What do you hope for in the budget?

Steelygran

mabon1

People I know are living on benefits, they can afford things I am unable to buy as I am a pensioner, a wrong.

I can sympathise with how you feel as a pensioner, but what a lot of people don't realise when they see people on benefits buying the odd treat such as coffee out or having their nails done, is that this is all they have. They usually don't have any security, or money to save for emergencies. It's a very different, insecure way of living.
Of course there are still quite a few people around who think that if you're on benefits you should have absolutely nothing.

Many years ago now a young single mother - I didn't know her, but my late mother did - with learning difficulties, understood (with the help of my mother) how to budget and be very frugal with her spending.

She would, for example, eat sardines on toast with a fresh tomato, and home-baked rice pudding (batch-cooked probably) for dinner. Went to play groups with her toddler, the park, etc - bought or was given, second hand clothes.

Anyway, she actually managed to save money which she put towards Christmas. No idea what she bought, but I believe it was a couple of presents or something for her child.

I can imagine what would've been said about her if, knowing she was 'on benefits' (she did work, spasmodically) they'd seen her buying Christmas presents! Eh!

Back in the day, when personal phones were just being developed from the huge brick-like contraptions into smaller hand held ones - someone gave her one of them, probably the equivalent of today's smart phones. It was thought she needed it to keep in touch with family and friends (and my mother). I can well imagine what would have been said about that.

She could be quite erratic in her behaviour (a medical condition brought on by earlier hydrocephalus) and might well have appeared feckless to some.

I knew about her because my mother took her under her wing - they were both members of a local church social group.

My point is, no-one really knows another person's circumstances - you only 'know' what you see. And that's not the whole picture.

Dickens

Steelygran

mabon1

People I know are living on benefits, they can afford things I am unable to buy as I am a pensioner, a wrong.

I can sympathise with how you feel as a pensioner, but what a lot of people don't realise when they see people on benefits buying the odd treat such as coffee out or having their nails done, is that this is all they have. They usually don't have any security, or money to save for emergencies. It's a very different, insecure way of living.
Of course there are still quite a few people around who think that if you're on benefits you should have absolutely nothing.

Many years ago now a young single mother - I didn't know her, but my late mother did - with learning difficulties, understood (with the help of my mother) how to budget and be very frugal with her spending.

She would, for example, eat sardines on toast with a fresh tomato, and home-baked rice pudding (batch-cooked probably) for dinner. Went to play groups with her toddler, the park, etc - bought or was given, second hand clothes.

Anyway, she actually managed to save money which she put towards Christmas. No idea what she bought, but I believe it was a couple of presents or something for her child.

I can imagine what would've been said about her if, knowing she was 'on benefits' (she did work, spasmodically) they'd seen her buying Christmas presents! Eh!

Back in the day, when personal phones were just being developed from the huge brick-like contraptions into smaller hand held ones - someone gave her one of them, probably the equivalent of today's smart phones. It was thought she needed it to keep in touch with family and friends (and my mother). I can well imagine what would have been said about that.

She could be quite erratic in her behaviour (a medical condition brought on by earlier hydrocephalus) and might well have appeared feckless to some.

I knew about her because my mother took her under her wing - they were both members of a local church social group.

My point is, no-one really knows another person's circumstances - you only 'know' what you see. And that's not the whole picture.

Your mother sounds wonderful.

theworriedwell

growstuff

Doodledog The aim of breakfast clubs isn't just to provide poor children with a breakfast. It's been shown that they improve behaviour because children are more settled when lessons start.

I thought they were mainly to allow parents to get to work on time. If you start work at 9 am and your child goes into school at 8.50 am it might be impossible to get to work. Not like back in the day when my sons and their friends would be in the playground at 8 am playing football, they aren't allowed through the gate early now, well at least at my local school where parents do pay for their children to attend.

Yes, I don't think I said it was? I was part of a group that set one up in the 90s. It was so that our children had somewhere safe and supervised to go whilst their parents were on the way to work. It cost more than it would have done to give them breakfast at home, but saving money wasn't the primary aim.

This was during the Tony Blair years, when fewer people were in poverty. Obviously things have changed, and the role of breakfast clubs has changed with the times. With luck the role will change again, with a more compassionate government.

Despite more flexible working patterns and working from home, there will still be parents who can't both drop their children off at school and be at work on time, there will be those who struggle to find the budget for breakfast, those who (for whatever reason) aren't able to do it, and those whose children enjoy the social aspect of it.

It doesn't matter why people use them. They should be available to everyone who needs or wants them, and schools should definitely not be involved in means-testing families or singling out some children for free places and others to ask for payment.

A lot of children are hungry. Dreadful. You only have to look at visiting sports teams from the poorer side of town to see the difference in markers of wellbeing.

theworriedwell

growstuff

Doodledog The aim of breakfast clubs isn't just to provide poor children with a breakfast. It's been shown that they improve behaviour because children are more settled when lessons start.

I thought they were mainly to allow parents to get to work on time. If you start work at 9 am and your child goes into school at 8.50 am it might be impossible to get to work. Not like back in the day when my sons and their friends would be in the playground at 8 am playing football, they aren't allowed through the gate early now, well at least at my local school where parents do pay for their children to attend.

If you read what I wrote it was "isn't just to provide poor children with a breakfast. In other words, there are a number of advantages. Of course, they provide all children (poor or rich) with a breakfast. They also provide childminding before school for children of parents who need to be at work, but it has also been shown by a number of research projects that general behaviour improves because children have an opportunity to chat and calm down before school starts. Some schools have used Pupil Premium funding in this way and audits have shown that breakfast clubs are an effective use of funding.

growstuff

theworriedwell

growstuff

Doodledog The aim of breakfast clubs isn't just to provide poor children with a breakfast. It's been shown that they improve behaviour because children are more settled when lessons start.

I thought they were mainly to allow parents to get to work on time. If you start work at 9 am and your child goes into school at 8.50 am it might be impossible to get to work. Not like back in the day when my sons and their friends would be in the playground at 8 am playing football, they aren't allowed through the gate early now, well at least at my local school where parents do pay for their children to attend.

If you read what I wrote it was "isn't just to provide poor children with a breakfast. In other words, there are a number of advantages. Of course, they provide all children (poor or rich) with a breakfast. They also provide childminding before school for children of parents who need to be at work, but it has also been shown by a number of research projects that general behaviour improves because children have an opportunity to chat and calm down before school starts. Some schools have used Pupil Premium funding in this way and audits have shown that breakfast clubs are an effective use of funding.

Sorry, you seem offended with what I said. You mentioned two reasons for breakfast clubs, providing poor children with breakfast and it improving behaviour as children are more settled. The ones I know of were the third type, trying to enable parents to work and they aren't cheap so unless there is a subsidy, which I know you don't agree with, I wasn't sure how they helped poorer families because as you said it would be cheaper to give them a bit of toast and some cereal at home.

By the way no need for the bold. I can read but if I couldn't writing in bold wouldn't help, bit like the English abroad thinking if they talk loudly and slowly people will suddenly understand English.

Just realised it was Doodledog who didn't agree with subsidies/means testing. I know locally they aren't cheap so I don't think our local ones are going to be much help for poorer families unless there is help for people struggling to pay.

I think Labour have a plan to make them free but not sure of ages that would apply to.

I wrote some words in bold to emphasise them. That's how I would speak.

Now who's being offended?

FWIW The devil is in the detail. I think the idea would be that they would be heavily subsidised (and maybe free) for children from poorer families. That's what already happens. As I've written before, some schools use much of their Pupil Premium funding on breakfast clubs. PP is worth £1345 for each eligible child (over £7 a day) and there are some schools where over 50% of the pupils are eligible. That's a significant amount of money and enables schools to ensure that all children can attend if they want.

Re. breakfast clubs - I think they are a wonderful institution - and yes, I'd be happy to pay more in tax to subsidise them, for all children. What is more important than the health and wellbeing of the next generation - especially considering the challenges they are going to face / inherit as they grow into adulthood - climate disasters, wars, and what appears like an increasingly unstable world.

Dickens

Re. breakfast clubs - I think they are a wonderful institution - and yes, I'd be happy to pay more in tax to subsidise them, for all children. What is more important than the health and wellbeing of the next generation - especially considering the challenges they are going to face / inherit as they grow into adulthood - climate disasters, wars, and what appears like an increasingly unstable world.

👏👏👏

Well said, Dickens
It is an investment in the future.

Well of course breakfast clubs are an essential component in getting every parent back into work and off benefits. Should be interesting to see how it works out long term.

ronib

Well of course breakfast clubs are an essential component in getting every parent back into work and off benefits. Should be interesting to see how it works out long term.

I think that another important component part of getting parents back into work would be employers paying wages that they could actually live on.

Average real wages in the UK will still be lower in 2026 than they were in 2008 (Office Budget Responsibility).

I know there are multiple measures of wages, but it doesn't bode well does it?

More belt-tightening, and what definitely feels like austerity in spite of Sir Starmer insisting that we won't be returning to it.

Maybe it's going to be a different type of austerity, but the "difficult decisions", "hard choices", oh - and the "pain", don't inspire much confidence.

Perhaps though, we're being conditioned to fear the worst so that the reality won't feel quite so bad?

Great points Dickens

theworriedwell

Just realised it was Doodledog who didn't agree with subsidies/means testing. I know locally they aren't cheap so I don't think our local ones are going to be much help for poorer families unless there is help for people struggling to pay.

I think Labour have a plan to make them free but not sure of ages that would apply to.

Excuse me? I do agree with subsidies. I think breakfast clubs and many other things should be free at point of use.

I also disagree with means-testing as a general principle. Sometimes it might be necessary but only when there is no choice, and there usually is a choice.

I have no idea why so many people assume that the two things are incompatible, but it’s maddening when their own prejudices (assuming that’s where the misunderstandings arise) are superimposed on my posts. It’s the same when I say that people should not lose their pension or savings because of means-tests - that doesn’t mean that I don’t think those without pensions or savings should get little or nothing - just that those who have saved (after fair taxation) should not be dragged down by means-tests that assume we should all survive on what we ‘need’. They should be able to keep their savings on top of the pension they have earned.

If someone has saved £10, why should they have to pay £15 for entry to something that is free to those with savings of less than £12? They are then £3 worse off than the person who spent their own tenner and still gets the free ticket, bus fare, prescription or whatever. If people want to spend any surplus (after tax) on whatever they like nobody should tell them they don’t ’need’ it and means-test it away. If there are those who can’t afford to save, that is also wrong, and should be sorted out, but it is a separate issue.

My philosophy is simple. We should all contribute according to ability and all get back according to need. If someone is unable to contribute financially (eg because of illness or disability, or caring for someone who is ill or disabled, that is absolutely fine, but I don’t agree with the rest of us being forced to subsidise the lifestyle choices of those who want to stay at home, or who fiddle taxes, or otherwise play the system. If someone can afford to take time off to look after children, or to retire early, to work part-time or whatever they like, they’ll get no complaints from me - but nobody should expect those choices to be funded by those in work. It costs money to live in a civil society with the sorts of services we all expect. Why should some manage to get access to those services without paying for them when others are forced to do so?

I absolutely agree with universal healthcare, education, affordable housing etc for those who do contribute, regardless of how much or how little they pay, (so long as it is a proportionate share). That includes breakfast clubs. Someone who pays £1 a week into the system should have the same provision as someone who pays £1m, but both should be able to spend their remaining money how they like.

To me it goes without saying that all children should have the same provision. It’s not their fault if they have parents who won’t work.

TL:DR? The soundbite answer is that one can agree with subsidies without supporting means-tests. Fair taxation should sort out who pays what, and if we all paid a fair share we wouldn’t need further means-tests.

Doodledog

theworriedwell

Just realised it was Doodledog who didn't agree with subsidies/means testing. I know locally they aren't cheap so I don't think our local ones are going to be much help for poorer families unless there is help for people struggling to pay.

I think Labour have a plan to make them free but not sure of ages that would apply to.

Excuse me? I do agree with subsidies. I think breakfast clubs and many other things should be free at point of use.

I also disagree with means-testing as a general principle. Sometimes it might be necessary but only when there is no choice, and there usually is a choice.

I have no idea why so many people assume that the two things are incompatible, but it’s maddening when their own prejudices (assuming that’s where the misunderstandings arise) are superimposed on my posts. It’s the same when I say that people should not lose their pension or savings because of means-tests - that doesn’t mean that I don’t think those without pensions or savings should get little or nothing - just that those who have saved (after fair taxation) should not be dragged down by means-tests that assume we should all survive on what we ‘need’. They should be able to keep their savings on top of the pension they have earned.

If someone has saved £10, why should they have to pay £15 for entry to something that is free to those with savings of less than £12? They are then £3 worse off than the person who spent their own tenner and still gets the free ticket, bus fare, prescription or whatever. If people want to spend any surplus (after tax) on whatever they like nobody should tell them they don’t ’need’ it and means-test it away. If there are those who can’t afford to save, that is also wrong, and should be sorted out, but it is a separate issue.

My philosophy is simple. We should all contribute according to ability and all get back according to need. If someone is unable to contribute financially (eg because of illness or disability, or caring for someone who is ill or disabled, that is absolutely fine, but I don’t agree with the rest of us being forced to subsidise the lifestyle choices of those who want to stay at home, or who fiddle taxes, or otherwise play the system. If someone can afford to take time off to look after children, or to retire early, to work part-time or whatever they like, they’ll get no complaints from me - but nobody should expect those choices to be funded by those in work. It costs money to live in a civil society with the sorts of services we all expect. Why should some manage to get access to those services without paying for them when others are forced to do so?

I absolutely agree with universal healthcare, education, affordable housing etc for those who do contribute, regardless of how much or how little they pay, (so long as it is a proportionate share). That includes breakfast clubs. Someone who pays £1 a week into the system should have the same provision as someone who pays £1m, but both should be able to spend their remaining money how they like.

To me it goes without saying that all children should have the same provision. It’s not their fault if they have parents who won’t work.

TL:DR? The soundbite answer is that one can agree with subsidies without supporting means-tests. Fair taxation should sort out who pays what, and if we all paid a fair share we wouldn’t need further means-tests.

Oh well this is a touchy thread. I knew you were against subsidies or means testing from what you said, apologies that I didn't interpret it exactly right.

I don't think it's being touchy when posts are misinterpreted - or assigned to the wrong poster.

growstuff

I wrote some words in bold to emphasise them. That's how I would speak.

Now who's being offended?

FWIW The devil is in the detail. I think the idea would be that they would be heavily subsidised (and maybe free) for children from poorer families. That's what already happens. As I've written before, some schools use much of their Pupil Premium funding on breakfast clubs. PP is worth £1345 for each eligible child (over £7 a day) and there are some schools where over 50% of the pupils are eligible. That's a significant amount of money and enables schools to ensure that all children can attend if they want.

I'm fine with breakfast clubs being financed, I'm not so fine with the children who that PP is intended for are the ones providing the finance. Surely that £1345 should be spent on them directly not providing breakfast for their better off class mates.

There must be things that could be provided for the children entitled to PP, I remember (a while ago so might not be exactly right) that at my children's old school the PP could be spent on things like music lessons, equipment (laptops and the like) and if the family opted in 50% could be saved over the years so that child could go on one of the very exciting trips they ran in 6th form. Things like visiting the Amazon or going on an African safari.

So for me tax payers should be funding it and leave the PP for the children it was intended for.

growstuff

I don't think it's being touchy when posts are misinterpreted - or assigned to the wrong poster.

Thanks for the feedback.

Maybe have a look at the two posts I got for daring to mention a third reason for breakfast clubs.

This is obviously a very cliquey place so I will leave you all to it.

theworriedwell

growstuff

I don't think it's being touchy when posts are misinterpreted - or assigned to the wrong poster.

Thanks for the feedback.

Maybe have a look at the two posts I got for daring to mention a third reason for breakfast clubs.

This is obviously a very cliquey place so I will leave you all to it.

If you've left you won't be reading this, but I'll try anyway in case it was just you being even touchier than the rest of us . (Seriously - there is no need to flounce over this. Worse things happen).

You may think I was being touchy, but this is far from the first time people have quoted me directly and then attributed things to me that are the opposite of what I think. If we are going to quote posters, the least we can do is represent their viewpoints accurately.

Yes, there are times when things could have been better expressed, and misunderstandings occur, but that is the time to clear things up by asking, not to summarise someone else's point of view and boil it down to something they didn't say and don't mean, such as 'DD doesn't agree with subsidies'. That is not just wrong, it is the actual opposite of my view.

If it's being touchy to point that out, well, so be it.

theworriedwell

I'm fine with breakfast clubs being financed, I'm not so fine with the children who that PP is intended for are the ones providing the finance. Surely that £1345 should be spent on them directly not providing breakfast for their better off class mates.

I was quite surprised to read that PP is not spent on them directly and that is seen as acceptable.
Granted, there are benefits to others e.g. if funding is used for support, the other children in class benefit from that.
If it means PP children can attend extra curricular activities, the other children get to see their friends there and just occasionally, a bigger group booking gets a discount, which benefits all the children.

Being used to feed children without PP?

I agree with the theory that breakfast clubs will give the children an energy boost and even allow parents to get to work.

BUT

I’m still reeling from the idea that it’s OK to take WFA from pensioners on the grounds that they can afford to be with out it, but give free breakfasts and childcare to parents and children who can well afford it.

Working age people that aren’t working, excluding medically unfit and not necessarily mental health problems which can be abused. If you are fit you should not get benefits. It is too easy today to claim benefits. Nearly 40 years ago my mother who contracted polio in 1916 aged 8 months was first denied a mobility allowance even though she was asked to walk across a room without her callipers. I said she must object and ask for assessment at home, and she got it. My mother wasn’t even registered as disabled until she was 56 as my grandparents just treated her the same as their other children. My mother is my idol and role model.

What are PP children?

I'm confused by this, too:
I’m still reeling from the idea that it’s OK to take WFA from pensioners on the grounds that they can afford to be with out it, but give free breakfasts and childcare to parents and children who can well afford it.

Are you saying that pensioners who can afford to manage without a benefit should get it, but not children whose parents can afford to pay for breakfast clubs? Or should everyone get what they need, or nobody? Or something else?

As an aside - everyone seems to be claiming that the money not being given to pensioners (it's not being taken from them as it wasn't theirs in the first place) is being used for different things. Some say it's to pay train drivers and doctors, others to foreign aid, and now it's suggested that it's going to undeserving children. I haven't seen the figures, but don't see how it can be spread as thinly as that.

PP- Pupil Premium
The pupil premium grant is funding to improve educational outcomes for disadvantaged pupils in state-funded schools in England.
There is a menu of things it can be used for on the Government App.

Are you saying that parents who can well afford breakfasts and preschool care should be given it for free?
It will certainly be a welcome boost for all parents, including those well enough off to pay for them, as currently the school where DGC went charges £5.50 for a 1 hour breakfast club. (£27.50pw).

Whereas another school currently charges £3 for care plus 50p per food/drink item from the breakfast menu.

Not sure what the government has in mind for funding.
Will staff currently employed be expected to take less money if the government decides on a smaller amount?

I’ve only heard that the winter fuel allowance would be used to fill the black hole which they previously said didn’t exist.

(They knew it existed because Starmer told Sunak it was wrong to remove the WFA to fill the black hole when Conservatives were in power.)

Thanks - I had hear of Pupil Premium now you mention it, but I hadn't made the connection.

I see the WFP and free breakfast clubs in the same way, really. Both would give to those who don't 'need' it (by someone else's definition) if universal, and both would disadvantage those on the edges if means-tested. In both cases, working out who should get it and ensuring it doesn't go to those who don't is expensive, so I would prefer to see universal benefits. But I am against means-testing (particularly cliff-edge means-testing) anyway, so am probably harder to convince than most.

I can't imagine teaching staff being expected to take a pay cut - for one thing the government is being generous to public sector workers and for another the unions (rightly) would be furious.

I understood the government to say that they were aware of a deficit but the so-called 'black hole' is additional to that, and they didn't know about it as it was hidden from the OBR. I dislike metaphorical expressions being used in political speeches/discussions though, as they mean different things to different people (and this is why using them is often a deliberate choice).

I can't imagine teaching staff being expected to take a pay cut - for one thing the government is being generous to public sector workers and for another the unions (rightly) would be furious.

You think teaching staff run before and after school care?
Clubs, like sport, computing, art and science, yes. They run those unpaid uncertainly the parents who are always late to pick their children up, regard it as childcare.
One TA at our place, works in the afterschool child care session. The other staff were interviewed and appointed for the job.
I can’t comment on your last paragraph as I have no idea what it means.
Sunak used the term ‘black hole’ with regard to the WFA-the same WFA that Starmer, in opposition said it was wrong to remove. Go away