on some posters.

Never wanted universal school meals. In fact the quality of them was so poor that my dc wouldn't eat them and we ended up going back to packed lunches to improve behaviour / stop the inevitable afternoon meltdowns. Hated the fact they always got given huge puddings regardless of how much they'd eaten to "fill" them up which undermined the message they were getting from home. So Hurray! from me.

All the people arguing that free school lunches are a waste - why are you looking at only one part of this proposed policy and not addressing the issue of the new free breakfasts? If you think the Tories are right on the lunches what do you think of the breakfasts? What do you think of the new financial burden this will place on schools that cannot afford teachers or SENCos or learning assistants? Do you think any of the lunch savings will be used to fund this? Because the government has not mentioned any new or diverted funding.

I was thinking the same MrsGame. I've certainly reevaluated my views on some posters.
That's a bit passive aggressive