Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 ··· 25 26

Original poster

Tories going to axe free school meals

640 replies

cannotbelievethistoday · 18/05/2017 06:46

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)

OP posts:

BattleaxeGalactica · 18/05/2017 07:55

About time in my view.

Working in a school I see the waste it generates and it's truly shocking to see lunch after lunch end up in the scrap bin day after day.

jellyfrizz · 18/05/2017 07:55

FT one is talking about breakfast.

cdtaylornats · 18/05/2017 07:56

So you put VAT on school fees. People then can't afford it and send their kids to local schools. This increases the pressure on crowded schools and will lead to house price inflation near good local schools.

origamiwarrior · 18/05/2017 07:57

If it was a choice between voting tory and knowing infant FSM would be axed, or voting labour knowing all kids would get FSM's how could anyone vote conservatives.

You do realise, don't you, that the tax receipts are broadly the same whatever government you get? So Labour would be spending the tax on universal FSM, meaning less money for the NHS, education, benefits whereas the Tories would be saving money by not providing universal FSM, thus more money for the NHS, education, benefits?

Under both parties, all children whose parents can't afford to feed them will still get FSM (i.e means tested). But in this time of austerity when the NHS is on it's knees, school budgets are being cut and benefits slashed in order to balance the books, why should my family, with a six-figure income, receive FSM?

LaLegue · 18/05/2017 07:57

I just read this morning that the Tories were going to give ALL primary aged children free breakfast.

Increasinglymiddleaged · 18/05/2017 07:57

But I think the money should go straight into funding schools avocado rather than being taken away from children.

UFSM are a nice idea in an ideal world but we live in a cash strapped one with bigger priorities for education funding. Forcing a second breakfast into children is , however.

kerstina · 18/05/2017 07:58

I will be voting Labour but think this is the worst policy they have come up with . I would be annoyed if my children were in private school too. It's almost like they are saying if your children are in a state school your children need a free meal . I agree the money could be better spent elsewhere . My teacher friend has just been made redundant due to cuts to the budget of the school.

avocadosripe · 18/05/2017 07:59

I agree increasingly - did you mix me up with someone? :) Or are there two avocados?

babybythesea · 18/05/2017 08:01

I thought the policy was stupid so would support getting rid of free school meals for all, providing that those who need them can still access them. And I am the most ardent anti conservative there is. This makes sense though.
The only king that annoys me is the money already wasted.

In our school a tiny village school, we used to get meals through a local company who delivered them each day to the school. They served loads of schools in the area, all of them small village schools without their own kitchen. Then this policy was announced. The company promptly said that they were not going to be serving the outlying schools like ours, as they had more than enough business from the handful of schools close to them. Our school had to quickly install a kitchen, which obviously cost money. It's not a big kitchen as the infants entitled to free meals only numbers about 25, so it's not suitable for cooking lessons - the kids do what they always did and walk down to the village hall where there is space for them to work.
I'd love to know what happens now. Will our school continue to pay a chef if only a fraction of the kids have school meals? Because that might not be economically viable. If not, what do we do with the kitchen we only spent money on 3 years ago, beating in mind it's not a fit workspace for the kids to use. And if we don't, can we go back to using the original company? What happens if they don't get much take up from surrounding schools who are now using their own new kitchens but their local demand falls and they go out of business? Does this mean that we don't actually have the option of hot meals any more?
It will work itself out, but it is annoying that the school spent a lot of money on this for such a short time before the policy died a death, when the system we had before worked beautifully.

nicknameofawesome · 18/05/2017 08:02

Fsm for all is a stupid use of money imo when schools can't afford TAs and stationary and are having to replace long serving staff with nqts to save money.

It also means very low income families aren't claiming pupil premium as they don't realise it's a different thing in turn leaving schools even more short of money and meaning the kids who need the support pp can offer (like reduced cost or free school trips) aren't getting it.

Increasinglymiddleaged · 18/05/2017 08:02

Yeah I'm just being clear I am not particularly against UFSM that's all in an ideal world.

It's almost like they are saying if your children are in a state school your children need a free meal

No one gets wound up about food being free in hospitals. Most of them could afford to pay for it too. I don't get the up in arms treatment this policy gets.

Cantusethatname · 18/05/2017 08:03

We did not need or want free school meals.

nicknameofawesome · 18/05/2017 08:03

I won't vote Tory because I don't trust them to take the funding they save and invest it back into school budgets but this is imo a sensible policy.

Edsheeranalbumparty · 18/05/2017 08:03

They take from the sick. They take from the old. And now they target hungry children.

Oh please...........

My dd is in year 1 and if this comes to fruition then she won't go 'hungry' because, um.....I will pay for her to have a school dinner?

Many of the Tory policies are pretty despicable, but people going after this particular one just shows that people are not interested in impartial debate, they will just shout 'Evil Tory Scum' whatever.

'Hungry children'.........

Headofthehive55 · 18/05/2017 08:06

Why in earth does anyone want to give well off people like us free lunches I've no idea.
And my child is more hungry the days he has them than the days he natters me for sandwiches!

corythatwas · 18/05/2017 08:07

In Sweden free school meals for everyone works well because there is enough money in the kitty to pay for healthy well presented meals. The fact that they are free makes parents far less inclined to listen to little Johnny's insistence that he can only eat crisp butties and KitKats: pandering to their offspring's taste would cost them needless expenditure and they don't care for that.

But obviously this will only work if the taxpayers are ready to pay for it. The Swedish taxpayers seem to think it's a good deal: healthy eating habits instilled in next generation= healthier population, fewer medical costs.

scaryteacher · 18/05/2017 08:08

I always made sure ds had a good breakfast before he left for school, so he wasn't hungry.

Headofthehive55 · 18/05/2017 08:09

Hungry children.. youve met my son then....

Gileswithachainsaw · 18/05/2017 08:11

See that's the trouble cory

The standards are too low here. Ours are brought in they don't look very appetizing. Both mine take packed lunches.

They technically adhere to the guidelines but they are not nice.

origamiwarrior · 18/05/2017 08:11

No one gets wound up about food being free in hospitals. Most of them could afford to pay for it too. I don't get the up in arms treatment this policy gets.

I think the hospital situation is different in that it would actually be more expensive to administer a means-tested system than the money it would save (considering the number of people in hospital at any one time is so low (vs. the number of children in school), and people might just stay for one or two days - can you imagine the admin involved to record, invoice, means-test and retrospectively get £13.50 for their two night stay (since it would have to be free at the point of delivery).

avocadosripe · 18/05/2017 08:12

Comparing one of the most densely populated countries in the world to one of the least densely populated is not a fair or sensible comparison.

GlitterGlue · 18/05/2017 08:12

If fsm were extended to the working poor I'd be in favour. If the remaining money was to be channeled into education instead I'd be in favour. It that won't happen, will it.

If you get working tax credit you do not qualify for fsm. Even though you will still be on a low income.

ProudConservative · 18/05/2017 08:12

At what cost will every child be fed by the state?

You never know what's around the corner blah blah, but if you can't feed your children yourself then you really shouldn't have them.

GhostsToMonsoon · 18/05/2017 08:13

DS doesn't eat the free meals anyway as he doesn't like them. I get the idea that it was supposed to give all children a healthy lunch with long-term benefits. But when schools are massively underfunded I'd rather the money was spent on funding them better.

We don't get child benefit yet qualify for a free lunch. All meals are paid via Parentpay anyway, so it shouldn't be obvious who is on FSM.

Headofthehive55 · 18/05/2017 08:15

I think hospitals are different in that sometimes you can't plan as it's often a sudden admission. It's no surprise that it's school on Monday (well apart from my children seem to be surprised .

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 ··· 25 26

Swipe left for the next trending thread