The Lib Dem focus this weekend has been attacking the Conservatives for their most controversial domestic policies – school lunches and the dementia tax.
We put out a poster that channels Oliver Twist to highlight the Tory plans to abolish provision of school lunches and replace them with breakfasts.
When Nick introduced the lunches policy in coalition, he made sure that there was some pretty detailed nutritional standards to go along with it.
Each week, pupils eating free school lunches get: five portions of fruit, five portions of veg, five portions of protein (meat, fish, eggs or beans), five portions of starchy food (at least one being wholegrain) and five portions of milk or dairy.
Guidance on portion sizes and requirements for vitamins and nutrients are also much more detailed for lunch foods than breakfast foods.
For breakfasts, schools could get away with providing processed, sweetened cereals and toast and jam – which is not great in nutritional value.
Nick said:
Theresa May’s plans would hit children’s health by depriving them of a free nutritional meal at school.
This is particularly short-sighted when we are struggling with soaring levels of childhood obesity.
The Liberal Democrats will protect free school lunches for infants and ensure all primary school children can get a healthy, free lunch a day.
Conservative candidates must make clear whether they will vote to take away lunches from hard-pressed families or stand up to Theresa May for the sake of the education and good health of our children.
Theresa May should take her inspiration from Jamie Oliver not Oliver Twist.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Three Lions but no St George's flag
Could Hitler have won?
Say hello to the Act that successfully set rules 1,050 years into the future - Calendar (New Style) Act 1750
Indecision costing the taxpayers millions
Nonconformistradical
Chloe
David Allen
Jana
theakes
6 Comments
Having played Fagin, I can only say , as I did in the show ,
” Let’s show Oliver how to do it !”
Do not know really where to submit this, but the US is apparently deploying a third carrier group to the region of North Korea. Lots of talk on Facebook, Internet, You Tube of imminent war. Have we a view on this? All could be bluff etc but the North Koreans seem to ignore that sort of thing. Certainly three carrier groups to one area/ region is most unusual. South Korea must be in danger if the worst happened although one must assume the US has specific target plans to prevent that, additional to the protective shield they are installing.
Wonder if Trumpee mentioned it at the summit.
What a good idea; I heartily agree with it.
The biggest surprise of this campaign is in how the Labour Manifesto has been received. Of course there have been the usual attacks that it involves too much of everything and way more than Labour has offered for a long time.
The charge is that has too many policies ( BBC R4 Today), taxes, borrowings and spendings and that the taxes do not add up to the retail spending offers (IFS). But the same issues of offering the most money or value for money were applied to the AV referendum where the “no” campaign highlighted a stupidly small cost saving with the incumbent FPTP voting and it won.
The Scottish separation vote also highlighted the cost savings from not duplicating governments, company distribution networks and a newly set up currency on this Island, as well as the losses from ending the Barnet formula.
The EU referendum was won on the supposed cost saving of not sending fees to support “bloated Brussels bureaucrats” and from avoiding regulations or in flogging more stuff to distant markets. The arguments won despite being the most transparent hogwash.
Now, the Labour manifesto is offering a great deal of free stuff, often paid for by nebulous concepts like Corporations who can’t vote, or on the never never, a popular concept in spendthrift modern Britain.
With 2/5 households unable to get the next paycheque without the likes of credit or food banks, the Labour manifesto must look to many like a gift from heaven and money issues do appear to be shifting and mostly winning elections, so maybe this one will be closer than realists expected?
The lesson for parties should be identify money issues, exaggerate them and promise big.
Dominic Raab and Daniel Hannon excel in this area. Spinning yarns out of massive lies.
People might not believe they are provably right, but like moths drawn to a light bulb, many can’t help themselves.
John,
The Labour manifesto offers hope. It also aims at the some of the least popular institutions in the country, the companies many of us work for. The temptation to stick it to the man and get free stuff is a tempting for many people. The problem is implementing the promise, that I feel they will fail to do and many people will become disillusioned. Which ever party wins is unlikely to be able to meet the demands of it’s core vote and that will be a major issue for them. If the Tories win they will disappoint the pensioners and if Labour win they will disappoint the young. We live in the age of demagogues and until both sides let down their voters I fear it will be a hard ride for people who believe in shades of grey.
Good poster. How can I download it?