Jamies return to school dinners...

[missjef]

what was everyones views? i think he has been brilliant with everything he has done!

[wonderwoman1]

he is fantastic....i dont know why some parents and the government are reluctant to make this change!!!

[Dizzieblonde]

It never seemed to mention the financial implications of his ideas though, which put me off a bit - you never found out how much money those parents were putting in the buckets for their children's dinners (only that one woman was �2.50 short), he didn't seem overly concerned that the pub was running at a deficit from making the meals (and had to substitute some of the recipes), and he reckons he asked Tony Blair "I need a million quid for a Kitchens of Excellence scheme, and he said 'Yeah, sure" - Hmm...

His heart seemed in the right place, but he didn't seem to recognise that money *was* an issue all along, and it would have to come from either (i) the parents; (ii) taxes

[Backdrifter]

Dizzieblonde, how can you say it never seemed to mention financial implications? The financial aspect was threaded throughout the entire programme. He sat down with the pub landlord and staff to work out the finances, he didn't just foist the scheme on them without looking into it. Would they have agreed if it didn't look feasible? I don't see the relevance of knowing how much the parents were putting in the bucket - he was entreating them to donate, and leaning on them a bit, including the one who was short, on the basis that this is something worth digging into your pockets for even if it's tight.

He didn't "reckon" he asked Blair for a million, he did - did you not see his meeting with the PM? It's totally inaccurate & misleading to say he didn't seem to recognise money was an issue. He was almost pleading with the head teacher at the Greenwich school to reveal what their deficit was in order to see what might be done to rectify it. He effectively made the point that the money kids spend on junk food en route to & from school is simply lining the pockets of high street retailers when it could be going towards the school.

When the Education Secretary said they were unable to give budget projections beyond 2 years JO queried if this meant troops would have to be pulled out of Iraq in 2008. He's clearly very aware of the financial issues, and wants to get across that children's futures and health are worth coughing up for. I'm happy for some of my taxes to fund these initiatives - aren't you?

[Dizzieblonde]

He may have tried to calculate the pub's finances before, but the chef himself admitted later in the programme that they were in deficit, so it didn't seem to have worked.

As for the parent's bucket-dropping, it would have been interesting to know how much they were putting in - although I thought it was an actual fee for their children's dinners, rather than simply a donation (hence the one woman's 'donation' being a bit short) - as it would offer some idea of the cost fared in comparison to packed lunches, junk food dinners etc. The fact it was never explicitly stated made me a little suspicious as to whether it was actually working out as more expensive for the parents, even if it was healthier.

Surely the Secretary would be unable to give any financial projections past the next General Election too though? :o\

[Backdrifter]

Governments routinely make budget projections beyond the supposed dates of General Elections as there's no guarantee of when an election might take place in the interim and this can't be allowed to delay projects, some of which have durations that don't fit neatly in to election schedules. If Labour were ousted it would be up to the new government to take the project forward or not.

I still don't get why the value of the bucket donations is so interesting to you. There was never any suggestion that this was supposed to be the fee-collection method; it was a publicity/awareness-raising campaign. You also seem to be fixated on whether healthier eating might be more expensive for the parents. What if it is? Is this how we're meant to determine our children's health - how much more it costs us per week? I'm getting the impression from your remarks and your non-answer to my question about taxes that you don't think this is something worth paying a bit more for. Whether or not that's your feeling, tragically it IS the feeling of too many clueless parents.

When I hear people - even comfortably-off ones - complaining about how organic food or farmers market products are more expensive, it baffles me. People seem happy to spend freely on leisure items and activitties, clothes, etc, yet they get all twitchy when it comes to handing over a bit more for the stuff they're putting into their bodies. Then some of those same people don't stop to think what some of the chemicals in processed food they stuff into themselves even are.

[Dizzieblonde]

Not at all - and I haven't said that I disagree with his ideas at all - I was just interested in whether it worked out financially more expensive, at least in the short-term. It might explain why some parents were reluctant to sign up, why some dropped out of his scheme, and the reason behind those women pushing burgers through the gates of that school the other week

[angbur]

I thought that the woman who was �2.50 short had said she only had a fiver. Meaning that Jamie had asked them for �7.50 each (or �1.50 per luch for a week).

[little gem]

I am not quite sure why the amount they had to put in the bucket is quite so important, but it was definitely �7.50....I think this guy is absolutely fantastic and I think it's a real shame that it takes a celebrity chef to make the issues come to light and to force the government to do what's right.

The best bit was watching the government rep at the dinner ladies' convention trying to explain where all the money had gone - talk about making him squirm...

[Backdrifter]

Okay dizzie fair enough that you do support the idea - I still don't get how you thought he skipped over all the financial stuff, as it was covered in some depth.

You raise the interesting and inflammatory issue of those women pushing junk food through the school fence. I doubt that's a cost thing. Over time, it will be more costly for parents to stump up for their kids' junk food habits than pay for the healthy school meals. No, what that was about was that those parents have, through their own laziness, ignorance and stupidity, made their children into junk addicts. So when the school started offering healthy stuff, the kids - having been programmed to eat cr*p - didn't want it so were going without lunch, until the two heroic harridans turned up with their boxes of burgers and chips, to save the day and ensure their little angels remain firmly on the road to obesity and disease.

But the cost issue is one of the things JO was trying to get across - as I said, parents who don't feel they can cough up extra to help their kids eat better (maybe by sacrificing some of their own pleasures) - well, they're not proper parents. He was trying to convey that this is something worth paying for.