Is it time to give free school meals students a free breakfast too?

Healthy Breakfast, a photo by chrisdonia on Flickr.

A few weeks ago I was discussing the subject of free school meals with a colleague who has good knowledge of school and education policy. In particular, we were discussing proposals from Blackpool Council to provide all primary school students with free breakfasts, regardless of their family income. We landed up discussing the merits of rolling the policy out nationwide with him even suggesting that children eligible for free school meals (FSM) should be given three free meals at school. While I wasn’t able to agree with him to that degree, I did feel that giving FSM eligible students both breakfast and lunch had some mileage. I’ve therefore decided to run with the idea for this article.

There are well stated educational benefits associated with ensuring that children are well-nourished. Children with balanced and nutritional diets tend to demonstrate improved attention, discipline, and self-esteem (see for example this Institute for Education report). Further research has also begun to suggest that having a nutritious breakfast in particular can be hugely beneficial to an individual’s school performance (see for instance this Livestrong article which I’m assuming is far less deceitful than the organisation’s founder…)

Currently though, those on FSM only receive one meal at school (usually lunch) which may well mean that the outputs and outcomes from the provision of free meals are not being fully maximised. In particular, if for whatever reason children are receiving either no breakfast or poor quality meals in the morning, then a free nutritious lunch may only have minimal impact. Given all this, it strikes me as being sensible to give those on FSM two decent meals a day rather than just the one.

Inevitably, there are cost implications associated with increasing the number of meals provided through the FSM programme. However, I still believe it could be affordable as it need not represent an excessive additional cost burden.

Speaking admittedly only from personal experience, breakfast is the cheapest meal of the day both if bought ready made on the high street, or if made at home. Cereals, breads, yoghurts, and fruits are all relatively cheap foodstuffs and there will of course be savings for schools from bulk buying. Indeed, were school canteens to offer breakfasts to non-FSM students at cost price, some of the outlay could be recouped. With the savings associated with bulk buying, parents might find it cheaper to have their kids fed at school than at home. The addition of some paying customers could make the extension of FSM more financially viable.

Furthermore, one of the problems associated with delivering Jamie Oliver style school lunches has been that many schools have lacked the cooking equipment and facilities to produce meals on site, entailing higher costs through the installation of new facilities or having meals made off site. However, putting together what could largely be cold meals is altogether more straightforward. Water urns could still allow hot parts to meals though hot drinks and porridge etc.

Now obviously, I’ve not properly costed any of this but my instinct tells me that giving FSM students a free breakfast could be cost-effective and hugely beneficial. I certainly hope that it’s an idea that becomes far more prominent and given greater thought.

Has the time come to scrap Top Gear again?

jeremy clarkson, a photo by thebenjsc_ on Flickr.

Over the Christmas holidays I found myself killing the odd spare hour or two by watching old episodes of Top Gear on Dave. All very enjoyable and initially put me in the mood for the start of the new series this month. However, my opinion’s changing and the more I think about it, the more I’m starting to think that it might be time to retire Top Gear in its current format completely.

It’s worth stating at the outset that I’ve been a huge Top Gear fan over the years. It’s provided me with countless hours of entertainment on Sunday evenings and as you've probably gathered already, I've been known to regularly watch repeats on Dave. Furthermore, for all the criticism I level at the programme in this article, I’ll still be watching the new series this year. However, Top Gear has in recent series become far too formulaic, predictable, and repetitive which beggars the question, is it still worth having new series of it?

One of the things I’ve always loved about Top Gear is that it’s always looked to be daring with its stunts and has always tried to come up and new and imaginative features. What other programme for instance would look to turn a mini into a space shuttle, drive around Alabama in a car emblazoned with ‘Hillary for President’, or try and create a convertible people carrier. The problem now is that the Top Gear team seem to be running out of ideas and new things to try out. Being daring now seems to involve dropping things from helicopters every other episode, or launching misguided rants against Mexicans. It’s all becoming more than a little repetitive, so much so that Top Gear is becoming as predictable as the plot of your generic Hugh Grant rom-com.

One of the other things that always made the show stand out was the chemistry and banter between the three presenters. Now though, the jokes between seem far more contrived and are repeated time and time again. Most episodes will poke fun at Hammond’s height, May’s slow driving and pedantry, and Clarkson’s love of power tools. It was all pretty funny in the first few series but the same jokes have essentially been used in every episode for the last ten years and are starting to wear thin. All very reminiscent of what happened to Shooting Stars (okay, that’s maybe a little harsh – nothing can be as painful as the last series of Shooting Stars…)

Hardcore fans will maintain that a bad episode of Top Gear is still better than most other things on TV right now and I must admit it’s difficult to argue against this. However, it’s clear that Top Gear’s been declining in quality in recent years and I think there’s something to be said in retiring the current version of the show while it still has credibility. Top Gear USA has shown that the format still works - it’s possible that a new set of presenters might just reinvigorate the UK show and make it feel less dated.

Will the BBC tweak Top Gear? I doubt it. After all, the BBC rakes money in by selling Top Gear rights internationally. Shouldn’t complain too much though – if all else fails, I still have Dave…

Who might win Sports Personality of the Year in 2013?

Chris Froome before the start, a photo by kristof ramon on Flickr.

Early indications are that Bradley Wiggins is a shoo-in for this year’s Sport’s Personality of the Year (SPOTY). My attention’s therefore been drawn to who might be in with a chance of winning the 2013 award. However, in a year without a football World Cup or Olympics, the contest could be pretty open. In this article, I gaze into the sporting crystal ball and consider possible contenders for the 2013 SPOTY prize.

Chris Froome

Given Team Sky’s success at this year’s Tour de France, there’s a fair chance that they’ll also be in the reckoning for the 2013 race. Second in this year’s race, Froome might have had a chance to win had he not been asked to play second fiddle to Bradley Wiggins. Team Sky’s manager, Dave Brailsford, has hinted that Froome will lead the team in next year’s Tour de France so must be counted as one of the favourites for the 2013 race. Cycling’s a well-supported sport in the Britain now so if Froome does win the Tour, he will undoubtedly be one of leading contenders for SPOTY 2013.

 
Jess Ennis

After her gold medal at this year’s Olympics, Jess Ennis will surely be one of the favourites to win the hepathlon at the 2013 World Athletics Championships in Moscow. Already a popular sports figure in Britain, Ennis will be bound to collect many votes if she does indeed become World Champion. Furthermore, there’s a strong chance that she won’t make the top three in this year’s SPOTY, meaning that she might gain votes next year in recognition for her achievements in 2012 too.

 
Matt Prior

In the absence of a major football tournament or Olympics next summer, the sports headlines are likely to be dominated by the Ashes series next year. Matt Prior will be crucial to England’s batting line-up, being able either to lead a run-chase, or bat out time as required. Both Ashes contests should be close encounters and Prior’s runs may be decisive in securing an English victory (especially if Alastair Cook sees a dip in form with the captaincy, and if the annoying version of Kevin Pietersen turns up). Also worth noting that the second Ashes series will take place while the SPOTY votes are being cast so Prior may benefit from additional exposure at just the right time.

 
Andy Murray

Having won his first grand slam earlier this year, Any Murray will be a leading contender in the major tournaments in 2013 too. Barring injury and a major loss in form, he must be regarded as being one of the favourites for Wimbledon next year. His popularity is also increasing so if he wins Wimbledon, we could well see him crowned the 2013 Sports Personality.

 
Kevin Sinfield

The Rugby League World Cup will be coming to British shores in 2013. Although Rugby League doesn’t get anywhere near the same attention in this country as Rugby Union does, it may become far more prominent next year with a home World Cup. There’s already been a major publicity drive for the tournament which inevitably will enter full swing next year. This coupled with the fact that England is currently third favourites for the World Cup, may help the tournament capture the public’s imagination. If it does, then leading Rugby League stars such as England captain Kevin Sinfield, may gain enough votes to be in with a shout for SPOTY.

Who would make the weakest England XI of the last 20 years?

FBL-EURO-2008-ENG-CRO, a photo by Milan Time on Flickr.

2012 has been a vintage year for British sport. Think of Andy Murray’s first Grand Slam victory, Bradley Wiggins winning the Tour de France, and the outstanding performances of British athletes at the Olympics and Paralympics. But, we must not forget that this is not normal. British sport and English football in particular is traditionally associated with mediocrity and under-achievement. This article celebrates and embraces this, outlining what might be the weakest XI that England has produced over the last 20 years.

Goalkeeper: Scott Carson

Was once tipped to be an international goalkeeping superstar. However, it’s fair to say that it never materialised... After showing early promise at Leeds and Liverpool things didn’t really go to plan with England. Instead, he is most renowned for an uncomfortable performance for England against Croatia, including that fumble.

Right-back: Luke Young

Must admit that this was a problem position given Gary Neville’s dominance over much of the period. Micah Richards and Glen Johnson have also proved reliable. Luke Young is chosen largely because he was so anonymous during his England career – so much so that when his international retirement was announced it barely featured in the headlines or entered the consciousness of England fans.

Centre-back: Neil Ruddock

Competent defender but hardly one of the stand-out players from Liverpool’s Spice Boys generation. To say that he was international class would be dubious in the extreme (especially when you think that Steve Bruce never played for England). Only capped the once by England – clearly didn’t take Terry Venables long to work out that Razor wouldn’t win Euro 96 for England.

Centre-back: John Terry (c)

Perhaps my most controversial choice. Chosen primarily as he’s clearly been the worst England captain over the last 20 years. Sacked twice from the job and a huge nuisance at the 2010 World Cup. Plus, I still maintain that had either Jonathan Woodgate or Ledley King had any fitness whatsoever, Terry would only have been capped a few times.

Left-back: Phil Neville

Again, perhaps an odd choice, especially as it’s worth considering that Steve Guppy has an England cap. However, there is some method to my madness. Phil Neville’s been a decent player, especially so in central midfield. He’s dreadful at left-back though and his performance against Romania in Euro 2000 is enough to earn him a place in my XI.

Right midfield: Kieron Dyer

Always had bags of ability but again is another one of those who couldn’t translate club form for England. His debut aside, most of his performances for England were ineffective and unmemorable. Apparently he has 33 international caps. And no, that’s not a typo.

Central midfield: Gavin McCann

Another one of those unmemorable players who was solid but unspectacular at domestic level. Much like Ruddock though, he clearly wasn’t international class. His only cap came during Sven’s first game in charge for England. Worth pointing out that he was chosen ahead of Steven Gerrard for this match…

Central midfield: Jordan Henderson

Even worse value for money for Liverpool than Andy Carroll has been so far (and that takes some doing). This makes it all the more incredible that Jordan Henderson has played tournament football for England. Still time for him to deliver on his full potential but surely Hodgson will have the sense to give Wilshere and Rodwell a chance first?

Left midfield: Lee Hendrie

Had established a decent reputation for himself at England U-21 level but it’s fair to say that this was not sustained. His time at Aston Villa showed that he had real potential but his career is more renowned for disciplinary issues and off-the-field problems. Little wonder then that his England career lasted less than 20 minutes. Aged 35, he currently plays for the world-renowned Tamworth FC.

Striker: David Nugent

Based on stats alone, you’d think I was being very harsh. One cap, one goal. However, let’s remember that his goal came against Andorra, and from about two inches out. When leaving Preston he tried to engineer a move to Everton. David Moyes said no. At Portsmouth, Harry Redknapp tried to sell him soon after buying him. Not good enough for mid-table Premiership teams yet deemed good enough for England…

Michael Ricketts

Called up to the England team off the back of scoring 15 goals for Bolton in the first half of the 2001/02 season. Looked horribly out of his depth though during his first and only match for England. Also worth bearing in mind that the 01/02 season is the only one where scored 10 or more goals. Prolific indeed.

Subs

Rob Green, Steve Guppy, John Scales, Seth Johnson, Fraizer Campbell, Kevin Davies

Why regeneration may not always be effective in tackling deprivation

            
Regeneration, a photo by western4uk on Flickr.

Regeneration is a term that’s been heavily used in the popular media over recent weeks. In particular, it’s been used in the context of the Olympic legacy – transforming an area of East London that was previously derelict and run-down into a thriving area that’s attractive to people. However, much of the coverage given to regeneration seems to assume that it’ll automatically tackle deprivation. This article however argues that we should not have such blind faith in the power of regeneration – if it’s not properly thought out it’s a policy goal that can exacerbate the problems it is trying to solve.

For me at least, regeneration means taking an area with run-down housing, stark social divisions, and lacking in businesses; and turning it into an area that is attractive, economically vibrant, and less socially divided. There are a number of ways that this can be achieved but traditionally regeneration involves overhauling local infrastructure, bringing in private sector investment and building new homes. However, in bringing about regeneration in such a manner, other issues spring up:


Very often when we talk about regenerating an area, we’re in reality talking about trying to gentrify it– improving the physical and economic landscape of a given place to encourage more affluent individuals to move there. This however, ignores the needs of residents that currently live there. In particular, building new homes exclusively for working professionals can raise local property prices so far that it drives locals out. Rather than revitalising an area for its current residents by tackling the root social and economic causes of deprivation, poorly thought out regeneration may simply look to increase the number of middle class inhabitants. Worse still, by driving locals out, you might just be shifting the original problem onto another area.

A second danger is brought by the fact that regeneration initiatives are often run top-down – led and controlled by large centralised organisations. This is hardly surprising given that regeneration requires the co-ordination of some many resources simultaneously that only large corporations and/or central government are capable of doing it. However, top-down regeneration risks producing facilities and buildings that the local population can’t use. In the case of public sector-led regeneration, we may get buildings or venues which local residents have little interest in. In the case of private sector-led regeneration, we may see the creation of jobs which locals aren’t suitable for or insufficiently trained to fill. In both cases, a top-down approach may mean that outsiders (who may already come from more affluent regions) see all the benefits from regeneration whilst the locals see little overall improvement in their lot.

Before I end, it’s worth pointing out that regeneration shouldn’t be disregarded as a policy option. Clearly there’s nothing inherently wrong in trying to improve an area and tackle deprivation. Indeed, there are examples where regeneration has widely been regarded as having been effective (e.g. Glasgow since the early 1990s and Liverpool over the past decade). However, as this article has argued, regeneration isn’t the silver bullet to addressing deprivation that it is often made out to be. Too often it is more concerned about attracting the affluent to a region as a short-to-medium term fix. To be really effective, regeneration needs to improve the root social and economic conditions that cause deprivation in the first place. This means placing the needs of an area’s current residents at the heart of policy.

Why Ferrari should consider Kamui Kobayashi for 2013

Kamui Kobayashi Sauber C30 2011 F1 Singapore Grand Prix, a photo by Zip250 on Flickr.

There’s lots of speculation right now as to what the Formula 1 driver line-ups will be in 2013. Ferrari are at the centre of much of the gossip. Lewis Hamilton, Jenson Button, Mark Webber, Sergio Perez, Robert Kubica and seemingly most of the grid has been linked with the Ferrari seat currently occupied by Felipe Massa. However, there’s one man who’s not been talked about and who to my mind at least, would be the perfect choice – Kamui Kobayashi.

The main thing Ferrari will be looking for is someone who’ll be a regular podium contender but who won’t be quick enough to challenge Fernando Alonso for the championship. In Kobayashi, Ferrari would have someone who regularly qualifies in the top 10 and has demonstrated overtaking skills to match the very best on the grid. With the right equipment, he clearly has the potential to win multiple grand prix but probably not championships – an ideal scenario for Ferrari.

Linked to this is a second factor, Ferrari’s system of having designated No.1 and No.2 drivers. Many drivers won’t put up with this and it certainly caused issues in Ferrari’s recent talks with Button and Webber. However, it might well be easier to get someone like Kobayashi on board as a No.2 driver. Under normal circumstances he wouldn’t come close to getting a seat with Ferrari and might be more receptive to playing second fiddle to Alonso in return for a competitive car. Furthermore, there’s the added incentive that a solid year at Ferrari will put him in the frame for a more prolonged stay at either Red Bull or Mercedes who should have seats available from 2014. The longer term rewards might make Kobayashi more willing to put up with the short-term inconveniences he could face at Ferrari.

Even if Ferrari can offer prospective drivers an equal standing with Alonso, there’s an additional issue that the Ferrari seat is only likely to be available for one year given the rumours of a contract with Sebastian Vettel for 2014. For that reason, Ferrari won’t be able to attract the top tier of drivers: the likes of Hamilton and Raikkonen will feel they are worthy of multi-year contracts. Ferrari therefore will have a limited pool of drivers then can pick from. The likes of Paul di Resta or Sergio Perez might be options here but Kobayashi has more experience than the pair which helps his case.

There’s an added bonus of the marketing benefits that having Kobayashi would have. Traditionally, Japan’s always shown huge support to McLaren given their previous links with Honda. Kobayashi, however is by some margin the best driver Japan has had in recent years. As a country that seemingly loves it motorsport, Ferrari might be able to use Kobayashi as a way to help further their presence in Japan.

All things considered, I think Ferrari could do far worse than taking on Kobayashi for 2013. Doubt it will happen though, I’m expecting Felipe Massa to be around for another year…

Bentham’s Best Burrito – Where’s the best burrito place near to UCL?

Burrito!, a photo by moleitau on Flickr.

During a recent procrastination session, I was amazed at the number of places selling burritos near to UCL. Given this and in part inspired by my new favourite TV programme Man vs Food, I decided to pay each one a visit and establish once and for all, which place sold the best burrito near to UCL.

It’s worth pointing out that I’ve adopted quite strict selection criteria for my test. I’ve only selected food outlets that make burritos on site (be it eat-in or take-away) thereby ruling out any supermarket ready meals that might be available near campus. Additionally, all premises must be within a fifteen minute walk of the SPP Rubin Building where I often tend to be based. That therefore rules out places such as Chilango (in Holborn), Tortilla (in Angel), and Wahaca (in Soho). This has left me with five places to assess against each other. Results are below, with each having been visited at least once since May 2012.


El Burrito (Charlotte Place – W1T 1SF)

Pros:

El Burrito has a special place in my heart given that it was the first (and only) burrito place that I would go to when I first came to London four years ago. Standards then began to decline but I am pleased to say they have returned to their past glories. A lovely place that has really friendly staff and a certain charm not seen in some of the chain outlets. Furthermore, their food is more authentic, serving both molé and tinga – both of which are exquisite.

Cons:

On occasions the fillings haven’t necessarily been warm and with only two people serving customers, service can be a little slow at times.

Score: 8/10 – I’m very fond of El Burrito. Criticisms of it are relatively minor. It does amazing food and that’s the most important thing.


Benito’s Hat (Goodge Street – W1T 4NB)

Pros:

For a long time, this was my burrito place of choice and has recently opened up more stores in London. Service has always been unbelievably quick and efficient. You can usually get a seat here as well. Also sells these amazing Mexican soft drinks which taste like a liquid version of Haribo.
Cons:

They’ve recently changed the menu which sadly isn’t as good as their old one. I used to be huge fan of the Ben’s chicken burrito but the new menu has toned down the flavours: producing a simpler to understand menu but ultimately a less exciting meal.

Score: 6/10 – used to be something special but has now just become bog standard. Will satisfy a burrito craving but isn’t a place to shout about.


Mestizo (Euston – NW1 3EL)

Pros:

Mestizo has a very similar menu to El Burrito with whom it shares owners. Again, the quality of food is outstanding and is packed full of authentic flavours. Additionally, you can choose to have your burrito as a quesadilla or chimichanga which El Burrito doesn’t offer.

Although you can get a take away burrito, it’s worth eating in the restaurant upstairs which offers a waiter service and a great lunch time drinks deal. This makes Mestizo the perfect place to go to if you want a long relaxing lunch break that gives you plenty of time to catch up with friends.

Cons:

The burritos aren’t made in front of you, making it difficult have it tailored to your own specific tastes. Eating in the restaurant although being very enjoyable, does make it a more expensive meal.

Score: 9/10 – amazing food and a nice place to hang out. Many will cite this as their favourite and it’s not difficult to see why.


Freebird (Goodge Place – W1T 4LZ)

Pros

Street food as it’s meant to be. Ingredients appear to be fresh and of very good quality. I’m a particular fan of their salsa – I’m yet to find any better in London. There’s always a long queue by the Freebird cart yet it always seems to move relatively quickly.

Cons

Two major problems. Firstly, there’s no seating whatsoever. Not surprising given that it’s a mobile food outlet but they could really do with being allowed to put out a couple of chairs or tables at least. My burrito starts to get cold by the time I reach campus! Secondly, they don’t serve food in the evening.

Score: 7/10 – serves an above average burrito but a couple of major issues prevent me from scoring it even higher.


Chipotle (Charing Cross Road – W1T 2PR)

Pros:

The food is absolutely incredible here. May not be authentic Mexican food (if burritos can be) but certainly doesn’t lack in flavour. Portion sizes are incredibly generous and offer a wide range of filling choices. Aside from the food, there are plenty of major positive points as well. Service is very quick, staff and very helpful and friendly, and there’s tonnes of seating available.

Cons:

One of the more expensive places to grab a burrito. The price of guacamole is especially extortionate - £1.50 for a large tablespoon! Where are they sourcing their avocados from?! Also, of the places listed here, Chipotle is by some margin the furthest away from campus. It is reachable in 15 minutes but it’s a brisk walk.

Score: 9.5/10 – It’s very difficult to criticise Chipotle. It works equally well as place for a very quick bite during a night out, or as a place to have a leisurely meal while nattering away with friends. Above all, the food is epic. Only the price of guacamole prevents it from getting full marks.