Free school meals: how to pay down the debt the Lib Dem way
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ph...e-lib-dem-way/
Free school meals: how to pay down the debt, the Lib Dem way
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telegraph
No sooner had Danny Alexander, the Treasury chief secretary, warned Lib Dems that austerity needs to continue to pay down our £1.3 trillion debt, than up pops Nick Clegg to pledge free meals for hundreds of thousands of primary age schoolchildren. The cost: a mere £600m a year. Pupils from poor backgrounds already qualify for free meals so this proposal is to give them to children from families who can afford to pay for them. Which bit of “we haven’t got any money” has passed Mr Clegg by?
Mr Alexander told Lib Dems in Glasgow: “We’ve taken tough decisions to get the deficit under control … But that doesn’t mean the country can then go back to bad old habits. There’s no spending bonanza round the corner.”
But no one told Mr Clegg, it seems. His plan (endorsed by Michael Gove) is said to be a quid pro quo for letting the Tories announce transferable tax allowances for married couples. But the difference is that one is a spending commitment, the other is a tax break. The free school meals are apparently being introduced to improve the quality of school lunches since many youngsters bring in their own food which is lacking in nutrition. This may well be true but unless they are going to be compulsory, the chances are the kids will still want their own. Are they to be banned?
It is argued that families on relatively low incomes give their children packed lunches because they don’t qualify for free school meals, and the cost of a school dinner is prohibitive. That may be true but this is an expensive way of rectifying a cultural problem.
More than that, some secondary schools don’t have the canteen facilities any longer, though they could always bring the food in from outside caterers. There will need to be significant additional investment if all schools are to avoid long dinner queues.
And what about those children whose parents already provide them with a perfectly good cooked meal when they come in after school: why should they eat another at lunch time as well? Will those children be allowed to bring in a packed lunch or be given the money in lieu?
You have to wonder sometimes whether or not your living in a reality as opposed to a parody. We are up to our eyeballs in debt and yet silly vote-buying schemes like this are shoved infront of the masses in a shallow attempt to appear 'caring' to the public. It was just like Chancellor Brown with the 'baby bonds' that he brought in, or when you hear of 'EU grants' - it's your own money being presented back to you as a gift.
There's the famous quote or saying that democracy ultimately is doomed as people will simply vote themselves more of what is unaffordable and thus the state then unravels from that. And one quote I do remember is one the famous economist Milton Friedman once stated: that there's no such thing as a free lunch. It's still true.
I will say this though - at least the money is for once being spent at home rather than being sent away in foreign aid/EU payments.
Thoughts?
