On the 13th of March MPs voted on a new eligibility criteria for Free School Meals. Under the Government’s new regulations, it’s estimated that by 2022 around 50,000 more children will benefit from a free school meal, compared to the previous benefits system.

There have been a number of irresponsible allegations made by Labour Party, which suggests that the number of Free School Meals going to deserving children will be reduced. I can wholeheartedly assure you that this is completely false

The proposed changes to the eligibility criteria have been designed to ensure that support is targeted where it is needed most, meaning that those on the lowest incomes remain the focus of Free School Meals.

Labour are saying that we are taking away Free School Meals from children, this is just wrong. No child will lose their meals during the rollout of Universal credit as a result of these changes and our plans mean an extra 50,000 children will be eligible for a nutritious meal at school by 2022.

Labour’s claim that our changes could leave over a million children without this is deliberately misleading. Since 2010, we have extended the availability for free school meals to disadvantaged students in further education and introduced universal infant free school meals.

When Universal Credit was introduced, the Government were clear that they would set new criteria for free school meals. To ensure that no one was adversely affected during its roll out, the Government temporarily made families using Universal Credit a qualifying benefit for Free School Meals, regardless of income. As was made clear at the time, this was always an interim measure.

The opposition’s plans to extend Free School Meals to everyone in receipt of Universal Credit – which include families with income of £40,000 a year – would deliver high additional costs that would be borne by ordinary families, through higher taxes and more borrowing.

The Government’s approach will mean that if you receive a free school meal now – you will continue to do so until the end of the rollout of Universal Credit, planned for 2022, and then to the end of ether primary or secondary school (which ever you are in at this point).

I am committed to ensuring that disadvantaged, young people can access a free nutritious meal at school. Contrary to the misinformation peddled by the Labour Party, the Government is increasing the number of disadvantaged children who are eligible for this. Because of this I will be voting with the Government to extend the eligibility for Free School Meals. I hope that this helps to clarify the situation.

Originally Posted by roving-eye

The opposition’s plans to extend Free School Meals to everyone in receipt of Universal Credit – which include families with income of £40,000 a year – would deliver high additional costs that would be borne by ordinary families, through higher taxes and more borrowing.

You can claim Universal Credit with earnings of £40k a year? And you're worried about the opposition's 'plans'? I'd hope the opposition would repeal Universal Credit completely, because if you can claim benefits on an income of £40k a year, then Universal Credit is seriously f**ked up.

From the Daily Telegraph, Tuesday 13 March 2018:

Subsidy for MPs' bars and restaurants rises to £5.8m

The taxpayers’ subsidy for the bars and restaurants in the Houses of Commons has risen to £5.8m a year, despite promises by parliamentary official to cut public funding for politicians’ meals and drinks.

FOR THE FEW, DAMIAN?

Damien needs to read the SLP releases more carefully... and be truthful about the issues...

1) The information used re. the one million kids came from a Children's Society report on this Govt scheme... and they have clearly come out against the Tory plan.
It is the figure across England and the number that would benefit under Labour's preferred model and won't under the Tory plan.
2) It wouldn't surprise me if there will be 50,000 more (since 2010 levels he claimed on his Facebook page, I notice that bit dropped here) as there's a darn sight more poverty around. The way things are going, expect a far bit more on top.
3) I seriously doubt that there are that many folks on £40k on UC in comparison to the whole, so he's deliberately chosen an extreme figure to skew the argument.
4) Instead, they have gone to the complete other extreme and set the threshold at £7,400 income... that is staggeringly low to be able to qualify for free school meals for your kid! Just think how little income that is, double it and if you have a child you are still really struggling, heck triple it and you are not exactly flush! £7.4k! Apparently if you earn any more, you don't deserve the help!
5) As a DIRECT RESULT of voting for the Govt proposal and ignoring the request by Labour to vote against it, it's estimated over 5,000 children across Sefton will be denied access to free school meals. Damien can spin it any way he likes. It won't wash.
6) Why is it not acceptable in Northern Ireland for families to be treated this way but it is here? It is either fair or it is not, their DUP partners in NI don't think it is... and the Tories have agreed. Why should families in England suffer?
Who is being "irresponsible" there Damien?

So Damien might try and cover his tracks but the simple fact is he's voted to restrict free school meals to some of our poorest families across Southport and Sefton.

Oh, and finally, let's not forget that under Labour ALL primary school children would be getting free school meals. Which would be a massive help to families.

Gwhizz: "let's not forget that under Labour ALL primary school children would be getting free school meals. Which would be a massive help to families."

More evidence of Labour's ridiculous spending and borrowing plans to land the country in even greater debt. Why do wealthy parents need free anything? For those above the (real) poverty line the job of feeding children is the responsibility of the parents.

There is no free stuff. Someone is paying. Usually that is disproportionately the hardworking, responsible, working class. (Whom Labour's Momentum toffs seem to have forgotten)

Originally Posted by dav

Gwhizz: "let's not forget that under Labour ALL primary school children would be getting free school meals. Which would be a massive help to families."

More evidence of Labour's ridiculous spending and borrowing plans to land the country in even greater debt. Why do wealthy parents need free anything? For those above the (real) poverty line the job of feeding children is the responsibility of the parents.

There is no free stuff. Someone is paying. Usually that is disproportionately the hardworking, responsible, working class. (Whom Labour's Momentum toffs seem to have forgotten)

The idea is to make sure they all get a decent meal.. if parents of wealthier kids want to opt out then sure that wouldn't be a problem... it's about creating a decent upbringing for kids.
And I see you have latched on to that and ignored all the other points... how convenient.
Tell me Dav, why is it fair that poor kids in Northern Ireland won't face these restrictions but poor kids in England will?

Originally Posted by Gwhizz

Tell me Dav, why is it fair that poor kids in Northern Ireland won't face these restrictions but poor kids in England will?

Let me guess?
I'll take three letters please....Yeah, D, U and P.
And,what relevance do these letters have to our wonderful government? Oh yes, I remember.....they wouldn't be our government without them!

Originally Posted by Nash

From the Daily Telegraph, Tuesday 13 March 2018:

Subsidy for MPs' bars and restaurants rises to £5.8m

The taxpayers’ subsidy for the bars and restaurants in the Houses of Commons has risen to £5.8m a year, despite promises by parliamentary official to cut public funding for politicians’ meals and drinks.

FOR THE FEW, DAMIAN?

Get real will you they have all been getting "Pessed" for donkeys years no matter which colour is in. Give me strength do u think its going to stop now *****!!

Originally Posted by Gwhizz

Damien needs to read the SLP releases more carefully... and be truthful about the issues...

1) The information used re. the one million kids came from a Children's Society report on this Govt scheme... and they have clearly come out against the Tory plan.
It is the figure across England and the number that would benefit under Labour's preferred model and won't under the Tory plan.
2) It wouldn't surprise me if there will be 50,000 more (since 2010 levels he claimed on his Facebook page, I notice that bit dropped here) as there's a darn sight more poverty around. The way things are going, expect a far bit more on top.
3) I seriously doubt that there are that many folks on £40k on UC in comparison to the whole, so he's deliberately chosen an extreme figure to skew the argument.
4) Instead, they have gone to the complete other extreme and set the threshold at £7,400 income... that is staggeringly low to be able to qualify for free school meals for your kid! Just think how little income that is, double it and if you have a child you are still really struggling, heck triple it and you are not exactly flush! £7.4k! Apparently if you earn any more, you don't deserve the help!
5) As a DIRECT RESULT of voting for the Govt proposal and ignoring the request by Labour to vote against it, it's estimated over 5,000 children across Sefton will be denied access to free school meals. Damien can spin it any way he likes. It won't wash.
6) Why is it not acceptable in Northern Ireland for families to be treated this way but it is here? It is either fair or it is not, their DUP partners in NI don't think it is... and the Tories have agreed. Why should families in England suffer?
Who is being "irresponsible" there Damien?

So Damien might try and cover his tracks but the simple fact is he's voted to restrict free school meals to some of our poorest families across Southport and Sefton.

Oh, and finally, let's not forget that under Labour ALL primary school children would be getting free school meals. Which would be a massive help to families.

Well said Comrade!!!

Originally Posted by dav

Gwhizz: "let's not forget that under Labour ALL primary school children would be getting free school meals. Which would be a massive help to families."

More evidence of Labour's ridiculous spending and borrowing plans to land the country in even greater debt. Why do wealthy parents need free anything? For those above the (real) poverty line the job of feeding children is the responsibility of the parents.

There is no free stuff. Someone is paying. Usually that is disproportionately the hardworking, responsible, working class. (Whom Labour's Momentum toffs seem to have forgotten)

This isn't some war between those in need of benefits and those who don't, for instance do you realise that most of those using food banks are WORKING, all too often on zero hour contracts, underpaid and very often only a weeks wage away from financial disaster, but in the Tory manual these are just numbers who don't figure on the unemployment register.

Of course someone is paying, I paid my share during my working life, knew very well that the taxes I paid were needed, also aware that there would be some abuse and like most, thought I paid too much tax.

Always remember my Dad's words when the question of tax came up, very simply put "if I'm paying a lot of tax, then I'm earning a lot of money, don't care how much tax I'm paying" but tax dodgers, avoiders and evaders really wound him up.

Originally Posted by silver fox

This isn't some war between those in need of benefits and those who don't, for instance do you realise that most of those using food banks are WORKING, all too often on zero hour contracts, underpaid and very often only a weeks wage away from financial disaster, but in the Tory manual these are just numbers who don't figure on the unemployment register.

Of course someone is paying, I paid my share during my working life, knew very well that the taxes I paid were needed, also aware that there would be some abuse and like most, thought I paid too much tax.

Always remember my Dad's words when the question of tax came up, very simply put "if I'm paying a lot of tax, then I'm earning a lot of money, don't care how much tax I'm paying" but tax dodgers, avoiders and evaders really wound him up.

What a load of "Bollards" "don't care how much tax I'm paying" Lets take that to a logical conclusion eh. Say me for example, I know what I can earn and what tax I "have" to pay every year. If I was maybe 30 years younger, a little more adventurous, entrepreneurial etc, borrowed on a loan etc, taken someone or more on as employees, taken "RISKS" and then....... saw the fruits of my labour perhaps double or treble and then pay MORE TAX in line with Socialist LABOUR ideology??? I may say why friggin bother? No absolutely NO. Again your statement, "Of course someone is paying" Yep Me and millions like me, and seeing it urined away all the time not always but many, well straw and camels back springs to mind.

Most people "Avoid" tax wherever possible remember we still have ISA's ????? And its easy for you to say now your not bloody working, so get off your pedestal will you???

Originally Posted by paulollie

What a load of "Bollards" "don't care how much tax I'm paying" Lets take that to a logical conclusion eh. Say me for example, I know what I can earn and what tax I "have" to pay every year. If I was maybe 30 years younger, a little more adventurous, entrepreneurial etc, borrowed on a loan etc, taken someone or more on as employees, taken "RISKS" and then....... saw the fruits of my labour perhaps double or treble and then pay MORE TAX in line with Socialist LABOUR ideology??? I may say why friggin bother? No absolutely NO. Again your statement, "Of course someone is paying" Yep Me and millions like me, and seeing it urined away all the time not always but many, well straw and camels back springs to mind.

Most people "Avoid" tax wherever possible remember we still have ISA's ????? And its easy for you to say now your not bloody working, so get off your pedestal will you???

..how weird that you would take just the second part of what was said to quote... it was clearly prefaced by the fact that to his father recognised that to be paying lots of tax, you have to be earning lots of money... and so they thought it fair.
Funny how those in places like Germany and Scandinavia see no problem with much higher actual rates of tax than here, as they see the social value in good services etc and the good it does the whole of their community. Those are not communist or even socialist states... just damn sensible... the problem here is not those who want our services and opportunities etc. to be raised up but selfish souls like yourself who want to set the bar so low.

Originally Posted by paulollie

Well said Comrade!!!

...so not able to argue the points you resort to what you think is an insult?

Although it's not a phrase I use much, there's nothing insulting about it... so cheers and also for displaying your rather pathetic response.

Originally Posted by Gwhizz

The idea is to make sure they all get a decent meal.. if parents of wealthier kids want to opt out then sure that wouldn't be a problem... it's about creating a decent upbringing for kids.
And I see you have latched on to that and ignored all the other points... how convenient.
Tell me Dav, why is it fair that poor kids in Northern Ireland won't face these restrictions but poor kids in England will?

Northern Ireland is a devolved assembly. Education is one of its transferred matters. As there's a bit of a squabble going on about the NI assembly at the moment it's probably best not to throw another spanner in there.

Your other blather about poverty didn't shiver me timbers, lad. There are very few people who work responsibly that are in real poverty. The ONS defines poverty as below 60% of the national median income, so as more people get richer there will automatically be a rise in "poverty". Having seen abject poverty overseas I reject the notion that someone with a big telly and a Sky subscription really qualifies as poor.

Originally Posted by Gwhizz

...so not able to argue the points you resort to what you think is an insult?

Although it's not a phrase I use much, there's nothing insulting about it... so cheers and also for displaying your rather pathetic response.

comrade
ˈkɒmreɪd/Submit
noun
(among men) a colleague or a fellow member of an organization.
"an old college comrade"
synonyms: companion, friend; More
a fellow soldier or member of the armed forces.
noun: comrade-in-arms; plural noun: comrades-in-arms
"Hewett turned and rushed to help his comrade"
a fellow socialist or communist (often as a form of address).
"‘You're right, comrade’"

Indeed,because that's what comrades do!
None of those "meanings" are worthy of abuse.