To wonder if there are any benefits to the change in income based free school meals?

[Ansumpasty]

As above...does this benefit anyone? What good comes of it, besides saving money to use elsewhere?

The only thing I can think is slightly more income for schools maybe? As in, more people will be paying for meals? Although, it seems more likely that receipients of free school meals will go hungry rather than pay.

I struggle to see any benefit other than saving money- the pros definitely don't outweigh the cons

It costs money to implement means tested benefits, and it causes social stigma. Kids from 'better off' families don't always get fed.

It would have been better to ask people to opt out.

It lets lots of people get FSM for their kids for the first time if they are on a low income and claiming tax credits - it closes a very unfair loophole.

losttherenow Didn’t they qualify previously?

No, previously if you claimed working tax credits you couldn't get Free school meals even if your income was less than the threshold, so it was only the poorest of the poor (ie on full benefits) that were actually allowed to claim. So the new rules, while not great, are actually a big improvement in making things fairer.

Ansum not if, like us, they're on WTC. The WTC is supposed to cover school meals. It doesn't. Every Monday I have to scrape together £9, £18 in September when DS2 moves up to yr3. Our lovely school has compulsory school meals, so packed lunches aren't an option.

Saving money to use elsewhere seems like a good plan.

There's also the incentive to have parents be responsible for feeding their own children. Encouraging adults to be adults is a good thing.

Families on WTC are often no better off than families on JSA once they've paid for school meals and travel to work costs

takeTheRest we have no spare money to save, if we have a big expense, we live on bread and potatoes for the rest of the week.

That's true, MotherOfMinions.

The Channel 4 fact checking report said the changes will actually mean 50,000 more children getting free meals.

Bundles, that’s interesting! My Facebook is full of people signing petitions and turning on (well, further turning on) the Conservative government for it and it’s good to know that something positive may come from it

Its a blip because of the stupid lack of planning around universal credit.

So most people in the country are still under tax credits (which you would want to be if you can as they are more generous) except that under TC system if you get WTC you don't get FSM even if you are on a very very low income. Under universal credit everyone getting any universal credit qualifies for FSM. So a family with 2 kids on about £30,000 if they made a new claim could get FSM, which is absolutely mad, whereas as stated above, other families with a very low income under the old system wont get them. So at the moment the old system was unfair as it disadvantaged working parents, and doubly unfair as if under universal credit those same parents would get FSM along with loads of other families who can very easily afford to feed their kids.

The press coverage over this has been appalling. I am beyond depressed about politics and the political party system in particular. Yes the income level could/should have been set higher but this was a good and necessary change to make things fairer and close a loophole, it certainly wasn't depriving millions of poor children of a hot meal.

@Ansumpasty

When you say "something good", surely 50,000 extra school meals is only good.

So, here are independent facts from C4.

Embarrassed about being suckered in by Labour's fake news or going to return to your

Posted to soon.

... return to your 'Tory-are-bad' echo chamber?

I'm genuinely interested if you do wish you hadn't been sucked in and if you'll look for actual facts in future.

Thanks, losttherenow, that’s a lot clearer! I don’t know anything about the benefit system so I’m thankful for you explaining it so clearly to me.
Taketherest Well that’s rude, what makes you think I have been sucked in?

It wasn't supposed to be rude but how haven't you been sucked in?

In your first post you assumed that the only (questionable) positive was saving money and said that your Facebook feed was full petitions and "further turning on" the Conservatives.

Don't you think that you were sucked in by the anti-Tory sentiment without having all of the facts?

Maybe I'm wrong but I get the idea that you were expecting to have a lot of big-bad-Tory replies. Was I wrong?

*Saving money to use elsewhere seems like a good plan

There's also the incentive to have parents be responsible for feeding their own children*

This ^^

It's awful on this day and age that schools and governments have to feed children because so many parents aren't. Food is a very basic of parenting.

taketherest. Really you think it is that simple teach adults to be adults. What about the poor DC going hungry. You're charming.

there's also the incentive to have parents be responsible for feeding their own children

That's a narrow minded view. Most families living in poverty aren't choosing not to feed their child properly, they don't lack incentive, they lack money. How patronising and contemptuous.
Believe it or not, the "Benefits Britain image- lazy scum who spunk their money on fags, booze and a big tele- is not representative of the majority of families on their knees trying to make ends meet and keep a roof over their heads, usually trapped in shitty zero hour working contracts and in debt because of this.

The cost of free school meals isn't coming out of a school's budget either. A school will receive government funding and for each child in receipt of fsm, the school also receive a pupil grant which they can put into school resources as they see fit.

@Juiceylucy09

Sadly not and I don't have the answers.

I do suspect that some parents don't provide for their children because they know someone else will but at the same time, you can't punish the children for being born to unfit 'parents'.

What the sarcastic "charming"?

It isn't the state's job to raise and provide the basics for children (food, shelter and clothing). I don't think being a parent is a right and I think that it's something you 'buy' with financial security*.

Do you think that raising children should be the responsibility of the state?

*I don't think I've worded this well. I basically meant that if you can't afford to have children, you shouldn't have children.

Oh come on take you're making ridiculous sweeping statements.

People's circumstances can and often do change. Your husband could up and leave, you could be in an accident and left disabled or diagnosed with a chronic debilitating illness and suddenly reliant on benefits. You could be made redundant and then struggle to find work. Should your children then be put up for adoption?

You seem to be insinuating that children in receipt of fsm have unfit parents. No wonder there's a stigma surrounding free meals with attitudes like that.

I don't think it's a sweeping statement when I say "some" and "think".

Did I say that children of parents who can't provide for them should be adopted or did I say " I don't have the answers"?

"You seem to be insinuating that children in receipt of fsm have unfit parents."

Some do, no doubt. Certainly not all and I didn't insinuate they all did!

I just totally disagree with the basis of your argument take. Britain is one of the richest countries in the world so yes I do think the state should assist with the basics (food,shelter) for the poorest sections of our society.

You're right, there are some unfit parents on very low income, there are unfit parents rolling in money. It seems a moot point. Claiming benefits is very rarely a lifestyle choice, despite what Tories would like you to believe.

"despite what Tories would like you to believe"

It's weird you attempted to create some strange opposition between them and us.

I think a life on benefits is a lifestyle choice for many and I don't think the state should provide basics when people make the choice to have children.

Do you think parenthood is a right, no matter whether you can provide for them without assistance or not?