The Politics Thread

[thebish]

Despite a rather mystifying comment elsewhere about me dishing out free milk (covered by the begging bowl) on another thread, I actually agree with Bruce.

I simply do not believe that there are parents in britain who cannot afford milk for their kids. and if it is perceived to be a problem for some - then a universal handout of milk would seem disproportionate. if it really is a problem for some - then why not simply add a carton of milk to all the means-tested free school meals that are already catered for?

Or stop smoking?

Hey, this is interesting. Maybe you agree with Tango that gassing every feck with tabs is a human right?

what is interesting?

[Bruce Rioja]

You were just waiting patiently for that one weren't you.

Not at all, Tango. If I were to actually be the selfish nice person that Worthy makes me out to be, then I'd be encouraging free milk for children as it would enhance my inheritance. Some people just can't see beyond what they want to see.

[Worthy4England]

You were just waiting patiently for that one weren't you.

Not at all, Tango. If I were to actually be the selfish tw*t that Worthy makes me out to be, then I'd be encouraging free milk for children as it would enhance my inheritance. Some people just can't see beyond what they want to see.

I know you're not a selfish tw*t.

[TANGODANCER]

I did and free orange juice and free codliver oil. Jesus! The unholy trinity! And it was forced down my throat. I would have loved my mom and dad more had they told the school not to give me any of this crap! But it was in the forties so perhaps was required more than today. Mind you I didn't have a banana until I was about eleven, the vagaries of wartime rationing, but that's another story.

School milk was more a punishment than a treat. We drank it because we had to. Add the fact that some teachers had the harebrained idea that we needed the chill taking off it on the steam pipes. Being cold was the only thing that made it drinkable. Milk monitor was okay though, that got you more time off lessons going for the crates and taking them back to the playground afterwards. The only real plusses were a break in lessons to drink it and making flying saucers from the tinfoil bottle- tops.

[InsaneApache]

The debate wasn't originally about either case (dodgers or whether to provide milk to the under 5's)

I originally pointed out that we'd been here before with "milk" under previous tory governments.

Brucie took the view that he shouldn't be paying for other folks kids.

That was what the debate was about...

It's funny isn't it? I wonder why people don't remember that it was the Labour Party that abolished milk for kids in school in the first place. Those damned nasty tories eh?

[Worthy4England]

The debate wasn't originally about either case (dodgers or whether to provide milk to the under 5's)

I originally pointed out that we'd been here before with "milk" under previous tory governments.

Brucie took the view that he shouldn't be paying for other folks kids.

That was what the debate was about...

It's funny isn't it? I wonder why people don't remember that it was the Labour Party that abolished milk for kids in school in the first place. Those damned nasty tories eh?

I do indeed remember that it was the Labour Party that abolished milk for kids. I think you've also pointed this out before.

You'd also probably spot, if you read the thread, that I said

We have to make a shedload of cuts, this may/may not have benefits to kids, on the principle it doesn't, let's cut it and save £50m. I could live with that probably.

My original comments were actually only peripherally around milk - the first one being a rather flippant "I lost my job as a milk monitor under Thatcher" remark.

My comments were around whether the noble Thatcherite politics of memememe were lurking under the surface.

[InsaneApache]

I did read it. I just thought it worth a mention.

I'm with the "why are we giving free milk out universally?" crowd. It's a bit rich for middle class kids, not to mention millionaires kids to get free anything IMO. Same goes for child benefit.

The countrys broke. We need to find areas that could save the country money. It makes no sense at all to give 'free' milk or 'free' money to anyone who doesn't need it. If means testing hadn't got such a bad name in the earlier part of the 20th centuary, I'd suggest that route.

Something needs to give somewhere.

(just an aside, the only thing free is fresh air)

[thebish]

so....

given their emphasis on the need for cuts and their promise NOT to duck unpopular decisions...

why are the tories gonna spend £50,000,000 a year on free milk for under 5s?

anyone?

[CrazyHorse]

I did read it. I just thought it worth a mention.

I'm with the "why are we giving free milk out universally?" crowd. It's a bit rich for middle class kids, not to mention millionaires kids to get free anything IMO. Same goes for child benefit.

The countrys broke. We need to find areas that could save the country money. It makes no sense at all to give 'free' milk or 'free' money to anyone who doesn't need it. If means testing hadn't got such a bad name in the earlier part of the 20th centuary, I'd suggest that route.

Something needs to give somewhere.

(just an aside, the only thing free is fresh air)

Thing is though IA, the process of performing the means testing costs money.
And if it costs more than it'll save then it's pointless.
So someone has to sit down and work out if applying the means testing will be worthwhile.
Which costs even more money.

We are ruled by effete arseholes. It's a shite state of affairs and all the fresh air in the world will not make any focking difference.

[thebish]

I did read it. I just thought it worth a mention.

I'm with the "why are we giving free milk out universally?" crowd. It's a bit rich for middle class kids, not to mention millionaires kids to get free anything IMO. Same goes for child benefit.

The countrys broke. We need to find areas that could save the country money. It makes no sense at all to give 'free' milk or 'free' money to anyone who doesn't need it. If means testing hadn't got such a bad name in the earlier part of the 20th centuary, I'd suggest that route.

Something needs to give somewhere.

(just an aside, the only thing free is fresh air)

Thing is though IA, the process of performing the means testing costs money.
And if it costs more than it'll save then it's pointless.
So someone has to sit down and work out if applying the means testing will be worthwhile.
Which costs even more money.

in this case I suspect not. If you were going to target a group to recieve free school milk - it would be the same kids whose families are already means-tested for free school meals. no extra work would be involved.

[Bruce Rioja]

so....

given their emphasis on the need for cuts and their promise NOT to duck unpopular decisions...

why are the tories gonna spend £50,000,000 a year on free milk for under 5s?

anyone?

First own-goal for me is this.

[Worthy4England]

I did read it. I just thought it worth a mention.

I'm with the "why are we giving free milk out universally?" crowd. It's a bit rich for middle class kids, not to mention millionaires kids to get free anything IMO. Same goes for child benefit.

The countrys broke. We need to find areas that could save the country money. It makes no sense at all to give 'free' milk or 'free' money to anyone who doesn't need it. If means testing hadn't got such a bad name in the earlier part of the 20th centuary, I'd suggest that route.

Something needs to give somewhere.

(just an aside, the only thing free is fresh air)

We don't give anyone who's earning a wage anything "free" - they pay for it through taxation.

You then have to consider how taking away something "free" changes the overall tax position at the margins and what the knock-on effect will be, within the overall taxation system, not in isolation.

It'd be interesting to find out whether there's differing views on family credits/child benefit from those who have had them and their kids have now grown up versus those whose kids are growing up and now get them.

I also know every little helps, but £50m against our overall expenditure budget equates to 0.008%. You sort of start thinking that something a bit more radical is required...

[CrazyHorse]

I did read it. I just thought it worth a mention.

I'm with the "why are we giving free milk out universally?" crowd. It's a bit rich for middle class kids, not to mention millionaires kids to get free anything IMO. Same goes for child benefit.

The countrys broke. We need to find areas that could save the country money. It makes no sense at all to give 'free' milk or 'free' money to anyone who doesn't need it. If means testing hadn't got such a bad name in the earlier part of the 20th centuary, I'd suggest that route.

Something needs to give somewhere.

(just an aside, the only thing free is fresh air)

Thing is though IA, the process of performing the means testing costs money.
And if it costs more than it'll save then it's pointless.
So someone has to sit down and work out if applying the means testing will be worthwhile.
Which costs even more money.

in this case I suspect not. If you were going to target a group to recieve free school milk - it would be the same kids whose families are already means-tested for free school meals. no extra work would be involved.

Of course extra work is involved; there's always extra costs. Or do you think someone just clicks their fingers (for free btw, because this guy isn't apparently getting paid to click his fingers) and all the applicable kids would magically get milk and the others wouldn't?

[thebish]

I also know every little helps, but £50m against our overall expenditure budget equates to 0.008%. You sort of start thinking that something a bit more radical is required...

indeed... I have long felt it a weakness in Tory economic thinking (and - oddly - one of the things people liked thatcher for) that they actually DO think that running the economy of a country is just a larger scale version of running your household budget.

I suspect they are clinging hold of the old adage "look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves" (no they won't!)

coupled with..

Let's not hurt any of our chums with these cuts, but instead make a lot of headline-grabbing stuff about scroungers and hope that the economy grows to such an extent that it won't all look so bad in a couple of years time and we can say we are economic geniuses.....

[Hoboh]

As it works both ways, then there will invariably be some things you pick up the tab for that you don't see the benefit of.

Other things you get the benefit for. I'm not sure a welfare state based taxation system is or should be around where every individual gets benefit. Many don't get any benefits...

So in the big scheme of things then yes, if within our overall system you end up picking up the tab for some kids getting milk, that's tough. Personally, I'd have no major issues with it being means tested along with other "benefits", but if you have to make a beef about some under 5 year olds getting a drink of milk at school, then so be it. I have no major problems with kids getting free milk (nor did I in my 20's/early 30's when I had no kids of my own, nor intended to have any).

I'm happy to pay by the mile for what I use was pretty much what you said. There may not be any me's in there, but there's certainly a lot of I's...perhaps I should have called it IIIIIII politics?

The problem with arguments around where taxes get spent is where lines get drawn, if you move to a purely consumption based model. I might not want my taxes going on trident, or the Olympics, or libraries, or the Fire Service (none of which I could argue I benefit directly from). Also, when these things have been looked at, the cost of administration for them usually rules out them bringing such schemes, at a price to taxpayers which is affordable.

You appear to be taking things to the nth degree, Worthy. Why? The point is simple - there are things that it is not the state's purpose to provide, and milk for children is for parents to provide. You seem to be heading off somewhere where you'll have to cough-up before the Fire Brigade will put your house out. There is an area in right-leaning politics short of Ghengis Khan, you know?!

Is there?

[thebish]

I did read it. I just thought it worth a mention.

I'm with the "why are we giving free milk out universally?" crowd. It's a bit rich for middle class kids, not to mention millionaires kids to get free anything IMO. Same goes for child benefit.

The countrys broke. We need to find areas that could save the country money. It makes no sense at all to give 'free' milk or 'free' money to anyone who doesn't need it. If means testing hadn't got such a bad name in the earlier part of the 20th centuary, I'd suggest that route.

Something needs to give somewhere.

(just an aside, the only thing free is fresh air)

Thing is though IA, the process of performing the means testing costs money.
And if it costs more than it'll save then it's pointless.
So someone has to sit down and work out if applying the means testing will be worthwhile.
Which costs even more money.

in this case I suspect not. If you were going to target a group to recieve free school milk - it would be the same kids whose families are already means-tested for free school meals. no extra work would be involved.

Of course extra work is involved; there's always extra costs. Or do you think someone just clicks their fingers (for free btw, because this guy isn't apparently getting paid to click his fingers) and all the applicable kids would magically get milk and the others wouldn't?

You're not suggesting that the universal distribution of free schoool milk is cheaper than the distribution of free milk to a MUCH SMALLER already-identified group of pupils are you?

there is no extra work in means-testing (which was your point) - because the children are already identified through the free-school meals programme.

where is the extra cost?

[CrazyHorse]

You're not suggesting that the universal distribution of free schoool milk is cheaper than the distribution of free milk to a MUCH SMALLER already-identified group of pupils are you?

there is no extra work in means-testing (which was your point) - because the children are already identified through the free-school meals programme.

where is the extra cost?

I’m not suggesting anything; I’ve no idea how much any of this costs or of any potential savings that could be made. In fact you’re the one who has decided that there will be no extra cost. I can only assume you must be party to the day to day running of a catering department of a primary school.

I’m saying that there are extra costs; there always are. Even at a basic level it may mean the head teacher having to spend half an hour a month filling in a few forms and ringing up the supplier or whatever to order the correct amount of milk in. It’s still tens of thousands of man hours a year which need funding. And I think we all know there would be more to it than that.

And that wasn't my point. My point was that someone will have to sit down and assess what costs they'll incur by implementing any proposed changes and decide if they are worthwhile or not. And that this costs even more money. That the very act of trying to save money costs money.

[Gravedigger]

There's actually "Cool Milk Co" which does all the requisite paperwork once the childs' deptails are received. This covers under fives, free school meals kids who get free milk and subsidised milk where parents pay online. Google it if you can be arsed but it would appear that HM Govt have most of its admin work done for it.

[thebish]

You're not suggesting that the universal distribution of free schoool milk is cheaper than the distribution of free milk to a MUCH SMALLER already-identified group of pupils are you?

there is no extra work in means-testing (which was your point) - because the children are already identified through the free-school meals programme.

where is the extra cost?

I’m not suggesting anything; I’ve no idea how much any of this costs or of any potential savings that could be made. In fact you’re the one who has decided that there will be no extra cost. I can only assume you must be party to the day to day running of a catering department of a primary school.

I’m saying that there are extra costs; there always are. Even at a basic level it may mean the head teacher having to spend half an hour a month filling in a few forms and ringing up the supplier or whatever to order the correct amount of milk in. It’s still tens of thousands of man hours a year which need funding. And I think we all know there would be more to it than that.

And that wasn't my point. My point was that someone will have to sit down and assess what costs they'll incur by implementing any proposed changes and decide if they are worthwhile or not. And that this costs even more money. That the very act of trying to save money costs money.

working out the cost of changing the system only costs money if you decide it has to be done by employing a private consultancy firm to work it out rather than use the civil service attached to the relevant govt department - which is what they are already paid for.

yes - everything costs - but there would be no extra cost in applying means-testing - because the kids are already identified. yes it will cost - but I can see no rational argument to suggest that it would cost MORE. it would cost in different ways - but would cost less.

[BWFC_Insane]

It seems that Gordon Brown's warning that trying to cut the deficit too quicky and causing too much uncertainty over jobs could risk the recovery and take the country back into recession was more or less, bob on.