Jeremy Corbyn's Labour

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

I'm a great fan of KL's but a period of silence from him now would be more than welcome.

been plenty of debates on how factual his comments were or not but I think we can all agree he would be best to keep a dignified silence.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

No, your "average" primary school pupil isn't poverty stricken and hungry, but it's pretty close - too close for comfort if you ask me. Barnardo's estimates that 3.7 million children in the UK live in poverty, 1.7 million of those are deemed to be within severe poverty.

If we're "all in this together", then making sure those children are guaranteed at least one good meal five times a week is the least we should be doing.

any teacher will tell you that there are children in their class who are being held back by the quality of their diet or through skipping meals. This catch all method is the best way to deal with that.

 

[rigsby]

No, your "average" primary school pupil isn't poverty stricken and hungry, but it's pretty close - too close for comfort if you ask me. Barnardo's estimates that 3.7 million children in the UK live in poverty, 1.7 million of those are deemed to be within severe poverty.

If we're "all in this together", then making sure those children are guaranteed at least one good meal five times a week is the least we should be doing.

Indeed but not by trying to tax other children's education. Lots of parents make sacrifices to send their kids to private school its not just for the super wealthy.

Anyway VAT was meant for luxury items so how about higher tax on fast food shops, which is where half the secondary school children spend their lunch hour. Or be really brave and challenge the international tax dodgers but that's not quite as appealing to Corbyn's supporters.

 

[MK Shrimper]

No, your "average" primary school pupil isn't poverty stricken and hungry, but it's pretty close - too close for comfort if you ask me. Barnardo's estimates that 3.7 million children in the UK live in poverty, 1.7 million of those are deemed to be within severe poverty.

If we're "all in this together", then making sure those children are guaranteed at least one good meal five times a week is the least we should be doing.

Plenty of kids at my missus' school on free school dinners, but it doesn't stop the kids having the latest mobile phones or fancy trainers....

#MrsBlue

 

[EastStandBlue]

Indeed but not by trying to tax other children's education. Lots of parents make sacrifices to send their kids to private school its not just for the super wealthy.

Anyway VAT was meant for luxury items so how about higher tax on fast food shops, which is where half the secondary school children spend their lunch hour. Or be really brave and challenge the international tax dodgers but that's not quite as appealing to Corbyn's supporters.

You could argue private education to be just as much a luxury item as fast food. There are cheaper, more readily available options but people have made their choice.

 

[rigsby]

You could argue private education to be just as much a luxury item as fast food. There are cheaper, more readily available options but people have made their choice.

If there was no private education then the state would have to provide hundreds of more schools and teachers. So by sending your child private you have already save the country a lot of money.

 

[EastStandBlue]

If there was no private education then the state would have to provide hundreds of more schools and teachers. So by sending your child private you have already save the country a lot of money.

And I'm sure that most noble of causes is the sole driver for the majority of parents who pack their kids off to private institutions.

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

No, your "average" primary school pupil isn't poverty stricken and hungry, but it's pretty close - too close for comfort if you ask me. Barnardo's estimates that 3.7 million children in the UK live in poverty, 1.7 million of those are deemed to be within severe poverty.

If we're "all in this together", then making sure those children are guaranteed at least one good meal five times a week is the least we should be doing.

Whilst I'm all for giving children a proper meal whilst they get their free education, someone has to pay for it. They simply don't all need free food. I'm also interested about your claim that the average pupil is "pretty close" to being poverty stricken and the Barnardo's claim that 1.7 million children are living in "severe poverty"
Here's my take on what some deem as severe poverty - Bollocks.

 

[rigsby]

Whilst I'm all for giving children a proper meal whilst they get their free education, someone has to pay for it. They simply don't all need free food. I'm also interested about your claim that the average pupil is "pretty close" to being poverty stricken and the Barnardo's claim that 1.7 million children are living in "severe poverty"
Here's my take on what some deem as severe poverty - Bollocks.

In the 1930's we had rickets now days we have obesity. Some should be doing cross country running in their lunch hour.

 

[EastStandBlue]

Whilst I'm all for giving children a proper meal whilst they get their free education, someone has to pay for it. They simply don't all need free food. I'm also interested about your claim that the average pupil is "pretty close" to being poverty stricken and the Barnardo's claim that 1.7 million children are living in "severe poverty"
Here's my take on what some deem as severe poverty - Bollocks.

I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying that the average child was close to poverty, I was saying that we as a developed country are too close to that being correct if 1.7 million children are, as Barnardo's claims, deemed to be within severe poverty. You'll have to raise your concerns over Barnardo's claims with them.

As for someone having to pay for it, to paraphrase Mhairi Black, if Westminster can find £4 billion to refurb the Houses then we should be confident in their ability to find £x million each year for free school meals.

 

[Bielzibubz]

Your average primary school child is close to being poverty stricken is he/she? Well, first of all, I suggest the parents ditch the Sky dish on the outside on the house. Or perhaps do away with the latest contract iPhone 7 and get a dirt cheap pay as you go. They could even go without the nights out to the pub, the takeaways and the beer and wine in the fridge. You know, sacrifices. Those horrible things far too many people don't like making nowadays. But we all know they won't though, don't we? We live in a 'got to have it and got to have it now, me, me me' society and woe betide anyone that suggests to them that perhaps they've got their priorities wrong. For far too long parents up and down the country have relied on the state to help them out one way or another and now a whole generation of 25 to 30 something parents think that their entitled to have their cake and eat it.

By all means, help those that are in need and have truly fallen through the net but I'm pretty sure that's not your average primary school child.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Your average primary school child is close to being poverty stricken is he/she? Well, first of all, I suggest the parents ditch the Sky dish on the outside on the house. Or perhaps do away with the latest contract iPhone 7 and get a dirt cheap pay as you go. They could even go without the nights out to the pub, the takeaways and the beer and wine in the fridge. You know, sacrifices. Those horrible things far too many people don't like making nowadays. But we all know they won't though, don't we? We live in a 'got to have it and got to have it now, me, me me' society and woe betide anyone that suggests to them that perhaps they've got their priorities wrong. For far too long parents up and down the country have relied on the state to help them out one way or another and now a whole generation of 25 to 30 something parents think that their entitled to have their cake and eat it.

By all means, help those that are in need and have truly fallen through the net but I'm pretty sure that's not your average primary school child.

I do hate it when as soon as poverty is mentioned someone ALWAYS instantly envisages poor people as having Sky, the latest phones and being in the pub every night.

With the massive increases in food bank use, zero hours contracts, the extreme rises in rent and house prices and homelessness - why would the word poverty make someone think of Sky, iPhones and alcohol?


This policy is not about targeting those children whose parents you may or may not see as deserving. We have that already, but the limits are arguably set too low and due to the stigma associated with 'free school meals' often they won't be taken up.


The policy is to make sure all children get a healthy meal every day that they are in school. Most people will see the obvious benefits of that in terms of overall health and concentration levels. The policy is it to not be means tested but to be universal. A very positive move in my opinion.

 

[Bielzibubz]

Ok, I was generalizing, simplifying and being a tad flippant but I maintain that your average primary shool child isn't anywhere near being poverty stricken. Yes, there are those that are in need of help but it's not the average by any stretch of the imagination. And why should it be universal anyway? Why should those that can afford to give their child healthy daily meals be subsidized by the state?

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Ok, I was generalizing, simplifying and being a tad flippant but I maintain that your average primary shool child isn't anywhere near being poverty stricken. Yes, there are those that are in need of help but it's not the average by any stretch of the imagination. And why should it be universal anyway? Why should those that can afford to give their child healthy daily meals be subsidized by the state?

economies of scale, efficiency, a catch all safety net. Education is effectived by the quality of food children have. Poor diets are creating health issues at a young age that carry on into adulthood. It's an investment into the health and education of the next generation of wealth creators.

I think this comes down to if you see the benefits of tax and investment or if you favour low tax and poorer public services. It's a variation of that argument for me.

 

[londonblue]

Ok, I was generalizing, simplifying and being a tad flippant but I maintain that your average primary shool child isn't anywhere near being poverty stricken. Yes, there are those that are in need of help but it's not the average by any stretch of the imagination. And why should it be universal anyway? Why should those that can afford to give their child healthy daily meals be subsidized by the state?

Because it's usually cheaper just to give it to everyone rather than pay the admin costs of working out who is in need and who isn't.

 

[rigsby]

I'm a great fan of KL's but a period of silence from him now would be more than welcome.

So do you or *** think Ken should be expelled.

 

[EastStandBlue]

Yes, there are those that are in need of help but it's not the average by any stretch of the imagination. And why should it be universal anyway? Why should those that can afford to give their child healthy daily meals be subsidized by the state?

How far do we extend this mantra? To healthcare as well?

 

[rigsby]

How far do we extend this mantra? To healthcare as well?

We all pay for healthcare according to how much you earn.

In this case, Labour wants to tax a certain group of people regardless of wealth. Many of who work hard and make self sacrifice to allow their child a better education. The exact opposite to anyone who sends their child to school without a breakfast or dinner money. If your child ends up with no dinner there is no excuse in the world to justify your reasons.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

We all pay for healthcare according to how much you earn.

In this case, Labour wants to tax a certain group of people regardless of wealth. Many of who work hard and make self sacrifice to allow their child a better education. The exact opposite to anyone who sends their child to school without a breakfast or dinner money. If your child ends up with no dinner there is no excuse in the world to justify your reasons.

do you not think that it is a good policy to ensure that children who are sent school without food deserve to be fed? Would you rather we just shrug our shoulders and say it's their parents fault?

Private schools are often given charity status in terms of tax and mostly use staff that have been trained by funding from the public purse, so treating them in some ways as a luxury is a measured policy IMO

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

So do you or *** think Ken should be expelled.

Ken has in the past done lots of good work, right now he is just a distraction and should go