Mollygo
DD
I have nothing against giving children free breakfasts - nurturing the young is surely as important as protecting the old? I didn't make the connection between the two, anyway. You did.
Yes I did make that connection.
It’s quite strange that it should be right to give parents who don’t need it, the chance to get their children fed and cared for for free, but that people who may not fit the exact criteria for WFP should not be protected as you put it.
Even KS had a problem with the WFP. Wrong if Sunak was cancelling it, but right if he did it, so the two-facedness of his attitude to not protecting people who might need but don’t qualify for WFP and his willingness to give handouts to parents who don’t need it is not really surprising.
You however imply that I am against giving children free breakfasts which is untrue.
How did I appear to imply that? I don’t.
I do, however, recognise an attempt to discredit a government you so clearly despise, by using an emotive example of hungry children, despite your protestations of ‘balance’
.
As I keep saying, I don’t think the withdrawal of the WFA was done well at all, and as I also keep saying, means-testing is very unfair. All the same, if the choice (as you suggest there must be by linking the two things) is between giving a child a breakfast that may not be ‘needed’ and giving a pensioner £300 to spend on school fees or a second home, I would rather risk wasting it on the child. I don’t think there has to be such a choice at all.