BoJo’s “vaccine bounce” seems to be over but Starmer remains in negative territory – politicalbettin

williamglenn said:

Germany's vaccination rate has noticeably slowed down and it looks like it will plateau in the 60-65% range.

I'm not convinced that's true: I am dealing with a large German reinsurer right now and all my opposite numbers are in their late twenties to mid-30s. None of them have been offered a vaccine yet (much to their annoyance). By contrast, in France (which is ahead of Germany right now), they're even allowing teenagers to get it.

rcs1000 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

34471 cases, 6 deaths, no update for hospital admissions...

27,000 -> 34,000 week-over-week, I think. And today's total is only just above the seven day average. Rather encouraging, I think.

Early days, though. And we saw something similar at the end of June.
It seems to be a quirk of this wave that the variation within a week and the variation between weeks are of very similar size. Hence the almost vertical steps followed by flat bits on the graph.

The big thing is schools coming towards the end of the academic year.

tlg86 said:

stodge said:

WhisperingOracle said:

BIblical floodings in London, it looks like.

Not in this part of London - the radar story is fascinating:

https://www.netweather.tv/live-weather/radar

The storm developed over Sutton and Epsom and a new storm has developed over central and NW London. Here to the east, still dry.

It's odd. It's rare for there to be little wind meaning that the thunderstorm develops and then doesn't move. Thinking of going for a walk this evening. Might give it a miss just in case we get a storm here.

It could be that it's a convergence line. That's the sort of situation which kicks off a thunderstorm at a specific location and then doesn't move.

MaxPB said:

williamglenn said:

Germany's vaccination rate has noticeably slowed down and it looks like it will plateau in the 60-65% range.

Is that population or adults. If it's the latter then that's seriously worrying. We'll top out at 90% by the end of August for adults which is 70% of the population. If we do start with 12-17 year olds we could get to 75% of the population by the end of September. We'd be extremely close to herd immunity, even with delta at that point.

That's population, but it includes some 12-17 year-olds who've been vaccinated too.

I never cease to be amazed at the expertise on PB. This afternoon, the armchair epidemiologists who know better than the government's own scientific experts have become armchair football managers who know better than the England one appointed by the FA and his (over) large team. Impressive.

(PS - Kalvin Phillips of Leeds should have taken a penalty).

Philip_Thompson said:

OllyT said:

Roger said:

StuartDickson said:

FF43 said:

Is no-one in England happy with their team's success ?

I think they should be immensely proud of their silver medals. Shocking that the spoilt brats immediately removed them from their necks within seconds of being awarded them. Very rude.

Yes. It's as though they believe themselves too good to accept a medal lesser than a winners. Whatever they intended it read as arrogant which to a lot of watchers made them bad losers. Not attractive at all

It's like the "Football's Coming Home" nonsense that gets wheeled out every tournament as soon as England wins a game.

It needs to be binned. It's arrogant. it's embarrassing and the rest of Europe is just laughing and not in a good way.

Its only arrogant if you are a pathetic self-hating twunt or xenophobe from overseas who has no sense of humour.

With lyrics like "England's gonna throw it away" its the complete opposite of arrogance.

Three Lions looks arrogant on first glance - but then you take a moment to consider that the song itself is about hope in the face of disappointment, and the numerous disappointments which the people singing it have faced since the song was written. As David Baddiel says, the song is about "defiance... [and] hope in the face of history... [but] the song comes from a place of vulnerability". Those brief moments of hope are made bittersweet precisely because we all know how many times that those hopes have been dashed before. Italian footballers might think that the point of Three Lions is screaming "it's coming to Rome" into the camera as your defeated opponents walk past you; in reality, it's singing "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life" as you're getting relegated.

Northern_Al said:

I never cease to be amazed at the expertise on PB. This afternoon, the armchair epidemiologists who know better than the government's own scientific experts have become armchair football managers who know better than the England one appointed by the FA and his (over) large team. Impressive.

(PS - Kalvin Phillips of Leeds should have taken a penalty).

Well when it comes to SPI-M....picking a number at random will more than likely end up closer.

Nigel_Foremain said:

StuartDickson said:

Leon said:

FF43 said:

Is no-one in England happy with their team's success ?

No. We are an alpha nation. We conquered the world FFS. We should be winning these things as regularly as Italy. Ffs we invented the sport

We win everything else. This is our hoodoo

The Scots invented football, not the English.

There are lots of claims, though that has to be the silliest. The game was codified on Parker's Piece, Cambridge. I am not aware of any historical account of bagpipes or tartan skirts in evidence.

Boys will have been hitting soft, round objects around since the dawn of time. They would have made their own rules, which evolved into all sorts of different games. Most are hit-the-ball-with-something - you have hit it with a bat (rounders, cricket, softball etc); hit it with a racquet (tennis, real tennis, squash; even fives for a weak definition of 'racquet'); hit it with your foot (soccer; rugby, Aussie rules football, American football etc).

Variations on football evolved in China and Japan; even the Incans and Mayans had versions.

So when was 'football; invented, in the modern sense of the game? It has to be when it was codified, when teams from different towns could play each other using the same rules, using new transport links, allowing leagues to be formed.

And that means the modern game, and therefore football as we know it, was 'invented' on Parker's Piece.

IshmaelZ said:

contrarian said:

eek said:

Heading back to racism - I see someone has started given other racists advice



The bit that he won't get is that twitter sends an email everytime someone logs into your account and I bet the person being investigated doesn't have any of those emails.

For the record, Matt Singh of Number Cruncher points out that Southgate himself in his press conference said that most (but not all) of the racist online abuse of England's players came from overseas trolls. Thrris was ascertained by the FA's social media This point was entirely glossed over by the British media, the twitterati, the Labour Party and the race industry.

Not to mention a few posters on here earlier today.

Fake news, as somebody once said.

"Social media experts?" Must be right. Gotta trust them experts. It's odd that the stands are verifiably packed with flesh and blood racists though, or are they bots from abroad too? Like Blade Runner?

ETA and the Rashford mural defacers, also from overseas? And BTW what the fuck does "Take pride in knowing that your struggle will play the biggest role in your purpose" mean anyway?

I thought that was something his mum said, but what it means is anyone's guess.

FrancisUrquhart said:

34471 cases, 6 deaths, no update for hospital admissions...

I think cases have now peaked. That's it.
But admissions and deaths will continue to rise for the next two weeks and will at least double to over 1,400 daily admissions and an average daily deaths of over 70 before beginning to decrease.
End of fourth wave.

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

34471 cases, 6 deaths, no update for hospital admissions...

27,000 -> 34,000 week-over-week, I think. And today's total is only just above the seven day average. Rather encouraging, I think.

Next week we've got the end of the tournament to figure in for England and the following week it's the end of schools. The infection rate could actually drop pretty fast in the next 10-12 days.

Is the 40k 1st vaccinations evidence of reaching the plateau - or are there supply and holiday explanations for it?

eek said:

deleted - shown to be wrong above

That's never stopped me.

Barnesian said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

34471 cases, 6 deaths, no update for hospital admissions...

I think cases have now peaked. That's it.
But admissions and deaths will continue to rise for the next two weeks and will at least double before beginning to decrease.
End of fourth wave.

Zoe App Data, which has been ahead of the actual case reporting, shows that among unvaccinated people it shows the curve looking like it is now heading downward. The only concerning thing was a rise in "vaccinated" (first and second) dose cases.

TimT said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

34471 cases, 6 deaths, no update for hospital admissions...

27,000 -> 34,000 week-over-week, I think. And today's total is only just above the seven day average. Rather encouraging, I think.

Next week we've got the end of the tournament to figure in for England and the following week it's the end of schools. The infection rate could actually drop pretty fast in the next 10-12 days.

Is the 40k 1st vaccinations evidence of reaching the plateau - or are there supply and holiday explanations for it?

Demand wall. Appointments are available for first doses same day or next day for any over 18 who wants one. There's literally no wait time.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Covid – is no-one watching The Saj in the Commons?

Even the Speaker joined in the laughter when The Saj claimed the government speaks with one voice.

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Barnesian said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

34471 cases, 6 deaths, no update for hospital admissions...

I think cases have now peaked. That's it.
But admissions and deaths will continue to rise for the next two weeks and will at least double before beginning to decrease.
End of fourth wave.

Zoe App Data, which has been ahead of the actual case reporting, shows that among unvaccinated people it shows the curve looking like it is now heading downward. The only concerning thing was a rise in "vaccinated" (first and second) dose cases.

Does anyone have a good explanation for why that is happening? Seems counter-intuitive.

I presume riskier behaviour among those who have been vaccinated + some vaccine escape (especially with only one dose).

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

Germany's vaccination rate has noticeably slowed down and it looks like it will plateau in the 60-65% range.

I'm not convinced that's true: I am dealing with a large German reinsurer right now and all my opposite numbers are in their late twenties to mid-30s. None of them have been offered a vaccine yet (much to their annoyance). By contrast, in France (which is ahead of Germany right now), they're even allowing teenagers to get it.

Germany is allowing teenagers to get vaccinated too.

Their data is here - https://impfdashboard.de/

Each week for the last 5 has been slower than the last.

Where's your

Well, that pegs them at 58.5% of the population with at least one dose, and still doing a fair number of first doses a day. So, 60-65% seems a little pessimistic.

OllyT said:

Philip_Thompson said:

OllyT said:

Roger said:

StuartDickson said:

FF43 said:

Is no-one in England happy with their team's success ?

I think they should be immensely proud of their silver medals. Shocking that the spoilt brats immediately removed them from their necks within seconds of being awarded them. Very rude.

Yes. It's as though they believe themselves too good to accept a medal lesser than a winners. Whatever they intended it read as arrogant which to a lot of watchers made them bad losers. Not attractive at all

It's like the "Football's Coming Home" nonsense that gets wheeled out every tournament as soon as England wins a game.

It needs to be binned. It's arrogant. it's embarrassing and the rest of Europe is just laughing and not in a good way.

Its only arrogant if you are a pathetic self-hating twunt or xenophobe from overseas who has no sense of humour.

With lyrics like "England's gonna throw it away" its the complete opposite of arrogance.

So for expressing my opinion that the message conveyed from "It's Coming Home" is arrogant that makes me a "pathetic self-hating twunt". Thank you. And we wonder why the English are so universally loved across Europe.

Yes you are. Its a bittersweet song not an arrogant one.

Its a lot less arrogant than the vast majority of anthems countries sing.

I don't think any country is univerally loved across Europe nor should any be. Kind of creepy if they are.

So last night I mentioned a friend of mine left Wembley at half time because of the unsafe atmosphere.

He said the people who stormed in (and the people outside trying to get in) justified it on the grounds that there were 25,000 spare seats so it wouldn't be another Hillsborough.

Fortunately I don't think we'll see such idiocy at Premier League grounds if grounds are at 75% capacity.

I hope.

UK hospitals

UK deaths

TheScreamingEagles said:

So last night I mentioned a friend of mine left Wembley at half time because of the unsafe atmosphere.

He said the people who stormed in (and the people outside trying to get in) justified it on the grounds that there were 25,000 spare seats so it wouldn't be another Hillsborough.

Fortunately I don't think we'll see such idiocy at Premier League grounds if grounds are at 75% capacity.

I hope.

Those scenes of fans with tickets beating those storming in was very strange. In the past, more often the police and stewards are trying to stop those with tickets helping those without to get in.

Ministers are drawing up plans to impose carbon taxes on imports from abroad as part of efforts to hit Britain’s net-zero target by 2050, i understands.

https://inews.co.uk/news/rishi-sunak-could-set-out-green-taxes-for-imports-to-help-uk-hit-net-zero-target-1099079

DecrepiterJohnL said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Covid – is no-one watching The Saj in the Commons?

Even the Speaker joined in the laughter when The Saj claimed the government speaks with one voice.

Mr Speaker has turned into Madam Deputy Speaker. Not sure why.

TheScreamingEagles said:

So last night I mentioned a friend of mine left Wembley at half time because of the unsafe atmosphere.

He said the people who stormed in (and the people outside trying to get in) justified it on the grounds that there were 25,000 spare seats so it wouldn't be another Hillsborough.

Fortunately I don't think we'll see such idiocy at Premier League grounds if grounds are at 75% capacity.

I hope.

You might have missed my earlier post when I said I knew of someone who had confronted some racists and ended up in hospital.

You can tell your friend they made the right call.

Age related data

rcs1000 said:

eek said:

rcs1000 said:

felix said:

rcs1000 said:

NerysHughes said:

felix said:

state_go_away said:

felix said:

state_go_away said:

eek said:

Malmesbury said:

eek said:

state_go_away said:

i have never understood how this country gets into such a mess with school meals.

The taxpayer rightly funds a free education until 18 including the huge expense of teachers, facilities , equipment, books ,IT etc yet for some reason stops short of funding a universal free meal during the school day . I mean why ? It cannot be but a very small fraction of the overall education cost so it is on the face of it extremely petty but also would solve the bullying some kids get fro having free meals and also give all kids a better diet.

Really odd the position on school meals to me that we have had for years

I've already answered that - some families are so dysfunctional that the children need to be fed, but not so dysfunctional that the children need to be taken into care (for that costs real money)..

I think what state_go_away meant was - why not simply provide meals for free, for all pupils, in all state schools?

Way too expensive and when it was trialled it didn't provide many benefits.

is it that expensive ? If the government can fund everything else to do with a kids educuation it seems odd this is left out

WTF is the point of having parents and families at all?

wow - a bit aggressive ! i am sure parents are invented for kids to do more than prepare a packed lunch

The idea is for them to raise a family with all the easy and not so easy stuff included. There is no compulsion to rear children if you lack the means to do so. You seem to forget that all this money has to be provided by someone. Taxpayers would generally like to keep some of thier earnings for themselves. Paying for other people's kids to be fed is not part of the deal in my book. Sorry if you find that aggressive. 33 years in the classroom taught me that most parents expect to provide for their children's needs even when sacrifices are needed to do so. Mine certainly were.

Unfortunately such sensible talk as this post does not apply anymore. It is now the Governments responsibilty to feed all children , not the parents.

There's a reason why free school meals exist. Some parents aren't as attentive as others. They'd rather spend what little money they have on themselves rather than on their children.

There is quite a lot of research out of the US that free school meals programs result in better health and academic outcomes for poorer kids.

The only question, really, is how important to you is improving the life chances of the disadvantaged?

You missed the argument - he wanted free school meals for everyone, not just the poor. Then you add in breakfast, tea and supper and we're in Aldous Huxley territory.

I think there's a good argument for that too - both breakfast and for all.

Firstly, free school meals come with a stigma attached. Do you not remember being at school? Getting a free school meal marked you out for derision as it marked your parents as poor. Kids would beg their (poor) parents to get shitty packed lunches rather than suffer from the stigma of being a free school means kid.

Secondly, you know what... all the evidence is that free breakfasts boost academic and health outcomes more than lunch.

Here's a simple solution. Let's pick two council areas with roughly similar demographics and academic outcomes. In one, let's take money away from teachers and sports facilities, and instead use that money to give food to kids at breakfast and lunch.

And then let's compare the academic and health outcomes of the two council areas. Will the free school meals have been better at improving results than spending the money on teachers.

I really don't know that answer to that question, by the way. But I do think the right way to answer it is with data, not with bringing up the spectre of Aldous Huxley.

How would you conduct that experiment? No council is willingly going to redirect money from teachers to other school expenditure - the uproar would be immediate and massive.

Easy solution: one council area sees every school get money for an additional teacher, while the other gets money for free school meals.

No-one loses a teacher.

Back of an envelope calculation suggests it would be more like a dozen more teachers at my school, not just one.

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

So last night I mentioned a friend of mine left Wembley at half time because of the unsafe atmosphere.

He said the people who stormed in (and the people outside trying to get in) justified it on the grounds that there were 25,000 spare seats so it wouldn't be another Hillsborough.

Fortunately I don't think we'll see such idiocy at Premier League grounds if grounds are at 75% capacity.

I hope.

Those scenes of fans with tickets beating those storming in was very strange. In the past, more often the police and stewards are trying to stop those with tickets helping those without to get in.

It was a case of the stewards acting like 'I don't get paid enough to deal with this shit', he said it was a complete failure on the stewarding and police front.

As with these things he said you cannot help wonder what would have happened last night if ISIS or Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists had tried something.

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

So last night I mentioned a friend of mine left Wembley at half time because of the unsafe atmosphere.

He said the people who stormed in (and the people outside trying to get in) justified it on the grounds that there were 25,000 spare seats so it wouldn't be another Hillsborough.

Fortunately I don't think we'll see such idiocy at Premier League grounds if grounds are at 75% capacity.

I hope.

Those scenes of fans with tickets beating those storming in was very strange. In the past, more often the police and stewards are trying to stop those with tickets helping those without to get in.

It was a case of the stewards acting like 'I don't get paid enough to deal with this shit', he said it was a complete failure on the stewarding and police front.

As with these things he said you cannot help wonder what would have happened last night if ISIS or Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists had tried something.

The authorities don't really have any excuse, they can hardly say they didn't expect it....wasn't exactly like some demo that turned out to be much more widely attended.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

rcs1000 said:

felix said:

rcs1000 said:

NerysHughes said:

felix said:

state_go_away said:

felix said:

state_go_away said:

eek said:

Malmesbury said:

eek said:

state_go_away said:

i have never understood how this country gets into such a mess with school meals.

The taxpayer rightly funds a free education until 18 including the huge expense of teachers, facilities , equipment, books ,IT etc yet for some reason stops short of funding a universal free meal during the school day . I mean why ? It cannot be but a very small fraction of the overall education cost so it is on the face of it extremely petty but also would solve the bullying some kids get fro having free meals and also give all kids a better diet.

Really odd the position on school meals to me that we have had for years

I've already answered that - some families are so dysfunctional that the children need to be fed, but not so dysfunctional that the children need to be taken into care (for that costs real money)..

I think what state_go_away meant was - why not simply provide meals for free, for all pupils, in all state schools?

Way too expensive and when it was trialled it didn't provide many benefits.

is it that expensive ? If the government can fund everything else to do with a kids educuation it seems odd this is left out

WTF is the point of having parents and families at all?

wow - a bit aggressive ! i am sure parents are invented for kids to do more than prepare a packed lunch

The idea is for them to raise a family with all the easy and not so easy stuff included. There is no compulsion to rear children if you lack the means to do so. You seem to forget that all this money has to be provided by someone. Taxpayers would generally like to keep some of thier earnings for themselves. Paying for other people's kids to be fed is not part of the deal in my book. Sorry if you find that aggressive. 33 years in the classroom taught me that most parents expect to provide for their children's needs even when sacrifices are needed to do so. Mine certainly were.

Unfortunately such sensible talk as this post does not apply anymore. It is now the Governments responsibilty to feed all children , not the parents.

There's a reason why free school meals exist. Some parents aren't as attentive as others. They'd rather spend what little money they have on themselves rather than on their children.

There is quite a lot of research out of the US that free school meals programs result in better health and academic outcomes for poorer kids.

The only question, really, is how important to you is improving the life chances of the disadvantaged?

You missed the argument - he wanted free school meals for everyone, not just the poor. Then you add in breakfast, tea and supper and we're in Aldous Huxley territory.

I think there's a good argument for that too - both breakfast and for all.

Firstly, free school meals come with a stigma attached. Do you not remember being at school? Getting a free school meal marked you out for derision as it marked your parents as poor. Kids would beg their (poor) parents to get shitty packed lunches rather than suffer from the stigma of being a free school means kid.

Secondly, you know what... all the evidence is that free breakfasts boost academic and health outcomes more than lunch.

Here's a simple solution. Let's pick two council areas with roughly similar demographics and academic outcomes. In one, let's take money away from teachers and sports facilities, and instead use that money to give food to kids at breakfast and lunch.

And then let's compare the academic and health outcomes of the two council areas. Will the free school meals have been better at improving results than spending the money on teachers.

I really don't know that answer to that question, by the way. But I do think the right way to answer it is with data, not with bringing up the spectre of Aldous Huxley.

At my school no one now knows if one gets free school meals except the parents and (possibly) the pupil: payments are all electronic using a finger scanner. This has the added benefit that pupils don't bring in cash on a regular basis.

But where do the bullies then get their money for ciggies?

That was one of the positive side effects of the new system (unless you are one of the bullies of course).

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

So last night I mentioned a friend of mine left Wembley at half time because of the unsafe atmosphere.

He said the people who stormed in (and the people outside trying to get in) justified it on the grounds that there were 25,000 spare seats so it wouldn't be another Hillsborough.

Fortunately I don't think we'll see such idiocy at Premier League grounds if grounds are at 75% capacity.

I hope.

You might have missed my earlier post when I said I knew of someone who had confronted some racists and ended up in hospital.

You can tell your friend they made the right call.

Sorry to hear that.

I think I'll stick to following Liverpool.

Only time I've ever had racism directed towards me following Liverpool in this country was against Chelsea in the 2005 Rumbelows Cup final. I was lucky in the respect that it was two Chelsea fans decided to mouth out in front me and a few dozens other Liverpool fans who I didn't know. Those fans pretty much made a buffer zone around me, and put the Chelsea fans in their place.

OllyT said:

Philip_Thompson said:

OllyT said:

Roger said:

StuartDickson said:

FF43 said:

Is no-one in England happy with their team's success ?

I think they should be immensely proud of their silver medals. Shocking that the spoilt brats immediately removed them from their necks within seconds of being awarded them. Very rude.

Yes. It's as though they believe themselves too good to accept a medal lesser than a winners. Whatever they intended it read as arrogant which to a lot of watchers made them bad losers. Not attractive at all

It's like the "Football's Coming Home" nonsense that gets wheeled out every tournament as soon as England wins a game.

It needs to be binned. It's arrogant. it's embarrassing and the rest of Europe is just laughing and not in a good way.

Its only arrogant if you are a pathetic self-hating twunt or xenophobe from overseas who has no sense of humour.

With lyrics like "England's gonna throw it away" its the complete opposite of arrogance.

So for expressing my opinion that the message conveyed from "It's Coming Home" is arrogant that makes me a "pathetic self-hating twunt". Thank you. And we wonder why the English are so universally loved across Europe.

I have travelled and worked in most European countries. In my experience, "we" are neither loved nor loathed except by some extreme chauvinists in Scotland and Wales, a few in France and a few lefty self loathers in our own country. Most see us with amusement for our sense of humour and admiration for our political system (up to approximately 2016), and a certain amount of incredulity for our isolationism (which is why some refer to us as "the islanders" in a slightly piss-takeish way). I do not think we are loved or loathed in any greater measure than any other nationality.

Cookie said:

Philip_Thompson said:

OllyT said:

Philip_Thompson said:

OllyT said:

Roger said:

StuartDickson said:

FF43 said:

Is no-one in England happy with their team's success ?

I think they should be immensely proud of their silver medals. Shocking that the spoilt brats immediately removed them from their necks within seconds of being awarded them. Very rude.

Yes. It's as though they believe themselves too good to accept a medal lesser than a winners. Whatever they intended it read as arrogant which to a lot of watchers made them bad losers. Not attractive at all

It's like the "Football's Coming Home" nonsense that gets wheeled out every tournament as soon as England wins a game.

It needs to be binned. It's arrogant. it's embarrassing and the rest of Europe is just laughing and not in a good way.

Its only arrogant if you are a pathetic self-hating twunt or xenophobe from overseas who has no sense of humour.

With lyrics like "England's gonna throw it away" its the complete opposite of arrogance.

So for expressing my opinion that the message conveyed from "It's Coming Home" is arrogant that makes me a "pathetic self-hating twunt". Thank you. And we wonder why the English are so universally loved across Europe.

Yes you are. Its a bittersweet song not an arrogant one.

Its a lot less arrogant than the vast majority of anthems countries sing.

I don't think any country is univerally loved across Europe nor should any be. Kind of creepy if they are.

Indeed. "Football's coming home" was originally written in the sense that the tournament is being held in England. It doesn't make any sense any other way.

It is peculiar for its particularly untriumphant nature. The 2018 version even opens with a rant from Alan Shearer about how terrible the team are, which the video illustrates with famous images of England failure through the years. This is not a triumphalist song.
The fact that it is so popular is down primarily to the fact that both melodies are easy to sing.
(Ditto "Sweet Caroline" which has even less relevance to sport.)

I am in no way a fan of football, but I have fond memories of being in the Whitworth Institute back in 1996, singing 'Three lions' with some friends whilst drunk as a skunk. It is just so eminently catchy and singable. You just cannot help but join in.

felix said:

rcs1000 said:

felix said:

rcs1000 said:

felix said:

rcs1000 said:

NerysHughes said:

felix said:

state_go_away said:

felix said:

state_go_away said:

eek said:

Malmesbury said:

eek said:

state_go_away said:

i have never understood how this country gets into such a mess with school meals.

The taxpayer rightly funds a free education until 18 including the huge expense of teachers, facilities , equipment, books ,IT etc yet for some reason stops short of funding a universal free meal during the school day . I mean why ? It cannot be but a very small fraction of the overall education cost so it is on the face of it extremely petty but also would solve the bullying some kids get fro having free meals and also give all kids a better diet.

Really odd the position on school meals to me that we have had for years

I've already answered that - some families are so dysfunctional that the children need to be fed, but not so dysfunctional that the children need to be taken into care (for that costs real money)..

I think what state_go_away meant was - why not simply provide meals for free, for all pupils, in all state schools?

Way too expensive and when it was trialled it didn't provide many benefits.

is it that expensive ? If the government can fund everything else to do with a kids educuation it seems odd this is left out

WTF is the point of having parents and families at all?

wow - a bit aggressive ! i am sure parents are invented for kids to do more than prepare a packed lunch

The idea is for them to raise a family with all the easy and not so easy stuff included. There is no compulsion to rear children if you lack the means to do so. You seem to forget that all this money has to be provided by someone. Taxpayers would generally like to keep some of thier earnings for themselves. Paying for other people's kids to be fed is not part of the deal in my book. Sorry if you find that aggressive. 33 years in the classroom taught me that most parents expect to provide for their children's needs even when sacrifices are needed to do so. Mine certainly were.

Unfortunately such sensible talk as this post does not apply anymore. It is now the Governments responsibilty to feed all children , not the parents.

There's a reason why free school meals exist. Some parents aren't as attentive as others. They'd rather spend what little money they have on themselves rather than on their children.

There is quite a lot of research out of the US that free school meals programs result in better health and academic outcomes for poorer kids.

The only question, really, is how important to you is improving the life chances of the disadvantaged?

You missed the argument - he wanted free school meals for everyone, not just the poor. Then you add in breakfast, tea and supper and we're in Aldous Huxley territory.

I think there's a good argument for that too - both breakfast and for all.

Firstly, free school meals come with a stigma attached. Do you not remember being at school? Getting a free school meal marked you out for derision as it marked your parents as poor. Kids would beg their (poor) parents to get shitty packed lunches rather than suffer from the stigma of being a free school means kid.

Secondly, you know what... all the evidence is that free breakfasts boost academic and health outcomes more than lunch.

Here's a simple solution. Let's pick two council areas with roughly similar demographics and academic outcomes. In one, let's take money away from teachers and sports facilities, and instead use that money to give food to kids at breakfast and lunch.

And then let's compare the academic and health outcomes of the two council areas. Will the free school meals have been better at improving results than spending the money on teachers.

I really don't know that answer to that question, by the way. But I do think the right way to answer it is with data, not with bringing up the spectre of Aldous Huxley.

No no no. Parents choose to have children. In doing so they must accept the responsibility to rear them. The great majority can afford to do so. Happy to help where there is genuine need - not happy to give breakfast to kids with affluent parents. Take some responsibility.

The job of schools is to educate children in the most cost effective manner possible, right?

If it turned out that a particular policy improved educational outcomes at a lower cost, we shouldn't do it because it offends you.

I just want to confirm that's your view.

Yes. You want poor people to pay for your kids' breakfasts right? I just want to confirm your view?

I want to maximise the educational achievements of kids, particularly those from lower incomes, as cost efficiently as possible.

All I'm saying is let's test it and see what achieves the best educational outcome. If it turns out that spending money on meals does it, then hell yes, poor people's taxes should be spent on it. Why shouldn't their taxes be spent in the most cost effective manner possible?

Philip_Thompson said:

Interesting to look at current hospitalisation/death data and to compare with the Warwick model that led to the extension of lockdown for four weeks.

According to that model we should be having ~1700 daily hospital admissions by now. 7-day average upto the 10th is instead 444 I believe.

According to that model we should have ~11,000 hospitalised. Latest data on dashboard is 2,731.

Daily deaths should be upto 90 by now. Daily average now is 28.

And worth remembing of course that ~90% of those who are hospitalised are antivaxxers I believe so have brought it on themselves.

The model was complete nonsense. Of course.

Erhhh...one point, 90% of those in hospital aren't anti-vaxxers, 90% aren't fully vaxxed. Good chunk of anti-vaxxers in there, but I think there is a fair number of 30-50 years old that will have caught it in the last month that just weren't fully vaccinated.

Cookie said:

Freedom day appears to have been watered down so far as to be nearly meaningless for my purposes. "We're going to take away the law that you have to wear masks - but if you don't carry on wearing them we'll reintroduce it."

If we are asking "if not now, when?", the answer therefore appears to be "never".

The BBC, the Labour Party, isage etc - have won. Again.

I think it's more the case that restrictions are being removed more incrementally. And while that's annoying, the reality is that case numbers are going to start declining again, and those restrictions will be removed.

@Malmesbury - It would be useful to still post the 2 month Deaths graph.

Updating the 8 month graph every day isn't showing anything meaningfully new - whereas the 2 month graph was much more helpful.

Cookie said:

Freedom day appears to have been watered down so far as to be nearly meaningless for my purposes. "We're going to take away the law that you have to wear masks - but if you don't carry on wearing them we'll reintroduce it."

If we are asking "if not now, when?", the answer therefore appears to be "never".

The BBC, the Labour Party, isage etc - have won. Again.

Strange how a Conservative government in power for 11 years with a majority of 80 is cruelly bullied and pushed from pillar to post by a heartless BBC, Labour and scientists.
The bastards.

MikeL said:

@Malmesbury - It would be useful to still post the 2 month Deaths graph.

Updating the 8 month graph every day isn't showing anything meaningfully new - whereas the 2 month graph was much more helpful.

You mean this one?



The longer terms graphs are good for comparison.

Philip_Thompson said:

Interesting to look at current hospitalisation/death data and to compare with the Warwick model that led to the extension of lockdown for four weeks.

According to that model we should be having ~1700 daily hospital admissions by now. 7-day average upto the 10th is instead 444 I believe.

According to that model we should have ~11,000 hospitalised. Latest data on dashboard is 2,731.

Daily deaths should be upto 90 by now. Daily average now is 28.

And worth remembing of course that ~90% of those who are hospitalised are antivaxxers I believe so have brought it on themselves.

The model was complete nonsense. Of course.

I'd love it that 90% of the hospitalised are anti-vaxxers - do you have a source, or is it an estimate?

rcs1000 said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

rcs1000 said:

eek said:

rcs1000 said:

felix said:

rcs1000 said:

NerysHughes said:

felix said:

state_go_away said:

felix said:

state_go_away said:

eek said:

Malmesbury said:

eek said:

state_go_away said:

i have never understood how this country gets into such a mess with school meals.

The taxpayer rightly funds a free education until 18 including the huge expense of teachers, facilities , equipment, books ,IT etc yet for some reason stops short of funding a universal free meal during the school day . I mean why ? It cannot be but a very small fraction of the overall education cost so it is on the face of it extremely petty but also would solve the bullying some kids get fro having free meals and also give all kids a better diet.

Really odd the position on school meals to me that we have had for years

I've already answered that - some families are so dysfunctional that the children need to be fed, but not so dysfunctional that the children need to be taken into care (for that costs real money)..

I think what state_go_away meant was - why not simply provide meals for free, for all pupils, in all state schools?

Way too expensive and when it was trialled it didn't provide many benefits.

is it that expensive ? If the government can fund everything else to do with a kids educuation it seems odd this is left out

WTF is the point of having parents and families at all?

wow - a bit aggressive ! i am sure parents are invented for kids to do more than prepare a packed lunch

The idea is for them to raise a family with all the easy and not so easy stuff included. There is no compulsion to rear children if you lack the means to do so. You seem to forget that all this money has to be provided by someone. Taxpayers would generally like to keep some of thier earnings for themselves. Paying for other people's kids to be fed is not part of the deal in my book. Sorry if you find that aggressive. 33 years in the classroom taught me that most parents expect to provide for their children's needs even when sacrifices are needed to do so. Mine certainly were.

Unfortunately such sensible talk as this post does not apply anymore. It is now the Governments responsibilty to feed all children , not the parents.

There's a reason why free school meals exist. Some parents aren't as attentive as others. They'd rather spend what little money they have on themselves rather than on their children.

There is quite a lot of research out of the US that free school meals programs result in better health and academic outcomes for poorer kids.

The only question, really, is how important to you is improving the life chances of the disadvantaged?

You missed the argument - he wanted free school meals for everyone, not just the poor. Then you add in breakfast, tea and supper and we're in Aldous Huxley territory.

I think there's a good argument for that too - both breakfast and for all.

Firstly, free school meals come with a stigma attached. Do you not remember being at school? Getting a free school meal marked you out for derision as it marked your parents as poor. Kids would beg their (poor) parents to get shitty packed lunches rather than suffer from the stigma of being a free school means kid.

Secondly, you know what... all the evidence is that free breakfasts boost academic and health outcomes more than lunch.

Here's a simple solution. Let's pick two council areas with roughly similar demographics and academic outcomes. In one, let's take money away from teachers and sports facilities, and instead use that money to give food to kids at breakfast and lunch.

And then let's compare the academic and health outcomes of the two council areas. Will the free school meals have been better at improving results than spending the money on teachers.

I really don't know that answer to that question, by the way. But I do think the right way to answer it is with data, not with bringing up the spectre of Aldous Huxley.

How would you conduct that experiment? No council is willingly going to redirect money from teachers to other school expenditure - the uproar would be immediate and massive.

Easy solution: one council area sees every school get money for an additional teacher, while the other gets money for free school meals.

No-one loses a teacher.

Back of an envelope calculation suggests it would be more like a dozen more teachers at my school, not just one.

When I watched Jamie's School Dinners, they had a budget of something like 27p per student for a meal. Now, times have changed. But that doesn't suggest it would it would take a dozen more teachers* to make meals free for all pupils.

* Unless you were in a really enormous school of course.

The cost of food is sadly a very small part of school meal costs...

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Interesting to look at current hospitalisation/death data and to compare with the Warwick model that led to the extension of lockdown for four weeks.

According to that model we should be having ~1700 daily hospital admissions by now. 7-day average upto the 10th is instead 444 I believe.

According to that model we should have ~11,000 hospitalised. Latest data on dashboard is 2,731.

Daily deaths should be upto 90 by now. Daily average now is 28.

And worth remembing of course that ~90% of those who are hospitalised are antivaxxers I believe so have brought it on themselves.

The model was complete nonsense. Of course.

I'd love it that 90% of the hospitalised are anti-vaxxers - do you have a source, or is it an estimate?

I made a mistake it seems, I recall it being mentioned here before and in a Parliamentary statement or PMQs that only 10% were vaccinated, but it seems the figure was 10% fully vaccinated.

But still, considering full-vaccination has already been offered to all over 40s and given the age profile of hospitalisations in general pre-vaccinations, having only 10% fully vaccinated shows remarkable efficacy. Much, much higher than 90% given the risk to age profile ratio.

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Interesting to look at current hospitalisation/death data and to compare with the Warwick model that led to the extension of lockdown for four weeks.

According to that model we should be having ~1700 daily hospital admissions by now. 7-day average upto the 10th is instead 444 I believe.

According to that model we should have ~11,000 hospitalised. Latest data on dashboard is 2,731.

Daily deaths should be upto 90 by now. Daily average now is 28.

And worth remembing of course that ~90% of those who are hospitalised are antivaxxers I believe so have brought it on themselves.

The model was complete nonsense. Of course.

I'd love it that 90% of the hospitalised are anti-vaxxers - do you have a source, or is it an estimate?

It's not as simple as that, of course. The last update we had was that 88% of people in hospital were unvaccinated or partially vaccinated. Only 12% of inpatients were from the fully vaccinated cohort. One of the things the government can and should do is get rid of the arbitrary 8 week gap between doses for under 40s. We've actually now got vaccines piling up in fridges.

Fysics_Teacher said:

rcs1000 said:

felix said:

rcs1000 said:

felix said:

rcs1000 said:

felix said:

rcs1000 said:

NerysHughes said:

felix said:

state_go_away said:

felix said:

state_go_away said:

eek said:

Malmesbury said:

eek said:

state_go_away said:

i have never understood how this country gets into such a mess with school meals.

The taxpayer rightly funds a free education until 18 including the huge expense of teachers, facilities , equipment, books ,IT etc yet for some reason stops short of funding a universal free meal during the school day . I mean why ? It cannot be but a very small fraction of the overall education cost so it is on the face of it extremely petty but also would solve the bullying some kids get fro having free meals and also give all kids a better diet.

Really odd the position on school meals to me that we have had for years

I've already answered that - some families are so dysfunctional that the children need to be fed, but not so dysfunctional that the children need to be taken into care (for that costs real money)..

I think what state_go_away meant was - why not simply provide meals for free, for all pupils, in all state schools?

Way too expensive and when it was trialled it didn't provide many benefits.

is it that expensive ? If the government can fund everything else to do with a kids educuation it seems odd this is left out

WTF is the point of having parents and families at all?

wow - a bit aggressive ! i am sure parents are invented for kids to do more than prepare a packed lunch

The idea is for them to raise a family with all the easy and not so easy stuff included. There is no compulsion to rear children if you lack the means to do so. You seem to forget that all this money has to be provided by someone. Taxpayers would generally like to keep some of thier earnings for themselves. Paying for other people's kids to be fed is not part of the deal in my book. Sorry if you find that aggressive. 33 years in the classroom taught me that most parents expect to provide for their children's needs even when sacrifices are needed to do so. Mine certainly were.

Unfortunately such sensible talk as this post does not apply anymore. It is now the Governments responsibilty to feed all children , not the parents.

There's a reason why free school meals exist. Some parents aren't as attentive as others. They'd rather spend what little money they have on themselves rather than on their children.

There is quite a lot of research out of the US that free school meals programs result in better health and academic outcomes for poorer kids.

The only question, really, is how important to you is improving the life chances of the disadvantaged?

You missed the argument - he wanted free school meals for everyone, not just the poor. Then you add in breakfast, tea and supper and we're in Aldous Huxley territory.

I think there's a good argument for that too - both breakfast and for all.

Firstly, free school meals come with a stigma attached. Do you not remember being at school? Getting a free school meal marked you out for derision as it marked your parents as poor. Kids would beg their (poor) parents to get shitty packed lunches rather than suffer from the stigma of being a free school means kid.

Secondly, you know what... all the evidence is that free breakfasts boost academic and health outcomes more than lunch.

Here's a simple solution. Let's pick two council areas with roughly similar demographics and academic outcomes. In one, let's take money away from teachers and sports facilities, and instead use that money to give food to kids at breakfast and lunch.

And then let's compare the academic and health outcomes of the two council areas. Will the free school meals have been better at improving results than spending the money on teachers.

I really don't know that answer to that question, by the way. But I do think the right way to answer it is with data, not with bringing up the spectre of Aldous Huxley.

No no no. Parents choose to have children. In doing so they must accept the responsibility to rear them. The great majority can afford to do so. Happy to help where there is genuine need - not happy to give breakfast to kids with affluent parents. Take some responsibility.

The job of schools is to educate children in the most cost effective manner possible, right?

If it turned out that a particular policy improved educational outcomes at a lower cost, we shouldn't do it because it offends you.

I just want to confirm that's your view.

Yes. You want poor people to pay for your kids' breakfasts right? I just want to confirm your view?

I want to maximise the educational achievements of kids, particularly those from lower incomes, as cost efficiently as possible.

All I'm saying is let's test it and see what achieves the best educational outcome. If it turns out that spending money on meals does it, then hell yes, poor people's taxes should be spent on it. Why shouldn't their taxes be spent in the most cost effective manner possible?

You do realise that an extra £2.50 a day for a school meal (and I'm ignoring the capital cost here) is a roughly 10% rise in the cost of education? £5000 a year for the 200 teaching days of the school year (these number are about right) is £25 a day.

There's economies of scale, if universal it ought to be possible to do healthy school meals for much cheaper than £2.50 per pupil per day.

rcs1000 said:

Cookie said:

Freedom day appears to have been watered down so far as to be nearly meaningless for my purposes. "We're going to take away the law that you have to wear masks - but if you don't carry on wearing them we'll reintroduce it."

If we are asking "if not now, when?", the answer therefore appears to be "never".

The BBC, the Labour Party, isage etc - have won. Again.

I think it's more the case that restrictions are being removed more incrementally. And while that's annoying, the reality is that case numbers are going to start declining again, and those restrictions will be removed.

If we aren't getting rid of masks now, we never will. There will always be a reason to keep them.

I never really expected freedom day to happen. Just as I never expected England to win last night. But it not happening is still a massive kick in the nuts.

Afternoon all

The afternoon after the night before - I don't think anyone says that (well, I just have).

Reflections - first, the positives. Backing the draw at 19/10 was another winner - of the seven matches from the quarter-finals onward, I backed the draw at 90 minutes in all of them and won four times so a nice little profit - not obviously in the league of those on here who bet thousands on every move of equities, commodities or two flies up a wall.

Now, the not quite so positives.

In terms of the match, not a classic by any stretch. I do wonder if the early goal was the last thing England needed - we either had to go hard for a second to finish it or park the bus and hope for a goal on the counter. Someone mentioned this morning the disadvantage of playing in front of the home crowd at Wembley.

It's a paradox - most clubs would argue the support of the fans can be like a twelfth player on the pitch but Wembley can also be a cauldron - would it have been easier in an empty stadium?

The greatest irony if there's one man who should be aware of the pressure of taking a penalty in a vital match at Wembley it's Gareth Southgate. I can only presume he prepared - perhaps over-thought and over-prepared - the penalty shoot-out which can be the crucial part of the game. He will have known, more than anyone else, the nature of the pressure each and every player would have faced. It is quite literally a career-defining moment and most people's lives don't turn on such moments.

It's a truth some people can handle pressure and others can't but the nature of what was happening last evening would have tested anyone's mental strength to the limit.

Looking ahead, this isn't the first team we've heard the "they're a young team, give them time, they'll improve" line. We heard it back in the days of the "golden generation" for example. The 2022 World Cup looks wide open - Paddy go 5/1 France 11/2 Brazil, 6/1 Germany, 15/2 Italy, Spain and England.

I certainly agree there's very little between Italy, Spain and England on Euro 2020 evidence - I'd throw in Argentina and Brazil and say the next World Cup winner is one of those five.

Fysics_Teacher said:

rcs1000 said:

felix said:

rcs1000 said:

felix said:

rcs1000 said:

felix said:

rcs1000 said:

NerysHughes said:

felix said:

state_go_away said:

felix said:

state_go_away said:

eek said:

Malmesbury said:

eek said:

state_go_away said:

i have never understood how this country gets into such a mess with school meals.

The taxpayer rightly funds a free education until 18 including the huge expense of teachers, facilities , equipment, books ,IT etc yet for some reason stops short of funding a universal free meal during the school day . I mean why ? It cannot be but a very small fraction of the overall education cost so it is on the face of it extremely petty but also would solve the bullying some kids get fro having free meals and also give all kids a better diet.

Really odd the position on school meals to me that we have had for years

I've already answered that - some families are so dysfunctional that the children need to be fed, but not so dysfunctional that the children need to be taken into care (for that costs real money)..

I think what state_go_away meant was - why not simply provide meals for free, for all pupils, in all state schools?

Way too expensive and when it was trialled it didn't provide many benefits.

is it that expensive ? If the government can fund everything else to do with a kids educuation it seems odd this is left out

WTF is the point of having parents and families at all?

wow - a bit aggressive ! i am sure parents are invented for kids to do more than prepare a packed lunch

The idea is for them to raise a family with all the easy and not so easy stuff included. There is no compulsion to rear children if you lack the means to do so. You seem to forget that all this money has to be provided by someone. Taxpayers would generally like to keep some of thier earnings for themselves. Paying for other people's kids to be fed is not part of the deal in my book. Sorry if you find that aggressive. 33 years in the classroom taught me that most parents expect to provide for their children's needs even when sacrifices are needed to do so. Mine certainly were.

Unfortunately such sensible talk as this post does not apply anymore. It is now the Governments responsibilty to feed all children , not the parents.

There's a reason why free school meals exist. Some parents aren't as attentive as others. They'd rather spend what little money they have on themselves rather than on their children.

There is quite a lot of research out of the US that free school meals programs result in better health and academic outcomes for poorer kids.

The only question, really, is how important to you is improving the life chances of the disadvantaged?

You missed the argument - he wanted free school meals for everyone, not just the poor. Then you add in breakfast, tea and supper and we're in Aldous Huxley territory.

I think there's a good argument for that too - both breakfast and for all.

Firstly, free school meals come with a stigma attached. Do you not remember being at school? Getting a free school meal marked you out for derision as it marked your parents as poor. Kids would beg their (poor) parents to get shitty packed lunches rather than suffer from the stigma of being a free school means kid.

Secondly, you know what... all the evidence is that free breakfasts boost academic and health outcomes more than lunch.

Here's a simple solution. Let's pick two council areas with roughly similar demographics and academic outcomes. In one, let's take money away from teachers and sports facilities, and instead use that money to give food to kids at breakfast and lunch.

And then let's compare the academic and health outcomes of the two council areas. Will the free school meals have been better at improving results than spending the money on teachers.

I really don't know that answer to that question, by the way. But I do think the right way to answer it is with data, not with bringing up the spectre of Aldous Huxley.

No no no. Parents choose to have children. In doing so they must accept the responsibility to rear them. The great majority can afford to do so. Happy to help where there is genuine need - not happy to give breakfast to kids with affluent parents. Take some responsibility.

The job of schools is to educate children in the most cost effective manner possible, right?

If it turned out that a particular policy improved educational outcomes at a lower cost, we shouldn't do it because it offends you.

I just want to confirm that's your view.

Yes. You want poor people to pay for your kids' breakfasts right? I just want to confirm your view?

I want to maximise the educational achievements of kids, particularly those from lower incomes, as cost efficiently as possible.

All I'm saying is let's test it and see what achieves the best educational outcome. If it turns out that spending money on meals does it, then hell yes, poor people's taxes should be spent on it. Why shouldn't their taxes be spent in the most cost effective manner possible?

You do realise that an extra £2.50 a day for a school meal (and I'm ignoring the capital cost here) is a roughly 10% rise in the cost of education? £5000 a year for the 200 teaching days of the school year (these number are about right) is £25 a day.

The ingredients cost of meals is much smaller than the cost of the staff to serve and prepare. The marginal cost of adding meals is going to be well below £2.50.

Philip_Thompson said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

rcs1000 said:

felix said:

rcs1000 said:

felix said:

rcs1000 said:

felix said:

rcs1000 said:

NerysHughes said:

felix said:

state_go_away said:

felix said:

state_go_away said:

eek said:

Malmesbury said:

eek said:

state_go_away said:

i have never understood how this country gets into such a mess with school meals.

The taxpayer rightly funds a free education until 18 including the huge expense of teachers, facilities , equipment, books ,IT etc yet for some reason stops short of funding a universal free meal during the school day . I mean why ? It cannot be but a very small fraction of the overall education cost so it is on the face of it extremely petty but also would solve the bullying some kids get fro having free meals and also give all kids a better diet.

Really odd the position on school meals to me that we have had for years

I've already answered that - some families are so dysfunctional that the children need to be fed, but not so dysfunctional that the children need to be taken into care (for that costs real money)..

I think what state_go_away meant was - why not simply provide meals for free, for all pupils, in all state schools?

Way too expensive and when it was trialled it didn't provide many benefits.

is it that expensive ? If the government can fund everything else to do with a kids educuation it seems odd this is left out

WTF is the point of having parents and families at all?

wow - a bit aggressive ! i am sure parents are invented for kids to do more than prepare a packed lunch

The idea is for them to raise a family with all the easy and not so easy stuff included. There is no compulsion to rear children if you lack the means to do so. You seem to forget that all this money has to be provided by someone. Taxpayers would generally like to keep some of thier earnings for themselves. Paying for other people's kids to be fed is not part of the deal in my book. Sorry if you find that aggressive. 33 years in the classroom taught me that most parents expect to provide for their children's needs even when sacrifices are needed to do so. Mine certainly were.

Unfortunately such sensible talk as this post does not apply anymore. It is now the Governments responsibilty to feed all children , not the parents.

There's a reason why free school meals exist. Some parents aren't as attentive as others. They'd rather spend what little money they have on themselves rather than on their children.

There is quite a lot of research out of the US that free school meals programs result in better health and academic outcomes for poorer kids.

The only question, really, is how important to you is improving the life chances of the disadvantaged?

You missed the argument - he wanted free school meals for everyone, not just the poor. Then you add in breakfast, tea and supper and we're in Aldous Huxley territory.

I think there's a good argument for that too - both breakfast and for all.

Firstly, free school meals come with a stigma attached. Do you not remember being at school? Getting a free school meal marked you out for derision as it marked your parents as poor. Kids would beg their (poor) parents to get shitty packed lunches rather than suffer from the stigma of being a free school means kid.

Secondly, you know what... all the evidence is that free breakfasts boost academic and health outcomes more than lunch.

Here's a simple solution. Let's pick two council areas with roughly similar demographics and academic outcomes. In one, let's take money away from teachers and sports facilities, and instead use that money to give food to kids at breakfast and lunch.

And then let's compare the academic and health outcomes of the two council areas. Will the free school meals have been better at improving results than spending the money on teachers.

I really don't know that answer to that question, by the way. But I do think the right way to answer it is with data, not with bringing up the spectre of Aldous Huxley.

No no no. Parents choose to have children. In doing so they must accept the responsibility to rear them. The great majority can afford to do so. Happy to help where there is genuine need - not happy to give breakfast to kids with affluent parents. Take some responsibility.

The job of schools is to educate children in the most cost effective manner possible, right?

If it turned out that a particular policy improved educational outcomes at a lower cost, we shouldn't do it because it offends you.

I just want to confirm that's your view.

Yes. You want poor people to pay for your kids' breakfasts right? I just want to confirm your view?

I want to maximise the educational achievements of kids, particularly those from lower incomes, as cost efficiently as possible.

All I'm saying is let's test it and see what achieves the best educational outcome. If it turns out that spending money on meals does it, then hell yes, poor people's taxes should be spent on it. Why shouldn't their taxes be spent in the most cost effective manner possible?

You do realise that an extra £2.50 a day for a school meal (and I'm ignoring the capital cost here) is a roughly 10% rise in the cost of education? £5000 a year for the 200 teaching days of the school year (these number are about right) is £25 a day.

There's economies of scale, if universal it ought to be possible to do healthy school meals for much cheaper than £2.50 per pupil per day.

That will depend on whether you give them any choice as to what they eat of course.