Tory MP quits government over refusal to extend free school meals

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I have a couple of questions on your end statement. A far bigger factor in what? What's the definition of a disorganised home and what's the statistical evidence for it?

If only I had posted an example link? Oh, wait a minute, I did.

Inadequate sleep and skipping breakfast may also be indicators of disorganised households or low parental supervision.

Children skipping breakfast is usually ALSO labelled as being a financial issue. That is the connection.

A review of 24 studies among 6–18‐year‐olds found the family correlates with the most evidence of an association with skipping breakfast were being from a single‐parent home and having a parent who skipped breakfast

When did they scrap the previous system of providing free school meals during holiday time?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

My former next door neighbours were at the shop at 7 am every morning buying cigs and booze,also cannabis from a local dealer, never paid rent or bills, they had 5 kids who lived on cheap pizza's from aldi and nad no change of clothes,they created their own poverty and the children suffered for it.

Yes, and that’s the uncomfortable to truth for all good-doers.

Children are always used at pawns by the ‘wets’ of our society. What we need to do is to reinforce parental responsibility.

[BenMcr]

And you do that by punishing the children?? They're the ones that are hungry.

And even if some parents do what you suggest, the majority don't and do everything they can for their children.

So you'd punish the majority for the actions of a minority?

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

And you do that by punishing the children?? They're the ones that are hungry.

And even if some parents do what you suggest, the majority don't and do everything they can for their children.

So you'd punish the majority for the actions of a minority?

The only way of protecting the children would be to remove them from the parents at birth.
The majority cope perfectly well, because they behave themselves.
All too often even with moderate spenders, when you look at examples of their finances, the parents are spending some of the money they get for the kids, on themselves.

Labour chucked a whole load of money into tax credits and that hasn't worked. Strange that they never introduced anything.

School meals were never about helping out financially. It was purely a practical matter of having to bus kids longer distances.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by nomadking

All too often even with moderate spenders, when you look at examples of their finances, the parents are spending some of the money they get for the kids, on themselves.

And surely that's a problem of the way the system works and the government should fix that, not a reason not to do it at all?

Also the government have been in power for 10 years. Almost all the children this impacts have only lived under this government. I don't see what Labour did or didn't do before that impacts what we should do now during a worldwide pandemic.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

And surely that's a problem of the way the system works and the government should fix that, not a reason not to do it at all?

Also the government have been in power for 10 years. Almost all the children this impacts have only lived under this government. I don't see what Labour did or didn't do before that impacts what we should do now during a worldwide pandemic.

Labour had 13 years and were more than happy to chuck around money, and having to borrow from 2002 onwards to fund it.
The Tax credits system DID give parents a lot more money. That was it's intention. Giving them more money DIDN'T WORK (allegedly).
Those previously on benefits to one degree or another, will have had little impact on their income, so bogus argument about the pandemic. The arguments ARE NOT just about those affected. The whinging is about long-term ongoing spending, not just a temporary measure.

[BenMcr]

The vote was for a temporary measure.

[Mad Max]

It's an absolute disgrace for any child to be hungry in this country.

[nomadking]

The whinging has being going on for YEARS, it's not just something that has started "overnight".

Link

Footballer Marcus Rashford is pledging to continue his campaign to see free school meals given to children during all school holidays in England, after the government rejected the idea.
The Manchester United and England forward says his call - part of an effort to end child food poverty - is "not going to go away anytime soon".

Nothing to do with the pandemic. It's just being used as an excuse.

But asked about the campaign on Thursday, a Downing Street spokesman indicated ministers would not provide free school meals to children in the Christmas break, saying: "It's not for schools to regularly provide food to pupils during the school holidays."
The spokesman added: "We took that decision to extend free school meals during the pandemic when schools were partially closed during lockdown. We're in a different position now with schools back open to all pupils.
"We believe the best way to support families outside of term time is through Universal Credit rather than government subsidising meals."

Senior Tory MP Rob Halfon, chairman of the Education Select Committee, said on Twitter the government response was "very disappointing... We need a long-term plan to combat child food hunger, especially given 32% of families have had a drop in income since March."

They get money SPECIFICALLY for the children, what they actually spend it on is another matter. They've had increases and it supposedly hasn't solved anything, so chucking more money at them, isn't going to work either.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

The whinging has being going on for YEARS, it's not just something that has started "overnight".

Link
Nothing to do with the pandemic. It's just being used as an excuse.
They get money SPECIFICALLY for the children, what they actually spend it on is another matter. They've had increases and it supposedly hasn't solved anything, so chucking more money at them, isn't going to work either.

If the parents don't spend it on the children then it's right to feed the chldren directly. You shoudn't allow children to starve because of their parents' failings.

---------- Post added at 22:40 ---------- Previous post was at 22:38 ----------

Originally Posted by Mad Max

It's an absolute disgrace for any child to be hungry in this country.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

If the parents don't spend it on the children then it's right to feed the chldren directly. You shoudn't allow children to starve because of their parents' failings.

---------- Post added at 22:40 ---------- Previous post was at 22:38 ----------

Then the additional money given to the parents should be taken off them. They can't be expected to "have their cake and eat it".
Either the parents are responsible, or the kids should be taken off them at birth.
They are never going to learn to be responsible, if you keep chucking money at them when they AREN'T being responsible. You can't reward irresponsibility and then expect it to reduce.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Then the additional money given to the parents should be taken off them. They can't be expected to "have their cake and eat it".
Either the parents are responsible, or the kids should be taken off them at birth.
They are never going to learn to be responsible, if you keep chucking money at them when they AREN'T being responsible. You can't reward irresponsibility and then expect it to reduce.

No one's talking about rewarding irresponsibility. We're just saying children shouldn't be punished for their parents' mistakes by starving. This is not a controversial opinion.

[Julian]

Would it be controversial to reduce the money given to dysfunctional parents and give it directly to the provider of the meals for the hungry/starving children.

Cut out the cretin in the middle

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Julian

Would it be controversial to reduce the money given to dysfunctional parents and give it directly to the provider of the meals for the hungry/starving children.

Cut out the cretin in the middle

Probably not, until it was revealed Serco were valuing a couple of tins of beans and some chips and a loaf (including postage and packing) at £5/day

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Julian

Would it be controversial to reduce the money given to dysfunctional parents and give it directly to the provider of the meals for the hungry/starving children.

Cut out the cretin in the middle

Much as I laud the principle,how would it work in practice? If some parents felt they would lose out financially by their chidren having free meals, then they could force their children to avoid the free meals.