I'm going to ignore all the politics of yesterday's announcement that all children in their first three years of state education will have feee school meals from now on. The timing may have been cynical and the pictures that accompanied it even worse, but all politicians are guilty of that. The real issue is that this new policy is an endorsement for universalism.
Universal benefits work. There has been a strong move against them - most especially in the case of child benefits, but also with rumblings of moves against winter fuel allowance, bus passes and much more. And now to ensure that nutrition is delivered it has been realised that only universalism can make sure that all in need get the benefit of a free school dinner.
Perversely the attack on benefits only reinforces the need for universalism. When claiming is stigmatised many in need will not claim, precisely so that they do not suffer the suggestion of being a social outcast by doing so. And they - and in this case, their children - will suffer as a result. The stigmatisation of benefits in that case is quite clearly the cause of social harm.
Of course, the example of school meals is just the tip of it. The failure of so many to claim the benefits they are due - especially pension credit - is a national scandal that is ignored by the press when the result is in very many cases outright hardship.
Universalism avoids that hardship, and literally delivers benefits to society as a whole.
NB. I have written much more on this issue, with Howard Reed, here.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Doesn’t the Free School Meal policy contrast well with the blinkered Tory obsession with unnecessary Married Couples Allowances?
I think it does. An investment in children and therefore in the future. The Tory side of the bargain is just a bung – a misguided diversion of priorities.
For all the right-wing whinging about state bureaucracy isn’t the removal of means testing (i.e. universalisation) for benefits such as this the must bureaucratically simplifying policy that can be made? If you’re a child of the right age and you want food you get it. Less money spent on desks and spreadsheets, more on food. Simple.
Of course what the right-wing whingers really want is the abandonment of state benefits altogether, but that’s another story.
This is a bastardisation of Universalism. Those paying proportionally most out of their incomes for the introduction of universal school meals will be the very same people having the means and choice to feed themselves and their children adequately taken away from them; those pushed into the social security net then having it cut away with measures such as The Bedroom Tax, those facing benefit cuts, those on low incomes faced with high living costs. We know that the poorer and poorest among us pay the largest marginal tax rates, so once again the poor are supporting the poor with this measure. Except it’s even worse; the marginal tax system is so unfairly skewed towards the poorest, the poor are also now meant to subsidise the meals the children of those whose income DOES give them choice and the means to feed their children adequately. And a huge proportion of that subsidy will go towards a huge private profit towards outsourced provision. This will be a Universal robbery.
I’m not sure I agree this time David
Of course the wealthiest benefit
And we all know that the poor pay high marginal amounts in tax – but low absolute amounts
Truly progressive systems must include universal benefits e.g. most Scandinavian systems
It’s marginally progressive taxes and genuine application of benfits to all in need that creates a progressive welfare system that excludes no one
The Universal principle is sound: but within the current disparities of a tax payer funded social security system working within a system of huge income disparity, along with private profit driven providers of the service, the system will be much more unfair than is being made out. Yes, the poorest may pay lower absolute amounts; but that’s because they’ve been denied the chance to contribute more by never having the income in the first place as the wealthiest have denied them that chance. We already have reports of school meal providers maximising profit by reducing portion sizes within the current system. It would be better to make sure that meal provision is returned to organisations who are not out to outsource for profit maximisation and ensure that all parents can comfortably provide for their children, give them with the financial freedoms to serve their families the meals at home that they want, and allow everyone to bear a fairer proportional share to pay for properly proportioned and nutritionally balanced free school meals. Meals of the standard that are enjoyed in the Houses of Parliament, for example…
I couldn’t agree with you more David. The poorest in our society are being fleeced from every direction. The middle classes and above have always been ungenerous and ungiving and obsessed with preserving their so called ‘standard of living’ which amounts to the bourgeois two-three cars, three holidays a year and churning portfolios. They care not a jot for those struggling as is evinced by the success of Tory propaganda over the last four years. This Universalism does not tackle the underlying causes of income inequality and gives hand outs to the very sectors that cause it.
Simon
It gives a benefit to ALL &, as such, I think should be applauded,I say speaking as one that won’t benefit as my children are both in secondary school.
You are right to say we live in a v unequal society. You’re wrong, in my opinion, to criticise every good initiative on the basis that it doesn’t solve every problem of our bad society, change is iterative innit ?
I have to admit the cynic in me on hearing this on the news thought firstly, how much money will be siphoned into the private sector for the provision of these meals & secondly how will the poor be penalised for it. I can just see this sanctimonious government saying as we are now providing the children with a hot nutritious meal we will be reducing your benefits!
I have absolutely no objection to the introduction of this universal benefit. It is a good idea. I can’t help but be suspicious given the timing of it’s introduction and the fact that the “Nasty” Party have permitted this. It does smack of a sop.
Most parents would be prepared to go hungry in order to ensure their children are fed. However, isn’t it the catalyst to revolutions, when those same parents are not only going hungry, but their children are too!