PM expects Seymour to give school lunches his 'full attention'

[Lilith7]

Warning, contains images of politicians.

Apparently, there are "teething problems" with school lunches which Seymour will 'work his way through'...
"Seymour is accountable for delivering" & Luxon " has no doubt he will be able to. I think he knows exactly what needs to happen."


https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/5433...-attention

[harm_less]

The purpose and requirements of supplied school lunches, and Seymour's strategy and ACT's intents in disrupting the previous system, are two very different things.

[Jan]

They should just go back to what Labour were supplying - lunches to only 30% of the kids - Jan Tineti wasn’t happy with the quality of the food her own government were supplying - so if labour couldn’t get the scheme to work for only 30% of the kids - feeding 100% plus pre schoolers was very ambitious.Can’t remember headlines when Labour never kept their promise to give every child a free lunch but it seems feeding 100% is now imperative ..Hipkins was very happy with their 30%
https://insidegovernment.co.nz/major-mil...programme/
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/j...NDPYBZAZM/

[Oh_hunnihunni]

I don't think 100% is realistic. Most parents I know prefer to do their own school lunches, to ensure their kids needs are being met. But some parents simply run out of money to provide lunches, and where that gets in the way of kids learning then I think it is a social responsibility to provide for them. Making them available to all certainly overcomes the shaming thing, but there are better ways to do that within school antibullying programmes.

It's the same as superannuation. It should be provided on the basis of need, not just age. We need to take care of our vulnerable ones, and let those who can take care of themselves, just as we do within the public health system by having alternative private health insurance for those who choose it.

[Jan]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/bruc...S2IQYW44M/
This is an excellent summation in my opinion on children being used as a political football but the very real problems like abuse just being swept under the rug while butter chicken or fish pies are grabbing the headlines

[Jan]

I don't think 100% is realistic. Most parents I know prefer to do their own school lunches, to ensure their kids needs are being met. But some parents simply run out of money to provide lunches, and where that gets in the way of kids learning then I think it is a social responsibility to provide for them. Making them available to all certainly overcomes the shaming thing, but there are better ways to do that within school antibullying programmes.

It's the same as superannuation. It should be provided on the basis of need, not just age. We need to take care of our vulnerable ones, and let those who can take care of themselves, just as we do within the public health system by having alternative private health insurance for those who choose it.

Free lunches were not allocated by need - it seemed more like a lottery under the previous scheme - only one of the 6 low decile schools nearby the temporary housing motels received lunches but my youngest grandaughter was a pupil at a lovely little school up on the hill here in Napier where many professionals and business owners  live was included in the scheme - they regularly had sushi or Subways or Pita Pit 
I chuckle when I hear teachers and parents complaining about receiving the same thing everyday - most kiwi kids grow up having the same old sandwiches if you were lucky a biscuit and a piece of fruit everyday of your school life - we grew up poor but I don’t remember even the rich kids having anything different - my kids grew up on peanut butter sandwiches and an apple 

I agree about the pension - should be asset and income tested like Oz - ridiculous millionaires even getting the winter heating bonus

[king1]

Can’t remember headlines when Labour never kept their promise to give every child a free lunch but it seems feeding 100% is now imperative ..Hipkins was very happy with their 30%

I don't remember a headline where Labour promised to deliver lunches to 100% of kids - care to share that one?

[Oh_hunnihunni]

I don't think 100% is realistic. Most parents I know prefer to do their own school lunches, to ensure their kids needs are being met. But some parents simply run out of money to provide lunches, and where that gets in the way of kids learning then I think it is a social responsibility to provide for them. Making them available to all certainly overcomes the shaming thing, but there are better ways to do that within school antibullying programmes.

It's the same as superannuation. It should be provided on the basis of need, not just age. We need to take care of our vulnerable ones, and let those who can take care of themselves, just as we do within the public health system by having alternative private health insurance for those who choose it.

Free lunches were not allocated by need - it seemed more like a lottery under the previous scheme - only one of the 6 low decile schools nearby the temporary housing motels received lunches but my youngest grandaughter was a pupil at a lovely little school up on the hill here in Napier where many professionals and business owners  live was included in the scheme - they regularly had sushi or Subways or Pita Pit 
I chuckle when I hear teachers and parents complaining about receiving the same thing everyday - most kiwi kids grow up having the same old sandwiches if you were lucky a biscuit and a piece of fruit everyday of your school life - we grew up poor but I don’t remember even the rich kids having anything different - my kids grew up on peanut butter sandwiches and an apple 

I agree about the pension - should be asset and income tested like Oz - ridiculous millionaires even getting the winter heating bonus

And yet both benefits are not compulsory to sign up for. Those who do not need it very rarely opt out.

Human greed rules, and it will be our downfall I think, because of all the problems it creates for the planet and the other living things who depend on it.

[Lilith7]

The purpose and requirements of supplied school lunches, and Seymour's strategy and ACT's intents in disrupting the previous system, are two very different things.

It does rather smack of a 'chuck the peasants a crust' atitude...

---

I tend to the view that, if kids are hungry, you don't muck about waiting to find out who's voting for who or which govt did what, or who's an incompetent parent, who's struggling on an insufficent wage or benefit & going hungry on a regular basis so their kids can eat.

What you do is feed the blardy kids. Immediately.

Provide decent, nutrituous lunches for EVERY child at school, with the option to opt in or out easily because as we all know, circumstances can change. And because these are OUR kids, the cost shouldn't even enter into it, within reason.

And while we're at it, provide the exact same lunches for every sitting MP. Compulsory, except in cases of alleries etc. which will naturally be checked by a Dr.

[harm_less]

The purpose and requirements of supplied school lunches, and Seymour's strategy and ACT's intents in disrupting the previous system, are two very different things.

It does rather smack of a 'chuck the peasants a crust' atitude...

The point I was making is that Seymour made it no secret that he opposed these taxpayer funded "woke" meals for less advantaged children. Unable to scuttle the system altogether he has put in place a poorly designed and managed alternative that is destined to failure. When it does he hopes to get his original intention of getting rid of the meals altogether. He and his Atlas overlords are devious and calculating, make no mistake about it. It's also only a few months now before Seymour gets the DPM position which is likely to see him double down on his libertarian ideologies.

[C_T_Russell]

They should just go back to what Labour were supplying - lunches to only 30% of the kids - Jan Tineti wasn’t happy with the quality of the food her own government were supplying - so if labour couldn’t get the scheme to work for only 30% of the kids - feeding 100% plus pre schoolers was very ambitious.Can’t remember headlines when Labour never kept their promise to give every child a free lunch but it seems feeding 100% is now imperative ..Hipkins was very happy with their 30%
https://insidegovernment.co.nz/major-mil...programme/
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/j...NDPYBZAZM/

Labour never planned to deliver to 100% of schools, that would cost too much, they only ever intended to deliver them to the low decile schools where they targeted the demographics most in need.
ACT just have rolled out a more affordable option to the schools instead as it was still too costly what Labour had introduced.
Even then, it doesnt mean all the kids at these schools are in need of the lunches and some parents may still want to give their kids lunches.
I hope there is an opt-out option so that no lunches go to waste should parents give their kids food.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Apparently the waste question is more about delays in delivery, and the unacceptable quality of the meals rather than any other reason. If hungry kids are rejecting free food then it has to be pretty awful stuff, in my experience that lot will hoover down some pretty dreadful offerings when they have an empty tummy.

Funny thing though about targeting on the basis of demographics, I've known some pretty impoverished parents who provide perfectly adequate lunches for their kids, while some surprisingly well off ones are more inclined to hand over the cash or believe it or not - credit cards for the kids to do their own thing. And those kids then buy vapes instead of lunch...

So I don't envy schools or politicians when it comes to feeding school children. It didn't work back in the fifties and sixties, I doubt there is a perfect 21st century option despite the lobbying by big internationals like Compass. The old style parent run tuck shop might still be the best bet, if only we had more parents available to run them, instead of working to pay off the second mortgage...

[Lilith7]

School lunches, Sweden.

https://www.livsmedelsverket.se/en/food-...20a%20week.

[harm_less]

The latest addition to the school lunches saga is plastic infused food

https://www.thepress.co.nz/nz-news/36059...hool-lunch

[Oh_hunnihunni]

It does remind me a bit of the food served up to our elderly in most so called rest homes. It comes as a shock when you see it for yourself, and is often one of the biggest reasons many of us have for doing our damnedest to avoid going anywhere near one of those places.

Why is it we allow such dreadful treatment of our most vulnerable? The ones least able to speak up for themselves?

[Lilith7]

The latest addition to the school lunches saga is plastic infused food

https://www.thepress.co.nz/nz-news/36059...hool-lunch

Just chock full of vitamins...or something. Good grief.

---

It does remind me a bit of the food served up to our elderly in most so called rest homes. It comes as a shock when you see it for yourself, and is often one of the biggest reasons many of us have for doing our damnedest to avoid going anywhere near one of those places.

Why is it we allow such dreadful treatment of our most vulnerable? The ones least able to speak up for themselves?

Its a strange thing but then we're a very strange species. 

A species which for some, means they care only about increasing their wealth & if that means others are obliged to eat tasteless or dangerous pap, then they really don't mind.

[C_T_Russell]

These school lunches are becoming a bit of a political football.
They interviewed some students on 1news tonight who quite enjoyed them.
Now the latest issue is the disposal of all the waste containers etc.
When will it end?

[Oh_hunnihunni]

With a bit of thought, lunches could be provided that suited all, that were nutritious, easily delivered, efficiently managed, and created minimal waste.

The problem is not any of those points, the problem is this government isn't willing to pay for those kinds of lunches. Not for school kids. Not for other peoples school kids. But it is willing to pay to feed its own members pretty decent fare...

That's different, eh?

[harm_less]

These school lunches are becoming a bit of a political football.
They interviewed some students on 1news tonight who quite enjoyed them.
Now the latest issue is the disposal of all the waste containers etc.
When will it end?

These school lunches are paid for by us taxpayers so of course they are a political issue. The problem is that the current government seems to have a strategy of transferring the costs of 'problem' items away from direct central government and onto third parties in an attempt to obscure the real expenses required.

They've done this with 3 Waters by transferring infrastructure costs to Councils (i.e. from tax dollars to Council rates), the interisland ferry debacle by offloading the port infrastructure investment to the ports to make the next ferry 'deal' look better (together with disassociating the break fee on the cancellation of the iRex contract), and now significant inputs to the supply of school lunches are being borne by the schools (i.e. distribution, heating, clean-up and waste disposal) while Compass is claiming $3/meal cost for a very much inferior service to the previous community supported one.

Seymour is doing his best to break the system to attain his original intent of ditching the school lunches altogether and he is oblivious and uncaring of the social harm he is causing in doing so.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

But still looking after the well off in all sorts of ways.

Means testing superannuation would save heaps. Probably pay for school lunches and breaking the ferry contract.