Martyn Bradbury claims “These are not the rational debates of a person who wants to contribute” – as he rants and rages while ignoring important questions about Mana’s Feed the Kids campaign that is being supported at The Daily Blog.

I have tried to offer different ideas and engage in discussion, but most of the response is berate, no debate. This makes me wonder if all Mana and it’s bill supporters want to do is try and score political points, and the “poor kids” are being used.

From the latest threads in Why Peter Dunne won’t “Feed the Kids”:

Millsy:

Pete — did you receive free milk when you were at school? Did you have to go to the dental nurse?

Food in schools is merely the same thing as the free milk in school initiated, as well as the school dental nurses, so I get a feeling that you would have opposed those programmes as well had you been a blogger in the 1930′s.

Or is it that you just generally oppose any universal taxpayer program because you are just ideologically opposed to public social welfare type programs, and it should be just Tory charity.

My response:

It’s nonsensical suggesting I oppose all social welfare because I’m questioning whether the Mana bill is the best way to address a problem.

Dunne is suggesting an alternative state funded approach, and I agree with that more than I agree with Mana’s bill, which I think is well intended but misguided.

We have an extensive (and expensive) social welfare system and I agree with the need for most of that. Families and kids are already extensively assisted by the state.

I think smarter better targeted assistance would help kids more than feeding a lot when a few are hungry while not addressing the causes of the problem.

If half a billion dollars a year was available to help kids do you really think feeding all kids in school would be the best use of that money?

Martyn Bradbury took over from there:

But Pete, where are all your glorious stories of baby boomer rose tinted glasses of yore??? Yell us about the magical world before user pays uncle Pete, measure them against todays standards and tell us all how lucky we are.

We need universal food schemes like they run in most developed country’s around the world. We all appreciate from your great vantage point that the suffering of children is a more academic thing to be spoken of in wide brushes, but for those of us who have to inherit your corrupted legacy, we’d like to make change now and feeding the kids in the lowest two deciles does that.

At $100m per year it is not half a billion dollars at all, so please at least stick to the facts while you rush around to defend Peter Dunne’s inaction.

Poverty denial is as low as climate denial.

We don’t NEED universal food schemes. They are one of a number of possible options.

It’s said to be $100m for decile 1-2 schools. Some have said the obvious, that’s just a beginning, for 20% of kids. You have implied that too – a universal food in schools scheme would be closer to half a billion dollars. That’s simple maths.

Do you think a universal food in schools programme would be the best use of half a billion dollars a year?

You are lying again – it is $100million per year it is not half a billion dollars. If you can’t spin lines from yesteryear do you just make shit up in the present do you Pete?

Perhaps you didn’t understand my point.

How much do you think a universal food in schools programme would cost per year?

I understand perfectly well, you are justifying your political inaction on this issue and so have attempted to inflate the annual cost by $400 million to desperately make your invalid and extremely weak point.

That’s pretty obvious.

Or putting it another way, is spending $100m per year feeding all kids in decile 1-2 schools better than feeding all hungry kids across all deciles?

If feeding hungry kids is seen as an urgent priority then surely suggesting excluding hungry kids in deciles 3-10 will condemn you to Jackal’s hell.

LMAO – let me get this straight shall we? After all your spin attacks against the feed the kids bill, your fall back position after all the rose tinting pre-user pays baby boomer crap is ‘what about the hungry kids at other schools????’

That’s the best poverty denial you can muster is it Pete? We shouldn’t target the poorest children in the poorest classes because there might be some other hungry kids in other schools?

Well that nonsense argument might be all that needs to intellectually justify your inaction on this issue, it isn’t mine Pete.

“What about the hungry kids at other schools” is an important point.

If you and Mana thought that feeding hungry kids was an urgent need then you would support a policy that would feed hungry kids, not feed kids in 20% of schools and exclude many hungry kids going to other schools.

And if you were serious about hungry kids you would be considering the many kids who don’t go to school – good nutrition for babies and infants is at least as important as food for kids who go to school.

And nutrition of pregnant women is also vital for the wellbeing of babies.

Isn’t it?

Yawn – your attempt to show you ‘care’ for the other hungry children is just sad far right tactics to do nothing. The MANA bill is focused on the poorest kids in the poorest schools – for you to dare stand there and write that effort off because it won’t feed all kids is hysterical because you have no bloody intention of feeding the other kids Pete.

All we’ve heard from you is ‘I was poor (during full state assistance) and it didn’t hurt me’ to lying about it costing half a billion per year to ‘we can’t feed the poorest kids in the poorest schools because it won’t feed other hungry kids’.

These are not the rational debates of a person who wants to contribute, they are hard right poverty denial.

Gotta laugh at “These are not the rational debates of a person who wants to contribute“.

Trying to engage in debate seems futile.

I think there are serious questions about targeted assistance and addressing the causes of the problems versus a bill that only addresses one symptom, feeding all of the kids in just 20% of schools whether they are hungry or not.

Serious debate doesn’t seem to be on the Mana menu. Absent any arguments all they seem to be able to do is berate.

The bill will probably have failed anyway because it is a flawed approach to a much wider, more complex problem.

But it is certainly doomed if it’s supporters can only resort to attempts at emotional blackmail and abuse while ignoring legitimate questions.