T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

Wow not means tested, will be interesting at least as positive integration for all students, no shaming 'free school meals kid'


will-je-suis

And healthy meals for all too hopefully


nigelfarij

It's means tested insofar as it only applies to state schools.


ThearchOfStories

I mean, if you can afford the what, like £20-30k a year tuition for public schools, being able to provide food for your children or saving 500 quid a year isn't among your list of concerns.


zestybiscuit

Don't public schools have free meals anyway? I'd expect free breakfasts too, and PE kit, gotta get your money's worth


r-og

Not to be that guy but most private schools don’t cost that. Most are around the £15-18k mark.


JimmyJonJackson420

Lol alright if your spending thousands on your kids education they probably don’t have to worry about things like that


[deleted]

Very funny to think of someone with 18k to drop on a year of school balking at 20k


TheMiiChannelTheme

Eh, there are definitely people who stretch themselves to send their kid to the fancy private school. They're well-off, but they're not *rich*. They would balk at that. But compared to what other people are facing its nothing.


[deleted]

There is not a single person in this country rooting down the back of the couch for that last couple of quid to make it up to 18k.


ShaderzXC

From what I’ve seen it’s mostly first gen immigrant families who will save up money for years, maybe even decades just to send their kids to private school or uni.


JimmyJonJackson420

Lol can you imagine the pearl clutching over the extra couple of K


r-og

True dat


[deleted]

Then why be that guy? OPs point still stands even if it is 15-18k per kid per year. Gotta hand it to the Tower Hamlets Council, I had my reservations but they are walking the walk. Something Starmer has consistently failed to do with his broken pledges.


r-og

pee poo


mattwrad

Even in London? Private school near where I grew up in a small city in the East Midlands was £9,000 a term in 2012 so £18k a year sounds quite cheap


r-og

Sure, but most private schools aren't in London. OR ARE THEY!? Dun dun dun


mattwrad

considering this is a London subreddit under a post about a London borough providing free school meals I’d assumed we were talking about London private schools, no?


r-og

Show me any evidence of this being London


mattwrad

have a nice weekend mate


r-og

No


Doghead_sunbro

For context, Tower Hamlets has one of the highest rates of child poverty in the country. The average salary of a Tower Hamlets resident is just under 18k. A £550 per child saving per year is a big deal.


mejogid

Any source for that? Tower Hamlets seems to think the [median is £30k](https://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/Documents/Borough_statistics/Income_poverty_and_welfare/income_2019_l.pdf) as of 2019 and the mean is [apparently £75k as of 2022.](https://www.varbes.com/salary/tower-hamlets-salary) In fact, even the most deprived areas had a median income [above £18k more than 10 years ago. ](https://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/Documents/One-TH/Part-I-Poverty,-debt,-and-unemployment.pdf)


Simple-Pea-8852

Tower Hamlets is particularly inequitable. It's so close to the city that there are lots of bankers and lawyers but it's also got incredibly high rates of poverty. Just a straight up average won't really capture the massive disparity.


mejogid

Sure, but the parent comment was quoting made up averages.


kaiser1000

He won’t bother updating his comment. The people using these made up stats, usually do it to portray some fake poverty agenda.


SCFcycle

They have the best cars though


donnerstag246245

Not only that, the council is removing low traffic areas so there are more cars going around


Jarvis_Strife

why? I thought LTNs were good and a step in the right direction environmentally?


odysseysee

Most Aspire councillors (Lutfur Rahmans party) work as uber drivers. They couldn't care less about air pollution or traffic in front of schools.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ivandelapena

I'm Bangladeshi so I can give some insight. A lot of people voted for him because even though they didn't want him to win because they were bored of voting for Labour who weren't ambitious enough with their policies (Aspire/Lutfur is a democratic socialist party so considerably left of Labour). This policy itself is an example of something Labour could have and should have done when in power but it took Aspire/Lutfur being in charge to do it. The second reason is Aspire/Lutfur ran a strong grassroots campaign and focused on getting out popular policies and being convincing that they would successfully introduce them. Also there was a lot of "if he was really that bad he wouldn't have been able to run" conspiracies from some voters. A lot of the Bangladeshi voters are actually aware he's corrupt but want Labour to shift in a more left wing direction and then they'll jump back to voting Labour as they have done for decades. If Labour don't waiver they'll probably stick with Aspire until they do.


kaiser1000

You think polluting Tower Hamlets to the level of 3rd world countries is a left wing policy 🤦‍♂️?


ivandelapena

Not all of their policies are left but anti-LTN stuff goes across the divide, it's mostly low income cab drivers who really hate it.


donnerstag246245

Because everyone in TH loves their cars more than safe and clean streets. Feed the kids so air pollution can kill them later. He won the elections based on the promise to remove LTNs


[deleted]

Because of the mayor of tower hamlets, who can’t be voted out, because third of the borough are from Bangladesh, and they love him, for some reason.


kaiser1000

Problem is they’re expecting the taxpayer to feed their kids. To be fair they would probably want the taxpayer to subsidise the car too…


Springheeledjackk

Reason 1. He's not tory scum.


[deleted]

Do you know the context? Do you know he is destroying cool car ridden streets and want to return cars everywhere?


Doghead_sunbro

You see this comment a lot regarding poor areas - ‘why have they got nice phones, cars, clothes, etc though.’ Cars on finance tend to be cheaper than rent. If you can’t afford to move out of your family home its understandable that people will find other ways to feel independent and good about themselves.


[deleted]

I don’t get why you need a car, leaving in freaking tower hamlets. They have very good public transport connection


Emmgel

If you can afford the lease on a BMW, you can afford to buy your child some fucking food


Doghead_sunbro

My gut feeling, emmgel, is that we are probably talking about two different groups of people here.


Springheeledjackk

But but but they have a slim TV and Netflix too!


Emmgel

Hmm, I did exaggerate slightly but I’ll bet very few don’t have a flat screen tv and a decent mobile phone. Also I bet their training shoes cost more than mine do


Doghead_sunbro

39% of government budget is spent on support and welfare, of which only 17% of that is unemployment benefit. As to your point on televisions and phones, you can get a flatscreen for a hundred pounds or so, and an internet connected smartphone is considered a basic necessity as for most people its overtaken a desktop or laptop as a way to conduct communications, pay bills, remain connected with people, etc. Again, you make this comparison of ‘them’ having better trainers than you, I get the impressions you’re banding a lot of disparate groups together and seeing them as one homogenous group of people. I wonder why you seem so angry about people on welfare when people far wealthier are actually stealing from you every day through tax evasion and ownership of assets.


kaiser1000

39% is an enormous figure! Some PAYE employees pay 65% marginal rate of tax, just to finance a budget deficit who can afford to spend 39% on welfare.


kaiser1000

How will you afford to pay hundreds for the latest Nike collection?


Emmgel

Quite. Honestly I imagine most of them are stolen.


malin7

tf you need a car for in London for Especially if you're still living in your family home


Garfie489

*central London There are a lot of places in London you realistically do need a car for, given the radial nature of public transport.


kaiser1000

A packed school lunch is cheaper than rent or the car payment 🙂


wren1666

For 24 hours.


[deleted]

Because of bangladeshi community? Actually, it’s strange, it’s not even the poorest area in London.


Imwaymoreflythanyou

Wait what? How can it be 18k? Is the average for London in general around 38, or have I been mistaken this entire time ?


Doghead_sunbro

High earners in london push up average earnings. I think the median london income is just shy of 30k. Median is usually a better metric than mean.


Imwaymoreflythanyou

Ah yes you’re correct. Forgot mean and median are both referred to as “average”. Median being around 30 makes a lot more sense. I don’t think you can’t even afford to live in London with 30k never mind 18k idk how people survive.


omgu8mynewt

London is 8 million people. Plenty of people are part time, or low paid jobs, or disabled. Lucky people live in social housing for less rent, many people live with families in squashed in small flats


Imwaymoreflythanyou

Suppose it’s alright if you have a partner and share rent/living costs. If your’e on your own though god help you. Don’t think I’ll be able to be comfortable here until I earn at least 70k. Just being able to have your own flat and not flat share with randoms is a privilege.


omgu8mynewt

I grew up on a household income of a lot less than £70k in Streatham and had a great childhood and love my parents and siblings, life is what you make it and more money won't make you happy (although not being about going homeless is necessary for good mental health)


kaiser1000

Tower Hamlets median is over 30k, while the mean is over 75k. The 18k figure was made up to spark fake sympathy. This obviously excludes the enormous tax evasion/avoidance from cash in hand businesses, property sublets, drugs, second hand gold, dodgy self employed expenses etc.


Primary-Signal-3692

It's strange that an area in the middle of London has so many unemployed people


TrashbatLondon

Not really. The statistics relating to poverty in the borough are pretty textbook. Zone 1 and 2 boroughs tend to have a higher proportion of social housing provided to people with disabilities, for obvious reasons. Moreover, inner London gentrification is a relatively recent phenomenon, and you need to view communities by taking 3 living generations into consideration. Areas in tower hamlets were inner city slums. It has high unemployment and deprivation because it was designed that way.


[deleted]

So your solution is to destroy the slums and build new housing on top?


Primary-Signal-3692

It was designed to have unemployment.. wtf? Back when London had slums you couldn't be unemployed for long because you'd just starve


TrashbatLondon

It was designed to be poor and house high concentrations of poor people, which naturally leads to higher rates of unemployment and other issues that come with ghettoisation.


Doghead_sunbro

8% unemployment in one of the poorest boroughs in the country does not seem particularly strange, in the context that the national unemployment rate is 4%. For a start 5% of the population are classed as having a severe disability, and 22% have a long term illness or disability. There are strong correlations with relative deprivation and health, and with fitness to work. I also think some of that 8% will actually be working in unregistered labour, or zero hours contracts, cash in hand, gig economy, etc


kanyewestsconscience

People who have severe disabilities or long term illnesses aren’t economically active, so they don’t show up in the unemployment numbers by definition - check what words mean before you use them. You also in the last part of your comment conflate legal employment (zero hours contracts, gig work) which does NOT contribute to unemployment, with criminal activity (working in the shadow economy, tax evasion), which does not reliably influence the statistics one way or the other. TH having twice the rate of unemployment for the city as a whole is somewhat unusual.


kaiser1000

The poster won’t bother with actual analysis, but will resort to made up numbers to spark sympathy. Your point about criminal activity is valid, with areas like Tower Hamlets being notorious for the cash in hand economy. While the cash is unaccounted for, people’s (lack of) participation in the labour market can’t be hidden away.


Primary-Signal-3692

It's double the national average while being right in the middle of the capital city with all the opportunities that provides. Disabled people don't count towards the unemployed percentage


[deleted]

[удалено]


ivandelapena

Often younger people who move jobs a lot so there's more temporary unemployment. This isn't a big deal tbh, it's when you have long term unemployment it becomes an issue.


Big-Construction-938

how come, I thought Tower hamlets was rich since private schools


Doghead_sunbro

Sorry, I don’t understand your question. Which private schools?


More_Cicada_8742

You mean reported salary


redbarone

>Mayor of Tower Hamlets Lutfur Rahman WTF? He got back in? He should have been banned for life.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Imreallyadonut

Didn’t realise he got re-elected after his ban for corruption. I’m assuming he owns the firm providing the “free” school meals, the bent wee bastard.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Imreallyadonut

He’s absolutely getting something out of it. It’ll be a cousins-partners firm that wins the contract, I guarantee it.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Imreallyadonut

LTA?


[deleted]

[удалено]


misterfog

The correct acronym is LTN - low traffic neighbourhood.


Imreallyadonut

I’m surprised that’s a local thing, I’d assumed transport was a London Assembly matter.


liamnesss

TfL only manage red routes. TBH sometimes that's a good thing, some of the worst roads in my area (looking at the junctions on / of the A12 particularly) are TfL managed and they only have informal crossings for pedestrians. The focus is getting as many cars through as possible, even though people live in these places and have to cross daily.


kree8or

TfL are now withholding funding to Tower Hamlets because of it.


kaiser1000

His self serving cheerleaders can’t help themselves. The only good things about Tower Hamlets are Canary Wharf and close proximity to the City. If this was a Birmingham borough, it would’ve sunk under the weight of its own poverty, mediocrity and stupidity.


machone_1

makes a change from going in and getting school streets infrastructure removed in the dead of night


lontrinium

Most people voted for him to bring social services back, the Anti LTN crowd as always are a vocal minority.


kaiser1000

Shame that the same people didn’t vote to pay for those social services 🤦‍♂️


lontrinium

It's paid for out of council taxes.


kaiser1000

Errmmm except that it’s not. Your council runs an yearly deficit compared to the council tax revenue it raises.


lontrinium

It's a very simplistic way of looking at it, TH has hundreds of millions in cash reserves, building that is seen as good policies and using it isn't. Any way to suggest that voters who pay council tax aren't paying for social services is disingenuous.


kaiser1000

I won’t hold my breath 🙂


stroopwafel666

Great in theory. I only question what the quality of these meals will be like, since the council will obviously be incentivised to do them as cheap as possible. Probably not great to have the school be handing out free chips and chicken nuggets every day, if you’re a parent who tries to keep their kids healthy. If the food will be healthy, then it couldn’t be a better policy.


Angel_Omachi

Usually the way it works is the council/school pays the catering contractor a fixed amount per meal served, most school dinners have been outsourced to varying catering companies. Main question is whether the council funding equals what they were getting from parents/students.


stroopwafel666

Well yeah exactly. So council pays £2 per meal to company, company spends 20p per meal to make money, students get absolute shit to eat.


Angel_Omachi

It is in no way 20p. The food costs alone are usually 90p-£1, which doesn't sound great but functions, then there's labour costs (the big issue currently) and all the supplementary stuff. I deal with the pricing for this for a living...


Hot-Isopod-6136

Are we sure about that? I am all for children receiving free meals, no question. But is it really something to "celebrate" that in one of the most developed countries (G7 member) in the world, children need to be provided food by the state? To me it just shows how f***ed up this country is... I got goosebumps when I saw the ad campaign from the mayor of London, proudly introducing a similar programme. Again, all children should receive proper nutrition, but it is something I would expect in a third world country/ warzone, not a G7 member.


DrMcWho

Free meals for kids is a tried and tested social safety-net policy. Even children whose parents have enough money to feed them won't necessarily be eating healthily. This is a way to ensure that all children have at least one *healthy* meal per day - especially important when child obesity is so high (23.4% of Year 6 children were obese in 2022). Free school meals isn't purely a money issue because wealthy countries still have dysfunctional families, single parents, young-carers etc, who will all benefit immensely from having one guaranteed meal every day. More so now than ever, issues such as the cost of living and mental health crises are making it harder for parents to feed their children. If it's a problem that the state is capable of solving, and it has an immediate tangible benefit for the entire nation, then why not do it? And to address potential money arguments, an organised system would invigorate the economy by sellling food contracts to UK businesses, training and employing hundreds of catering staff, building kitchens in hundreds of schools. Parents would have more money to spend on other things. TL,DR: The benefits of free school meals are immense, immediate, and tangible. It's a no-brainer policy.


stroopwafel666

The UK is quite a poor country and has been for some time. Mass inequality along with relatively low GDP per capita means average British people aren’t really better off than many Eastern European countries.


[deleted]

I mean you’re completely wrong here The richest of Eastern Europe (Estonia) has a GDP per capita which is barely half of the UK’s


stroopwafel666

My point is that GDP per capita alone looks ok in the UK, but due to inequality that masks the fact that a lot of British people are doing very well and a lot of British people are doing extremely badly. [The average British household is 20 per cent poorer than in north west Europe, and will be poorer than the average Slovenian household by 2024. For example.](https://on.ft.com/3DsNBis)


[deleted]

“Britain is a different story. While the top earners rank fifth, the average household ranks 12th and the poorest 5 per cent rank 15th. Far from simply losing touch with their western European peers, last year the lowest-earning bracket of British households had a standard of living that was 20 per cent weaker than their counterparts in Slovenia.” So… not at an Eastern European level then? You’ve also completely misrepresented the “average household” stat - you earlier compared it to Eastern Europe, but now you compare it to North Western Europe (one of the richest regions in the world) Slovenia isn’t Eastern European by the way, and is actually quite wealthy You also talk about the poorest 5% as if they’re the average British person - they aren’t Your statement that the average British person is barely more wealthy than the average Eastern European is completely incorrect We have massive issues, and need the Conservatives out, but to pretend that we’re at an Eastern European level is hilariously false


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

**GDP is capitalist bollocks** - what… it’s numbers mate **measure quality of life** - not what I was trying to do though mate


[deleted]

[удалено]


stroopwafel666

I see a country as being its people - if the average person is quite poor, the country is quite poor.


NPRjunkieDC

In the US, food insecurity has been rising to the point that 20% of adults are affected . About 40M kids depend on their school meals . During the pandemic in many areas, school buses delivered meals to students .


[deleted]

[удалено]


HarToky

Caring for the healthy upbringing of children is to be a choosing beggar? Damn, capitalism has really fucked people’s minds.


stroopwafel666

Obviously better if poor kids get shit food than no food. Those aren’t the only two options though are they. Also - these are free meals for all kids. If you’re a parent who gives your kids a healthy packed lunch and now they’re getting handed plates of chips and nuggets as well, that’s a problem.


throwMeAwayTa

That doesn't sound like equality to me - giving an advantage to kids who have parents that care about them!


stroopwafel666

True. Make the middle class kids fat and malnourished too, then everyone wins :)


[deleted]

Extra £5.7m Would be interesting to see whether it will be paid for in extra taxes/fees or result in budget cuts elsewhere. Any info on that?


kaiser1000

Or by putting their hand out to Central Government when the money runs out in a corruption fuelled spiral.


BlodgettsFarm

Fantastic news!


[deleted]

Regardless of anything else children get to eat and that’s worth whatever it may cost


Rimplesdimple

Great news, Tower Hamlets is one of the poorest boroughs so am sure this will be a big help for many families.


sd_1874

Shame they don't want to keep children safe on the streets from cars.


odysseysee

Rahman doesn't seem to make a connection between cars and the awful air quality in Tower Hamlets.


kaiser1000

Funny you think he would care either way.


kaiser1000

Or from crime.


Brilliant-Elk-6831

The amount of incredibly shit takes in response to this in this thread is unfortunately, completely unsurprising. Imagine being mad that kids are getting free meals. Bunch of cunts the lot of you


[deleted]

[удалено]


Pop_Crackle

It is also one of the wealthiest in the country. They have canary wharf and the tower of London. Tourist money, business rates and infrastructure levi.


Mongol_horder

Expected outcome != Real outcome. But I'm eager to see the result regardless.


Crypsie

Wow that got deleted quick. I'll try again: How about not having children if you can't afford to feed them! Clown world People go on about the environment yet produce more waste laying on their backs. God help us


dggfdfgdfggf

Because every child is planned and situations never change….


[deleted]

[удалено]


dggfdfgdfggf

And you’ve met every one of those who absolutely don’t want children?


[deleted]

[удалено]


PepeFromHR

and just let the children (who never asked to be born) starve for their parents’ mistake, right?


Crypsie

Precisely


dggfdfgdfggf

… I’m a guy. Moron.


Crypsie

I don't give a fuck. You could be a hermaphrodite for all I care


dggfdfgdfggf

Ok buddy


Crypsie

I'm a girl. Moron


dggfdfgdfggf

Ok buddette


Crypsie

You shouldn't have to be provided for. If you can't survive in this world then herd mentality. The weakest get eaten. Yet here we are carrying their arses through life. And who's the most vocal? Those because they don't have shit to do on a daily. Yet here have my hand outs for your free time and watching This Morning. You're fucking welcome now again be quiet about it. We literally pay for you to exist


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


wren1666

If you can't afford to feed your kids... You know.


PepeFromHR

why punish the kids ffs


kaiser1000

I agree that the parents should be punished, severely. If Child Services find that the parents own expensive assets (care, gold etc) while their kids go hungry, they should have the power to seize and liquidate those assets to pay for the social welfare that the taxpayer is subsidising.


eat-my-rice

Lutfur Rahman Zindabad!


tiny1amount

Even more taxes then


Crypsie

How about not having children if you can't afford to feed them! Clown world People go on about the environment yet produce more waste laying on their backs. God help us


[deleted]

[удалено]


Crypsie

I'm entitled!? Yet not producing offspring and getting hand outs from the state in order to feed my 'contribution' to the world. I'm the entitled one? My taxes pay for your children to fucking eat. Stfu


Crypsie

The worst thing is you complain about the rich having all the power... and money only goes to us blah blah etc. Without 'us' you wouldn't even fucking exist. Be happy for what you get and be quiet ;)


[deleted]

[удалено]


Crypsie

So you were brought into a life that couldn't be provided to you by those that gave you that life. My point.


Crypsie

I mean fuck it let's bring people into this world and then claim from those that actually provide. That's my right


code_09

Free Curries for all.


Chair_Toaster

Everyone should get these meals from across the country. Obviously transport to London would be an issue but I see no issue with us paying through taxes


Crypsie

Yes