Most liked posts in thread: Marcus Rashford and the 'free school meals'.

There is a balance of responsibility, you're right. Some parents will be glad of the extra money and will boost their household budget to buy quality food. Some parents lack the skills for various reasons to care for their children and feeding them 3 meals a day in the school holiday won't happen. Whose responsibility are those children? We know that these are the children most likely to fall through the net. It needs more than money to help these kids. I'd advocate schools staying open in the holiday for kids that need it. Not for lessons but childcare essentially keeping the most vulnerable kids safe and fed.

 

Have you read the thread?
It discusses relative poverty and absolute poverty, and the number living in the government's defininition of absolute poverty is pretty high too.
Personally I think the measure of relative poverty is a good one, especially in a wealthy nation such as our's.
Should we be content to see a reasonably large proportion of the population living without what most would consider normal things in our daily life?

 

I was discussing this with my wife this morning. It's a difficult one. She works in a primary school with a lot of deprived kids and it seems to her that the ones who are worst off are the ones whose parents are working in low paid jobs, and some of the kids whose parents have never worked are the ones coming to school in new Nike trainers etc. I may be generalising a bit, but to me it's the parents responsibility..but if the parents don't take that responsibility should we allow kids to go hungry. I think not but don't know the answer.

 

I hope he does force them into a u- turn. Its not cut and dried and easy as some make out but the overriding factor has to be that hungry children take the priority in the debate over the small minority that can't or simply don't want to take responsibility.

 

We are a very very rich country. Bring everyone with us. It’s quite simple really. Give the kids a chance and don’t lose another generation. Those kids will grow up and make the same mistakes as the other deprived ones are doing now.

 

I think you misunderstood what I meant about schools being open in the holiday. I didn't have in mind that vulnerable children would be getting extra school work time. It would be like a holiday club. No need for it to be staffed by teachers at all.

Every point you've raised here (and all valid parts of the discussion, thanks) are about money. That's a pretty sad place to come at this from. These kids are vulnerable due to no fault of their own. We can accurately predict the life chances for these children and it's not good for society as a whole. Identifying them and then investing in them at an early age could be beneficial to society and actually save money in the long run if we can get it right.

I absolutely agree about the borderline children by the way. I've lived it, that was me as a child. Working parents but barely managing. Neither one thing or the other. That's a different discussion about fair wages, tax credits, child tax credits and all of that.

 

Marcus Rashford. Firstly we'll done young man for dragging a debate both at parliamentary, business and household level.

As for children whom need nutrition and food. It's horrible to envisage this amongst any child irrespective of the reasons. I'm very fortunate that as a child and a father, I've been supported and support.

As for the reasons for child nourishment and general child poverty, if parents are responsible because of their addiction, a lack of social skills, mental health issues, depression and/or just being a poor parent, than those children still should not suffer food poverty or poverty in general.

And some of the views on here focusing on the parents cos that money will be spent on fags, booze, drugs.... Well feck em eh... Kids can suffer, parents can suffer.
Im amazed at that stance, the lack of empathy, tolerance and understanding.

Some aspects of society are fecking horrible.

 

Bradford Council I believe have stepped up and said they’ll feed the kids in Bradford over half term... which is great. But why wasn’t this already happening before Rashfords crusade to help the kids?

 

Yes, there is a cost to everything and I'm well aware that money doesn't grow on trees. It is however an abstract construct that a civilised world should be beyond but that's another debate.

What you've failed to recognise here is that money 'spent' now on the most vulnerable children is money saved further down the line if we can turn their life chances around.

What's happening now is that we know who the most vulnerable kids are, we track them, we monitor them, we watch as they fall into a life of crime, drugs, prostitution, addiction, pregnancy, then have children of their own and continue the cycle.

I'm all for local initiatives to help support needy people and of course we don't want the state having their hands on every aspect of our lives. We do however need to support the most vulnerable in society and children who are essentially innocent victims of circumstance.

 

Giving the most vulnerable kids food parcels is a stop gap solution and it's an option. The root cause as you allude to is that their parents can't take decent care of them. You're quite right to suggest that the parents need some help and support to be good parents. At some point the cycle needs interrupting and putting right.

I'm no fan of Blair and Brown but back in the late 90s and early 00s they invested millions in SureStart centres that did this outreach work with vulnerable families. I was involved with one of these establishments and the work they were doing was incredible. They were changing the lives of vulnerable adults who were also parents. The Tories have ripped that investment in our society out in the name of austerity. It's a complete false economy as we'll be paying for it further down the line at a cost to the state and society as a whole.

 

Great suggestion but will all you teachers want overtime if we're eating into your 26 weeks holiday a year?

 

Perhaps you could acknowledge that there are 2 sides to every argument...

 

I don't read anywhere on this thread where anyone has said feck the kids. What has been said is that parents are responsible for their kids wellbeing and upbringing. Some are just not capable and throwing more money at it will never change that.
These "problem families" are usually known to the authorities in many cases, and additional support is generally provided. Though lots of families never get the support they need.

I admire what Rashford is doing and it will undoubtedly help a lot of kids but the main problems behind some kids going to school hungry will never end. That's the sad part.

I could never have lived with myself if my kids didn't get fed when they were at school, even when I was out of work. I was brought up on a council estate so know borderline poverty all too well but I was always fed by my parents.

 

Same old outlook as most of the other things political for me.

It comes down to responsibility.

Whose responsibility is it to ensure that kids are fed during the school holidays. Is it the parents or is it the government? For me its definitely not the government.

It shows the problem with a lot of these short term measures. Instead of getting the credit for doing them in the first place the government (of whatever colour) get a kicking when they stop. All it encourages in the long run is for them to stop giving short term assistance to people who genuinely need it.

 

no matter what you think it is never the child’s fault and they are the ones who will suffer from this. If they don’t need free school meals then why have them at all? It’s ok saying the parents should take responsibility but we all know they can’t sometimes through no fault of their own and sometimes to blame yes but that’s life. That’s what a government does spend money to help people better their situation.

onto the main point I thought it would have been a quick easy win for the government and a chance to use it in future debates. A nice easy win for them and at not too great a cost in the scheme of things. Another political own goal and I think another u-turn will come down the line.

 

First thing you do as a parent is feed your kids and then worry about the rest afterwards. Our kids never went to school on an empty stomach. Even when I was out of work they were fed first at all times.

Any parents who neglect to feed their kids are an utter disgrace. Don't give me the argument about not having enough money. Beans on toast cost next to nothing as an example.

Or get down to the supermarket for the knockdown food that is almost out of date.

What Rashford is doing is admirable but the real issue is educating parents that their kids come first before the booze and fags. Sadly that is a task that no government has ever been able to do.