Discussion
Carl_VivaEspana said:
Disastrous said:
But it’s such a daft question.
“Where does it end?”
How about “At schools meals”. Is it acceptable now?
It doesn't though does it? “Where does it end?”
How about “At schools meals”. Is it acceptable now?
There is no real limit on human suffering that the state needs to fund and fix as human suffering is endless.
For the 120 million spent on school meals, there is 120 million for helping kids with physical disabilities, 120 million to be spent on feeding and clothing the homeless, 120 million on helping women fleeing abuse, 120 million on preventing child trafficking, 120 million on preventing drug trafficking related violence by early intervention, 120 million on mental health care, 120 million on working tax credits for those at the hard end of society and poor working conditions .....
You know, in terms of spending priorities there is a whole laundry list of things to throw 120 million at and I am not sure school meals is the priority, given the choice but hey, all money is free right?
Over time the challenge is not finding money to spend things on, it's about maintaining the tax base and maintaining GDP per head so you have money to spend and the arguement, for too long now has been about the 'spend' arguement rather than the tax base, growth and GDP her head arguement.
Carl_VivaEspana said:
It doesn't though does it?
There is no real limit on human suffering that the state needs to fund and fix as human suffering is endless.
For the 120 million spent on school meals, there is 120 million for helping kids with physical disabilities, 120 million to be spent on feeding and clothing the homeless, 120 million on helping women fleeing abuse, 120 million on preventing child trafficking, 120 million on preventing drug trafficking related violence by early intervention, 120 million on mental health care, 120 million on working tax credits for those at the hard end of society and poor working conditions .....
You know, in terms of spending priorities there is a whole laundry list of things to throw 120 million at and I am not sure school meals is the priority, given the choice but hey, all money is free right?
Over time the challenge is not finding money to spend things on, it's about maintaining the tax base and maintaining GDP per head so you have money to spend and the arguement, for too long now has been about the 'spend' arguement rather than the tax base, growth and GDP her head arguement.
Most of the policies you've just mentioned would almost certainly have positive cost/benefits. They would increase GDP, productivity and tax take by improving overall health, education, security and opportunity and reducing spending on serious/long term health issues and the costs of poverty, crime and inequality.There is no real limit on human suffering that the state needs to fund and fix as human suffering is endless.
For the 120 million spent on school meals, there is 120 million for helping kids with physical disabilities, 120 million to be spent on feeding and clothing the homeless, 120 million on helping women fleeing abuse, 120 million on preventing child trafficking, 120 million on preventing drug trafficking related violence by early intervention, 120 million on mental health care, 120 million on working tax credits for those at the hard end of society and poor working conditions .....
You know, in terms of spending priorities there is a whole laundry list of things to throw 120 million at and I am not sure school meals is the priority, given the choice but hey, all money is free right?
Over time the challenge is not finding money to spend things on, it's about maintaining the tax base and maintaining GDP per head so you have money to spend and the arguement, for too long now has been about the 'spend' arguement rather than the tax base, growth and GDP her head arguement.
It is as close to free money as there can be in public policy - education in general, and school meals specifically - are cost savers/revenue generators. The underlying cause for the UK's sluggish growth and spiralling welfare bill over the past 15 years is that we have cut spending on these things under the delusion that they're cost sinks when actually we're hobbling the ability of the economy and its people to maximise their potential.
I'll spell it out again: There is no overall cost to providing school meals to all children. It leaves the Treasury with more money than they put in, so they can spend more on other things. Or, if you must have it that way, on taxing you less.
There are only moral or ideological reasons to be against it and similar policies.
Edited by 2xChevrons on Wednesday 1st May 21:02
CraigyMc said:
I'm someone who relied on school meals as a child and is now a powerfully built director who pays a lot more than the average income tax for the UK. If it's going to school meals, I'd be quite happy to pay more.
@Andy, do you actually want poor kids going hungry? Straight yes/no answer please.
I too had free school meals, and no I don’t want kids to go hungry. There is no need for poor kids to go hungry because they can get free school meals. Rich kids don’t need free meals. It’s not a difficult concept to understand@Andy, do you actually want poor kids going hungry? Straight yes/no answer please.
Disastrous said:
andymadmak said:
Thats right Stewie, completely ignore the points made and hide behind a simplistic slogan. Not like you at all 
I ask again, where does it end? Weekend meals? Meals in holidays? Shoes for everyone? A winter coat? All are necessary things, but the state cannot usurp the role of the parent!
But it’s such a daft question. I ask again, where does it end? Weekend meals? Meals in holidays? Shoes for everyone? A winter coat? All are necessary things, but the state cannot usurp the role of the parent! “Where does it end?”
How about “At schools meals”. Is it acceptable now?
Disastrous said:
It’s been explained several times why it doesn’t actually cost anything though. Or do you just not believe that because it’s harder to be ideologically against giving kids free food?
It’s been asserted, but it hasn’t been proven with verifiable data. I’ll listen when there is dataandymadmak said:
I too had free school meals, and no I don’t want kids to go hungry. There is no need for poor kids to go hungry because they can get free school meals. Rich kids don’t need free meals. It’s not a difficult concept to understand
Why do you want to spend more money than necessary? Because it will cost more to means-test the rich kids and implement a system to not give them meals than it would to just give every child meals. Strange for someone who prioritises minimising spending and the value of money and not denying resources to other causes. Killboy said:
I've just looked on the government site about how you go about applying for this.
I do wonder what sort of stigma that must attach to the poor kids. Are there any studies that show this approach to be a good thing? Its not something I've paid much attention to, but the little I have seems to show that providing school lunches to all has nothing but positive outcomes.
I have started to wonder what we really get for our taxes.
I got no stigma or abuse for it as a kid. The positive outcome of kids getting a meal is not the issue, it’s the idea that all lunch meals for all kids should be paid for by the state because apparently that means poor kids will definitely get them, even though they can already get them! Unless you believe that Government coffers are infinite, why would you want to pay for a wealthy person’s kid to have lunch when the money would be better spent giving more support to the poor and needy? I do wonder what sort of stigma that must attach to the poor kids. Are there any studies that show this approach to be a good thing? Its not something I've paid much attention to, but the little I have seems to show that providing school lunches to all has nothing but positive outcomes.
I have started to wonder what we really get for our taxes.
2xChevrons said:
andymadmak said:
I too had free school meals, and no I don’t want kids to go hungry. There is no need for poor kids to go hungry because they can get free school meals. Rich kids don’t need free meals. It’s not a difficult concept to understand
Why do you want to spend more money than necessary? Because it will cost more to means-test the rich kids and implement a system to not give them meals than it would to just give every child meals. Strange for someone who prioritises minimising spending and the value of money and not denying resources to other causes. andymadmak said:
It’s been asserted, but it hasn’t been proven with verifiable data. I’ll listen when there is data
"1.2 Topline FindingsThe CBA found that both expansion scenarios presented a positive return on investment (ROI).
For each scenario the total discounted core benefit has been estimated, as follows:
Expansion scenario 1 (Universal credit)
£8.9bn = Total discounted core benefit for all pupils receiving Universal Credit from 2025-2045
Every £1 invested is estimated to generate £1.38 in the core benefits.
Expansion scenario 2 (Universal Free School Meals)
£41.3bn = Total discounted core benefit for all pupils in state-funded schools from 2025-2045
Every £1 invested is estimated to generate £1.71 in the core benefits."
"Expanding free school meals to every child from households receiving universal credit would help alleviate immediate cost of living pressures, and would ultimately return £1.38 to the economy for every £1 invested over a 20-year period. That means an injection of £8.9bn into the economy, as well as wider indirect benefits of £16.2bn through regional economic and supply chain gains. And, should the government choose to extend entitlement to all children in state-funded education, the research shows that £41.3bn would be generated in direct benefits and a further £58.2bn in indirect."
-Impact on Urban Health/PwC, 2022
"The universal pilot had a significant positive impact on attainment for primary school
pupils at Key Stages 1 and 2, with pupils in the pilot areas making between four and
eight weeks’ more progress than similar pupils in comparison areas."
- Department of Education, Universal Free School Meals Pilot Report, 2010.
"A sample of ten countries where school meals, take-
home rations or biscuits are provided shows that
every single dollar invested gave an economic re-
turn of 3 to 10 USD from improved health and
education among schoolchildren and increased
productivity when they become working adults."
- World Food Programme Executive Board, 2016
andymadmak said:
I got no stigma or abuse for it as a kid. The positive outcome of kids getting a meal is not the issue, it’s the idea that all lunch meals for all kids should be paid for by the state because apparently that means poor kids will definitely get them, even though they can already get them! Unless you believe that Government coffers are infinite, why would you want to pay for a wealthy person’s kid to have lunch when the money would be better spent giving more support to the poor and needy?
So positive outcomes of a program should not be considered but rather if the rich might get a freebie? Bit of a weird take on it. Rich people probably pay the majority of the tax used for it.Killboy said:
So positive outcomes of a program should not be considered but rather if the rich might get a freebie? Bit of a weird take on it. Rich people probably pay the majority of the tax used for it.
And worth pointing out yet again that it's state schools only. If you're rich then you're more likely to be sending your offspring private.
Disastrous said:
It’s been explained several times why it doesn’t actually cost anything though. Or do you just not believe that because it’s harder to be ideologically against giving kids free food?
In a world that is now rooted in entitlement and social justice there is only one right answer between allocating 120 million to free school meals or, 120 million to body armour for our army - we end up spending 240 million and fund it with debt and ever higher taxation.If you have to decide between these two competing priorities you are either a proponent of child starvation or, a squaddie killer.
There is no real end to social justice or, it's cost to the tax payer, it's designed to always find another way to spend ever increasing amounts on state dependency.
Why stop at free food? why not free clothing for all children under 16 ? no child should have to have to suffer the indignity of not being able to afford a coat and shoes. what about a home? what about heating it during winter so they don't become sick? why can't people afford electricity and water so a child can have a hot shower or bath? why not make it free for all at the point of use as they are basic human rights?
I, like pretty much everyone else here, I suspect , wishes the elimination of all these issues from our society and way of life, especially children and the vulnerable.
The problem with the left in our country is that the coverage and scale of social justice has moved well beyond where it was originally intended to focus on and the irony of it is, the UK probably could afford to entirely eliminate child poverty, implement free school meals, clothing, food vouchers, housing if the focus was shifted away from the welfare state that supports adults that are not actually vulnerable.
that's not a dialog the left wants to have as everyone has a grievance and a need on the state as the state will provide for all.
Carl_VivaEspana said:
Why stop at free food? why not free clothing for all children under 16 ? no child should have to have to suffer the indignity of not being able to afford a coat and shoes. what about a home? what about heating it during winter so they don't become sick? why can't people afford electricity and water so a child can have a hot shower or bath? why not make it free for all at the point of use as they are basic human rights?
Yeah, why not? I think a lot those are covered by benefits already provided. andymadmak said:
Disastrous said:
andymadmak said:
Thats right Stewie, completely ignore the points made and hide behind a simplistic slogan. Not like you at all I ask again, where does it end? Weekend meals? Meals in holidays? Shoes for everyone? A winter coat? All are necessary things, but the state cannot usurp the role of the parent!
But it’s such a daft question. I ask again, where does it end? Weekend meals? Meals in holidays? Shoes for everyone? A winter coat? All are necessary things, but the state cannot usurp the role of the parent! “Where does it end?”
How about “At schools meals”. Is it acceptable now?
The point you refute and that Carl ignores, is that extending it to cover holidays/weekends shouldn’t incur an actual cost if the upside in outcome is there. All the other whataboutery you both bring up (clothes, shelter etc) may or may not have the same financial model, I don't know.
As for your 'verifiable data', I think somebody mentioned a PWC report earlier…not good enough?
Honestly, this feels ideological rather than data driven. You and Carl are just against the idea that it might be cheaper to provide something to all rather than means test it. The end.
It's a pity - I do a lot of work with a charity that helps kids with issues like holiday hunger, heating or eating etc etc and it's been quite eye opening to see firsthand that the parents involved usually aren't the lazy, alcoholic, druggies I feel certain you are imagining.
I also sense this will fall on deaf ears so will bow out on that note.
Carl_VivaEspana said:
In a world that is now rooted in entitlement and social justice there is only one right answer between allocating 120 million to free school meals or, 120 million to body armour for our army - we end up spending 240 million and fund it with debt and ever higher taxation.
If you have to decide between these two competing priorities you are either a proponent of child starvation or, a squaddie killer.
There is no real end to social justice or, it's cost to the tax payer, it's designed to always find another way to spend ever increasing amounts on state dependency.
Why stop at free food? why not free clothing for all children under 16 ? no child should have to have to suffer the indignity of not being able to afford a coat and shoes. what about a home? what about heating it during winter so they don't become sick? why can't people afford electricity and water so a child can have a hot shower or bath? why not make it free for all at the point of use as they are basic human rights?
I, like pretty much everyone else here, I suspect , wishes the elimination of all these issues from our society and way of life, especially children and the vulnerable.
The problem with the left in our country is that the coverage and scale of social justice has moved well beyond where it was originally intended to focus on and the irony of it is, the UK probably could afford to entirely eliminate child poverty, implement free school meals, clothing, food vouchers, housing if the focus was shifted away from the welfare state that supports adults that are not actually vulnerable.
that's not a dialog the left wants to have as everyone has a grievance and a need on the state as the state will provide for all.
When did the ‘world become rooted in entitlement and social justice?’ If you have to decide between these two competing priorities you are either a proponent of child starvation or, a squaddie killer.
There is no real end to social justice or, it's cost to the tax payer, it's designed to always find another way to spend ever increasing amounts on state dependency.
Why stop at free food? why not free clothing for all children under 16 ? no child should have to have to suffer the indignity of not being able to afford a coat and shoes. what about a home? what about heating it during winter so they don't become sick? why can't people afford electricity and water so a child can have a hot shower or bath? why not make it free for all at the point of use as they are basic human rights?
I, like pretty much everyone else here, I suspect , wishes the elimination of all these issues from our society and way of life, especially children and the vulnerable.
The problem with the left in our country is that the coverage and scale of social justice has moved well beyond where it was originally intended to focus on and the irony of it is, the UK probably could afford to entirely eliminate child poverty, implement free school meals, clothing, food vouchers, housing if the focus was shifted away from the welfare state that supports adults that are not actually vulnerable.
that's not a dialog the left wants to have as everyone has a grievance and a need on the state as the state will provide for all.
There are some very skewed folk on here, desperately clinging to their ideology and dogmatically using any old tripe to counter reality and common sense. There’s a wealth of evidence that providing kids with the nourishment they need has clear cost benefits, equally that means testing is counter productive, it’s been known for years.
You can be certain when one of the usual reactionary lot insists it's not a left right issue, it's exacty that in their heads. SInce the pandemic, poverty levels have risen around the world. Ten years ago, Britain would have been at the forefront of efforts to alleviate this, Today, we see wholesale Tory indifference to hardship. The school meals coalition, led by developing nations to grow universal access to free school meals has China, the EU & the US as members but we're nowhere to be seen, another little death by a thousand cuts as the world becomes increasingly indifferent to Brexit Britain,
Right wingers rely on spurious anti government arguments to shore up their look the other way vibe in a cost of living crisis. Starmer is crippled by electoral caution & as far as I can see, the only polly getting it is Khan. The UK's governing class is disconnected from global trends on this in a period where we desperately need to combat obesity, poverty & moreover, our food security in a small island that imports north of 30% of its food & could recast our food systems at a policy level but of course what matters in some minds is where the family ends & the state begins.
Right wingers rely on spurious anti government arguments to shore up their look the other way vibe in a cost of living crisis. Starmer is crippled by electoral caution & as far as I can see, the only polly getting it is Khan. The UK's governing class is disconnected from global trends on this in a period where we desperately need to combat obesity, poverty & moreover, our food security in a small island that imports north of 30% of its food & could recast our food systems at a policy level but of course what matters in some minds is where the family ends & the state begins.
Blue62 said:
Carl_VivaEspana said:
In a world that is now rooted in entitlement and social justice there is only one right answer between allocating 120 million to free school meals or, 120 million to body armour for our army - we end up spending 240 million and fund it with debt and ever higher taxation.
If you have to decide between these two competing priorities you are either a proponent of child starvation or, a squaddie killer.
There is no real end to social justice or, it's cost to the tax payer, it's designed to always find another way to spend ever increasing amounts on state dependency.
Why stop at free food? why not free clothing for all children under 16 ? no child should have to have to suffer the indignity of not being able to afford a coat and shoes. what about a home? what about heating it during winter so they don't become sick? why can't people afford electricity and water so a child can have a hot shower or bath? why not make it free for all at the point of use as they are basic human rights?
I, like pretty much everyone else here, I suspect , wishes the elimination of all these issues from our society and way of life, especially children and the vulnerable.
The problem with the left in our country is that the coverage and scale of social justice has moved well beyond where it was originally intended to focus on and the irony of it is, the UK probably could afford to entirely eliminate child poverty, implement free school meals, clothing, food vouchers, housing if the focus was shifted away from the welfare state that supports adults that are not actually vulnerable.
that's not a dialog the left wants to have as everyone has a grievance and a need on the state as the state will provide for all.
When did the ‘world become rooted in entitlement and social justice?’ If you have to decide between these two competing priorities you are either a proponent of child starvation or, a squaddie killer.
There is no real end to social justice or, it's cost to the tax payer, it's designed to always find another way to spend ever increasing amounts on state dependency.
Why stop at free food? why not free clothing for all children under 16 ? no child should have to have to suffer the indignity of not being able to afford a coat and shoes. what about a home? what about heating it during winter so they don't become sick? why can't people afford electricity and water so a child can have a hot shower or bath? why not make it free for all at the point of use as they are basic human rights?
I, like pretty much everyone else here, I suspect , wishes the elimination of all these issues from our society and way of life, especially children and the vulnerable.
The problem with the left in our country is that the coverage and scale of social justice has moved well beyond where it was originally intended to focus on and the irony of it is, the UK probably could afford to entirely eliminate child poverty, implement free school meals, clothing, food vouchers, housing if the focus was shifted away from the welfare state that supports adults that are not actually vulnerable.
that's not a dialog the left wants to have as everyone has a grievance and a need on the state as the state will provide for all.
There are some very skewed folk on here, desperately clinging to their ideology and dogmatically using any old tripe to counter reality and common sense. There’s a wealth of evidence that providing kids with the nourishment they need has clear cost benefits, equally that means testing is counter productive, it’s been known for years.
Did you look on in shock and surprise when Trump got himself elected? I wouldn't vote for him if he was the last young cat grabber in the universe, yet the reasons for his election were and are obvious - but they appear to elude you. Is the Daily Mail read widely in the USA? There's one excuse gone, some more excuses will appear for sure. The Left Knows Best.
Another Trump (if not the same one) will be elected in one country or another soon enough. Shocking. There's a dire need here for more than useless Labour and useless Conservatives, so I won't be trashing an alternative knee-jerky style when it becomes available even if I disagree with its policies. A new Party or Parties appearing is a sign of something good (more choice) not all that's wrong.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff