The education, healthcare etc that keeps getting brought up is a silly argument. As others have said, you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere.

You are contradicting yourself. If you believe that one should draw the line at some arbitrary point, then there is no overriding principle for arguing that meals shouldn’t be provided.

The opposite argument can be applied though that everyone should be provided for to exactly the same degree across the board regardless of wealth….sounding very Orwell-esque again.

Have you actually read Orwell? What you are describing is in fact more akin to social provision in the Scandinavian countries. Not exactly dystopian nightmares of state oppression, are they?

You are contradicting yourself. If you believe that one should draw the line at some arbitrary point, then there is no overriding principle for arguing that meals shouldn’t be provided.

There is. If you have to borrow money to pay for them, which is the case now. That should be an overriding principle for all new spend.

Oliwb… On page 2 I asked a question why a scheme of extended provision would not work, but a bit like what they did with child allowance….you automatically get free meals but if you earn over x amount (or if you would rather your kids take a packed lunch for that matter) you opt out of the free meals.

Someone posted the report that (if my memory serves me correctly) said the extended provision (an opt in scheme) did not work because of the stigma and parents not knowing about it. So if it was an opt out thing, that would remove the parents not knowing about it thing and if the stigma issue can be ‘managed’ out by paying at a reception (or something similar).

Does it all come down to the cost of implementing the scheme? And the free for all is actually cheaper to implement

There is. If you have to borrow money to pay for them, which is the case now. That should be an overriding principle for all new spend.

No it shouldn’t. The benefits of a particular state service may outweigh the costs of its provision. Those benefits could be financial or social.

Each case should be considered on its own merits.

The social impact of use being unable to pay the interest on our debt will be pretty spectacular.

5thElefant – Member
All new expenditure is funded through yet more borrowing.

Untrue. We really would be in the *^#@ if that were the case.

Junkyard – lazarus
I dont think crippling the economy and high unemployment due to severe cuts is the panacea you seem to think it is.

Which is why I find your support for fixed exchange rates so odd – forced wage deflation and high unemployment are a unavoidable consequence. Why would anyone with an interest in workers’ rights want that? Very odd.

I am really finding some of this incredibly humorous… The general argument which seems to be based on ‘”not subsidising the rich” is a real belter. No one will be subsidising the rich. The people with real wealth don’t educate children at state schools so won’t qualify. The current taxation system taxes most people based on earnings (PAYE at least) so people paying more tax are paying more in so they are not getting a free ride at all.

I have nothing to gain from this personally – mine will all be too old to qualify.

The social impact of use being unable to pay the interest on our debt will be pretty spectacular.

Free school meals are loose change. I suspect they’re not going to tip us over the edge.

Are you aware that in Norway, funded nursery care pays for itself?

There is. If you have to borrow money to pay for them, which is the case now. That should be an overriding principle for all new spend.

That would be why all commercial investment decisions are made based on ‘hard’ (financial) benefits then. Or maybe not…!

Untrue. We really would be in the *^#@ if that were the case.

How is this untrue?

We take in less in tax than is spent.

If we find something new to spend money on how could it possibly be funded by anything but borrowing?

And yes, we really are in the *^#@.

That would be why all commercial investment decisions are made based on ‘hard’ (financial) benefits then. Or maybe not…!

Investments make a return. This isn’t an investment, it’s a cost.

The Torygraph, of all places, provides a good justification and from an intersting source

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/primaryeducation/10318087/Everyone-benefits-from-free-school-meals.html

Cleggie must be happy – 11 pages on a Lib Dem proposal. Is that a first?

5thE – pause a second. All new expenditure is not paid for out of borrowing.

The fact that spending exceeds revenue (tax) does not make your statement true. It isn’t.

Investments make a return. This isn’t an investment, it’s a cost.

A number of potential benefits have been advanced, including improved educational attainment. I’d call that a worthwhile return.

5thE – pause a second. All new expenditure is not paid for out of borrowing.

The fact that spending exceeds revenue (tax) does not make your statement true. It isn’t.
Presumably you’re implying a cut is made elsewhere to ‘fund’ it. As you had to borrow to pay for that, then you’ve just transferred the borrowed money elsewhere. You’re still borrowing. The national debt still goes up.

No I am not, although it may well be the case that the £600m is taken from another part of the budget. But that is yet another story still. Your basic premise that all new expenditure if financed through yet more borrowing is simply untrue. That’s why I am saying, pause a second, since you are merely weakening the point your are trying to make.

This thread is ace… 240 000 pages about something that will not happen!

Which is why I find your support for fixed exchange rates so odd

Not sure why you think i am in favour of fixed exchange rates as it is not an issue that I
a)Know very much about
b) Care very much about

Not sure how you have shoe horned that into this debate but you have clearly given it more though than I have.
I suspect some EU debate? was it in relation to the Euro zone only?
TBH I know next to nothing about exchange rates and their effects.

Are you aware that in Norway, funded nursery care pays for itself?

Oh for ****’s sake don’t throw that in. The Daily Heil lot will consume themselves in a sea of frothing rage and anger. 👿

You know some of the logic being applied in this thread really is quite odd. Apparently those of us who think that making these meals compulsory, and free to those who can’t afford it, are simultaneously communist and daily mail readers. Apparently it’s fine if these meals are free as they will improve the educational achievement of the kids, but if you make it compulsory that’s wrong inspire if the fact that it will self evidently improve the educational achievements of more kids. Apparently compulsory things are bad, in spite of the large number of things that are compulsory in schools like uniforms and attendance (well assuming the parents have decided to use the public education system. I was also under the impression that feeding your children was generally considered to be compulsory, but then I’m not a parent.

What I have learned is to not underestimate the sense of entitlement of some parents.

I think many have missed the point about why this policy is being introduced.It’s not just about helping the poor or avoiding the stigma of free school meals and the susbequent lack of uptake.It’s about improving the diet of as many children as possible at a crucial stage in their development by providing a healthy nutritious meal.Inculating good eating habits at an early age has multiple benefits as any responsible parent and stacks of published research can tell you.And it’s not just the poor and/or kids who currently qualify for free school meals who eat junk food or have a poor diet.The nation already has a health time bomb caused by poor dietary habits.This measure is a step in the right direction.
I still hate the LibDems and after all the talk over the summer about Labour and Ed and lack of policy and direction why on earth did they not suggest this first?

As others have said, you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere.

You’re talking about extending the things the poor get on a means tested basis to the whole of the population (ie universal benefits)? In which case, why do you have to draw a line in the sand?

after all the talk over the summer about Labour and Ed and lack of policy and direction why on earth did they not suggest this first?

Haven’t you just answered your own question?

after all the talk over the summer about Labour and Ed and lack of policy and direction why on earth did they not suggest this first?

Haven’t you just answered your own question?
Indeed.
Labour appear bankrupt of ideas or too paralysed by fear to advocate such “radical” policies.

The opposition, whether lab or Tory, never comes up with ideas until just before an election or the government would nick all the good ideas from them.

Miliband does seem spectacularly inept and bereft of ideas though