Inequality in Britain

[Ladymuck]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/27/tories-party-privilege-inequality-labour

Can anything be done about this? What does this say about the present Government? Should the Government do anything about it? Oh dear, so many questions.

[vinceayre]

In 2004 1.4 million children were in extreme poverty in the UK by 2009 1.7 million children are in extreme poverty in the UK as reported by Save the children this week.

During this time the government and the policticians from ALL the partys were helping themselves to public money with free abandon because it was within the rules they had set, whilst another 300,000 children slipped down into extreme poverty, what scum.

What does this say about the present Government? Should the Government do anything about it?

It tells me that they could not give a shlt about any one other than themselves, it also makes me angry and very upset that this can be allowed to happen in Britain in 2010. We have our politicians telling us and the world how great they are and how they will make everything so much better, if you would just vote for them.

I despair!

[Ladymuck]

vinceayre Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ...It tells me that they could not give a shlt about

> any one other than themselves, it also makes me

> angry and very upset that this can be allowed to

> happen in Britain in 2010. We have our politicians

> telling us and the world how great they are and

> how they will make everything so much better, if

> you would just vote for them.

>

> I despair!

Oh how passionate you sound vinceayre...and how I share your despair. It's quite unbelievable isn't it and I don't feel comfortable about it at all. Even worse is the attitude of the British public: the latest British Social Attitudes Survey appears to be saying that many of us don't think that Britain can be made less unequal. What? I sincerely hope that, on this occasion, I have misconstrued.

And to make things even worse...just look at this extract from an article from the Economist dated 28th January:

THE poor may be always with us, but just who they are is a matter for debate. Officially, someone who gets less than 60% of the median income counts as poor, but people take a harsher view. When asked, half say that those with enough to eat and live on are not poor, even if they can't afford anything else.

Whoever the poor are, Britons care less about their plight than they did 20 years ago. According to the British Social Attitudes Survey, published on January 23rd, more now say the poor have only themselves to blame. The unemployed are particularly vilified: "laziness or lack of willpower" got them ...

NB:

(1) highlights in extract done by me

(2) Keep editing because am actually quite upset over this issue - sorry (guess I should have posted in the Lounge).

[????]

First of all it?s a massive and great topic LadyM and I have several random thoughts

1) What a poor piece of journalism. He rambles on about several strands without really getting across his point? at all?. other than ?don?t vote Tory? (it is the Guardian after all). I also laughed at the rather typical assumption of the metropolitan elite that the ?middle class? are the rather small band of metropolitans who he meets on the school run in Hampstead or whatever and it?s thus ?the middle classes who have tied up the establishment? yes, quite?.not the huge amount of relatively averagely paid, white collar workers, largely outside of London who actually are the real ?middle class? . Seriously, no wonder people outside of London do despair a bit about our media.

I think a comment on the blog summed it up nicely (and to be fair most slagged the article off) -

?So what you are saying is that Labour should say yes, we are a shameful bunch of liars who pretend to be concerned with social inequalities while expanding the gap between wealth and poor, but you should still vote for us because the other lot will be even worse?

Anyway

2) What actually is so good about equality anyway?

I quote George Bernard Shaw ? ?The problem with socialism is that we can?t all live on Richmond Hill?

Equality of opportunity YES PLEASE but equality itself? Why? and How? It?s another catch all phrase that politicians on the ?progressive? side love so much. An ?equal? society..well what actually is that? We all get the same housing, education, wages, inheritance??got me perplexed.

3) Measures of poverty

The official methods of measuring poverty are based on differences against the mean rather than absolute - so in reality the bottom decile (poorest 10% of households) are actually better off that in 1997 in real terms but the top decile are even more better off i.e. their standard of living has improved more (and by miles) ? this may be wrong and I tend to think that it is BUT there has been improvement in the bottom deciles standard of living rather than them slipping into real poverty. However as child poverty is measured as a comparison to the mean then child poverty is higher. So it?s a bit meaningless in some ways ? if Warren Buffet and Bill Gates move to London tomorrow child poverty rises in fact we?d all poorer by how ?poverty? measured. Makes a good headline though. The gap between rich and poor has grown massively under Labour, real poverty has not?..are the two correlated? I dunno, but I know that much dogma from the left says there?s no ?trickle down?, I?m less convinced. Not sure that huge inequalities are a good thing for society but that?s a different issue.

4) We?re on Education ? as he points out this is the key to social fluidity. Good. Agree.

The Left and Labour politicians lecture us and try and impose on us socialist values on education that they just simply DO not apply to themselves. It?s a disgrace in my opinion huge horrible middle class we know what?s best for you plebs crap. I?ve quoted these before but

Tony Blair?s kids going to a school 12 miles YES Twelve miles from the fantastic Islington comprehensives his party created for us. Don?t even ask Harriet Harman where her kids went to school as she believes in keeping her personal life private?mmmmm that?s handy Harriet?..I presume it wasn?t Peckham Academy? David Milliband?.bought up among the upper middle class elites of Hampstead,,,gets to Oxford with terrible A level grades on a scheme aimed at under-privileged inner-city youths. And lectures us on equality and opportunity. I could go on (and on) but it?s boring as well as disgusting.

I just feel that actually a reasonable rump of the modern labour party are pretty privileged middleclass and some upper class (?Hi Harriet *waves at baronets daughter*) who are just itching to impose their drive for lowest common denominator equality on the plebby working class ? whilst using their own privileged positions to snake out of the mess their social engineering has created. They know what?s good for my kids ?.but hey funnily enough it?s not good enough for theirs. (Also see ? Post-war council housing/Town planning; comprehensive education, etc etc). God Cameron may be a wealthy, Etonian toff, but I think he?s more honest than the privileged hypocrites of the Labour party.

5) Finally, and most cynically, there?s a bit of me that thinks that actually this is really about how increase in wealth of the past 10 years has effected the metropolitan middle class who don?t work in the city. Massive increases in personal wealth has pushed the poor darlings out of their taken for granted neighbourhoods and lifestyles?you know, a bit of journalism, vaguely left wing politics, the money from gramps and some work in the bookshop you could still have a nice little bolt hole off Sloane Square. These previously privileged metropolitans can?t have a place in Kensington anymore (or a bolthole in Cornwall) had to move to Battersea or even East Dulwich (yug) and a cynical bit of me thinks that is what has underpinned the moaning about the super rich (many of whom are absolute oiks) rather than any REAL concern for the poor!

Yes I?ve been on the sauce

[SeanMacGabhann]

for someone on the sauce, a mostly decent effort and not even any editing...

I tend to not bother replying anymore when you so easily reach for the cliche handbook (metropolitan elite, Guardian yadda yadda - you can make the same points just as easily without. In fact metropolitan is used in one paragraph by you to differentiate teh elite from middle classes and then you talk about metropolitan middle-classes - ita all becomes a bit blancmangey)

I didn't think the article itself was anywhere near good enough to warrant such a long reply mind you - as you say it was a "poor piece of journalism"

I would take issue slightly with the "equality" argument tho. Unless I'm misunderstanding there is an assumption that whilst we obviously can't all have the same slice of pie, the smallest slice is still sufficient? I'm reluctant to engage on the point really for fear that it will be labelled dogma but if trickle-down does work in any meaningful way then I'll happily buy it - but I'm really not convinced (and I am looking)

Not sure I totally buy your final point either - but suspect some genuine real-life examples to support you wouldn't be too hard to find.

Personally, and just from observation rather than data so I'm happy to be corrected, I think some societies (and I would say Ireland and England are in this category) are more grasping and less cooperative than others. So things like class, left/right politics all become noisy battlegrounds with everyone pointing the finger at everyone else - be it people who think they are entitled to benefits, to pushy middle-class parents, to the likes of execs like Crozier. This doesn't mean there is an Eden somewhere else - everywhere has pros and cons of course

But vince!! before we automatically rage at politicians who say how brilliant they are - have a think about how democracy works. Someone (could be you! It won't be but it could be) thinks they can no longer just complain about the world but wants to put themselves to the local electorate on a platform to change things. By necessity you have to emphasise your strong points - it doesn't mean you are "brilliant" but it means you have some ideas which you hope to implement. Should you be elected you are then faced with the many many competing demands for your time, the money available to you and any other levers of power you have. Some of ideas will not make it. That shouldn't mean that everyone who votes for you automatically gets to call you a charlatan

But that's the system - if you have a better idea then the world would benefit from hearing it

[DaveR]

Poor journalism is an understatement. Even his opening line is just wrong - the rich have been getting richer, but the poor have not been getting poorer, they've been getting richer; just not by much.

There are two big questions - is narrowing the gap between rich and poor a desirable political end, and if so, how do you go about doing it? The current government believes the answer to the first is "yes", but as it turns out, were pretty clueless about the second (or were defeated by some kind of middle-class conspiracy, if you're a sub-Trotskyite paranoid fantasist masquerading as a journalist).

I think there is real doubt as to the ability of any government to narrow the gap dramatically, particularly in the short term (and since 1997 is definitely the short term). Very high tax rates just incentivise the very wealthy to 'offshore' their wealth - some figures might end up looking better, but the rich won't actually be any poorer, and the tax take will not rise so little opportunity to make the poor richer. The boring answer, as always, is education, but radical chamges now will take a genreation or more to have an effect, and that's too many electroal cycles to appeal to most politicians.

[david_carnell]

I'll ignore point 1 as we all seem to be in agreement that this is a pretty naff piece of journalism.

So onto point 2) - the point of equality. For a libertarian free-marketeer (correct me when I'm wrong) the fact that you believe in equality of opportunity astounds me Quids. But I'm glad you do. It makes the next but easier. Whilst I do not believe that there should be absolute equality of outcome I do think it should be narrower than it is now. This means that the gap between the richest and poorest in society should be smaller. Why? Because those societies that have the smallest wealth differential coupled with social equality are the happiest. From this, all ills stem. Crime, fear, violence, education, job satisfaction - it all stems from this basic tenet.

3) Measures of poverty - I agree it's tricky. You've highlighted the problem with statistics with some aplomb. I would argue that comparitive poverty is also vitally important. See above. But Labour will struggle to get the message across that actually a lot of people are much better off than they were over a decade ago. It's just that rich folks are MUCH better off. I'll be watching with interest. As for trickle down?.I'm not convinced. Can someone find a study that supports it?

4) Education. Quids - nail on head you've hit. I'm ashamed to admit that the Labour Party, and cabinet especially (although not exclusively - Diane Abbot I'm looking at you), has been a disgrace on this issue. It's hypocritical and they should be ashamed. I am. But it all starts here. By half way through secondary school in most instances it's already too late to change anything. There will be exceptions, but not many. Until there is equality in the school system the problems will persist. The debate on solving this is huge and answers varied. For my money, Brighton had the right idea a few years ago. Want to go to a local school? Sure. But you don't get a choice. You put your name in a hat and it's a lottery. Within three years you solve the problem. No sink schools. No "top" schools. Just schools. With everyone in together and everyone wanting to help drive standards up. As a socialist I'm fed-up with accusations of dumbing down - every school should have it's share of the best teachers, brightest pupils and cutting edge facilities. I want every child to have the chance to learn Latin, play the flute, exercise on first class sports equipment. Education shouldn?t be about choices?.you go to your nearest school because it is no better than any other. After over a decade in power and throwing more money than ever before into the system, the Labour Party has failed to address this fundamental issue.

5) I'll put that down to the drink.

Edited.

[DaveR]

"Because those societies that have the smallest wealth differential coupled with social equality are the happiest. From this, all ills stem. Crime, fear, violence, education, job satisfaction - it all stems from this basic tennant."

Pedantry first - I'm guessing you mean it all stems from this basic tenet, or maybe premise.

There is evidence of correlation between smaller wealth differentials and greater contentment but the evidence for a causative link, and in the right direction, is slim, at best. This is not surprising given the difficulty in controlling for other factors that might contribute to the sum of human happiness, and it does raise questions about whether reducing inequality is desireable per se - I've seen some stats (I confess I forget where) demonstrating a strong correlation between religious observance and social harmony, but I don't see many people arguing for a return to compulsory church attendance.

There have always been rich and poor, and it seems pretty trite to say, for example, that the poor are now more likely to steal because the rich are richer (if indeed the poor are stealing more in any event).

Anyway, here is an interesting paper that suggests that attituse to inequality is largely a matter of taste:

research

[Magpie]

Interesting debate - what is missing here is social mobility. The US is less equal than the UK, but social mobility is higher. Perhaps a more elitist approach should be taken to education, with selection based on aptitude so that the brightest or the most gifted (in any field) are identified at an earlier age and supported accordingly. This is not to say that we should not see return to grammer schools, although that model was actually pretty successful in encouraging social mobility, but more use of streaming by ability in schools with effort focused on the most gifted.

[Ladymuck]

Magpie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>Perhaps a more

> elitist approach should be taken to education,

> with selection based on aptitude so that the

> brightest or the most gifted (in any field) are

> identified at an earlier age and supported

> accordingly. This is not to say that we should not

> see return to grammer schools, although that model

> was actually pretty successful in encouraging

> social mobility, but more use of streaming by

> ability in schools with effort focused on the most

> gifted.

Interesting how many consider the issue of education to be paramount here. I agree. The inequality in schools, primarily caused by "failing schools" needs to be addressed urgently. Smaller class sizes in primary schools might be a start. This would ensure that disadvantaged children would be given more individual attention than they would otherwise receive. It would also, hopefully "catch" those pupils who, for one reason or another, risk becoming unteachable by the time they have reached secondary education. But, equally important to my mind, it would also pick up those gifted children so that they too could be given the support and encouragement they need. Gifted children often do not realise their true potential as the extra support required by them is rarely adequate to enable them to truly flourish. Worse, they often feel the need to deliberately under-perform through fear of bullying or as a mechanism to be accepted by the lesser gifted.

There is evidence to suggest that the Grammar school model increased social mobility by allowing children to break out of poverty. But this increase is relatively small and the system was far from perfect, but perhaps a re-think in that direction might be the way forward?

The other point I wish to bring up is the one about inequality. ????, you said: "We all get the same housing, education, wages, inheritance?". Well, with due respect, I don't think that is always the case - especially in areas of severe deprivation and/or high immigration where competition for scarce resources might be particularly tight and where access to public services might be an issue due to, for example, language problems. Perhaps we should be looking at immigration more seriously too - but I suspect this may be going off topic so I shall end here.

[david_carnell]

Whilst Grammar schools (and I'm a product of one) do produce great exam results it doesn't take a genius to see why. At 11 they take the cream, those who are already intellectually ahead of their peers, and hot house them for 5 or 7 years. The end result is a clutch of A* and A's at GCSE and A Level. Any other outcome would be ridiculous. But is any "value" really added to the pupil. That is a much more interesting and difficult measure to examine.

Unfortunately the side effects are also profound. Firstly, to gain entrance to these schools parents will pay through the nose for private tutors to "coach" their children in how to pass the entrance exams. The pressure on such young minds is often unbearable. House prices in those areas with grammar schools also rise, pricing many out of the area and the ability to send their children to those schools.

Secondly, what of the masses left behind in non-grammar schools? If resources are ploughed towards the "gifted" as some have asked for on this thread, what of the non-gifted or normal? Can appitude not develop or be discovered throughout childhood and teenage years if resources are spread throughout the schooling system evenly? Or, perhaps even with a bias towards the lowest achievers. They are surely the ones who need the most help from society. Poor education is the number one dominant factor in the prison population. The number of illiterate prisoners is astounding. To even begin to enable them reassimilate into society you have to start educating them....as adults! This is an absurd situation for a modern society to find itself in. But we do because for too long we have ignored those at the bottom of the ladder and diverted resources away from them. But talking about SEN isn't sexy so politicians rarely care about it.

The solution would be Toby Young-style "Comprehensive Grammars" - all pupils are in together but streaming exists within subject groups to allow the brightest to forge ahead and extra attention to be given to those struggling.

The other major change I would like to see in education is that grades are not based on absolute marks but are a percentage or banding result. Grades are not there to tell you how well you've done per se, they are there to tell you how well you have done compared to everyone else. If everyone get's A* it says nothing about how clever you are compared to your peers. Exams are no easier or harder now than they were 50 years ago - just differently graded. Only the top 10% (as an example) should be given an 'A', not all of those scoring 90% in an exam.

[Ladymuck]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>...what of the masses left behind in

> non-grammar schools? If resources are ploughed

> towards the "gifted" as some have asked for on

> this thread, what of the non-gifted or normal? Can

> appitude not develop or be discovered throughout

> childhood and teenage years if resources are

> spread throughout the schooling system evenly? Or,

> perhaps even with a bias towards the lowest

> achievers. They are surely the ones who need the

> most help from society.

Just to clarify DC, I wasn't suggesting that gifted children receive priority over the non-gifted - not at all. Both sets of children have equal but completely different needs, in my view. I ranted on a bit about gifted children in particular because whilst, I am pretty certain, most would agree with your point that the lowest achievers require additional support, it is often assumed that any additional nurturing may be dispensed with insofar as gifted children are concerned. In that sense I feel that - unless they are from privileged backgrounds - they tend to suffer a form of educational neglect. I was merely attempting to redress the balance. As alluded to in a previous post, many gifted children are bullied and actually fail in our education system. Worse, many of them go on to develop behavioural and mental health problems which can lead to social isolation in both their childhood years and later on in adulthood.

My apologies if I wasn't clear.

Oh, in case you were wondering...I was one of the lowest achievers (if not the lowest) in my class...thick as three planks, completely unfocussed and left state comprehensive school at 16 with one O level.

[Magpie]

David - I understand what you're saying, and indeed my Father, who failed the eleven-plus but went onto to a successful academic and professional career in engineering, always railed against children being grouped as "clever" or "secondary modern" at 11. I went to a comprehensive school that did have streaming, the result was that by the age of 13 subjects were taught in sets judged by ability, which meant that both high performers and low performers had the appropriate level of support. I'm not sure to what extent this is the standard model across the comprehensive system.

We should probably also accept that there will always be children who cannot be taught academic subjects, physical beings rather than mental beings if you like, that don't have the patience, the attention span, or the aptitude, for sitting in a classroom for 6 hours a day. One could argue that these children were also better served in a 1950/60s style education system that put far more emphasis on vocational training in woodwork, metal work, mechanics etc

[Ladymuck]

What has struck me as a little unnerving, is that nobody has felt the need to comment on the extract from the Economist - no one! Just as a reminder: "Whoever the poor are, Britons care less about their plight than they did 20 years ago. According to the British Social Attitudes Survey, published on January 23rd, more now say the poor have only themselves to blame. The unemployed are particularly vilified: "laziness or lack of willpower" got them where they are today, according to three Britons in ten..."

The very silence on this matter makes me extremely uncomfortable, no least because it suggests to me that the survey results may be chillingly spot on.

So, whilst on the one hand we are now more accepting with regards to issues such as same-sex relationships, we are on the other, becoming hardened to the plight of the poor and, in particular, the unemployed? What does this say about us as human beings? Actually, this is really a rhetorical question as, on reflection, I believe I know the answer - it is far from palatable though.

Vinceayre (above) stated with great passion: "It tells me that [the politicians] could not give a shlt about any one other than themselves, it also makes me angry and very upset that this can be allowed to happen in Britain in 2010.".

Regrettably, it looks to me as though the politicians aren't the only ones not to give a... God help us all.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I wouldn't despair too much LadyMuck - 'tis but a survey and even if accurate these things tend to be cyclical. If you repeated the survey a further dozen times with different samples you might see the opposite trends

Regardless, I think the findings are true for a reasonably large part of the population - but I doubt it's growing that much

When I arrived in this country at the height of Thatcherism, in the most Thatcherite of towns, I struggled most with the attitude towards poor people amongst my peers.

As quids and others have said, defining poor is a tricky one tho. You can set some parameters for a survey but people responding will have their own idea of what constitutes poor and answer accordingly

I thought 25 years ago that this country's population has a (relatively) hard heart and I think that now - but I don't genuinely think it's getting worse. And it's certainly better than America where a president trying to introduce a healthcare system which will be open to the millions currentl excluded is so vilified for that very reason. I think that is showing real disdain for the poor

[SteveT]

When I was growing up we had no hot water, the lavatory was at the bottom of the garden, and the house was cold if you were more than 3 feet away from the fire.

Many today would consider us to be poor, but their were those who were less well off who went to school with holes in there trousers and socks.

We never considered ourselves to be well off but we were not poor either, as everyone in the neighbourhood was in the same position and nobody else had hot water or a bathroom either.

Being poor is a relative condition. If you could not afford something you went without, you had no credit card to ease your way down the slippery slope. No cash, no nothin'.

[david_carnell]

I think the issue, Steve, is one of affluenza as highlighted by Oliver James (who I normally have little time for).

I'm not sure I agree with you that if you didn't have the cash you couldn't have since the "never-never" has been going on for longer than even Blood Brothers in the West-End. Even Shakespeare wrote about money lenders. But the differential in wealth between people living relatively side-by-side creates disharmony. Even in our own corner of London, less than a mile apart are multi-million pound houses on Grove Lane and some of the most poverty-stricken areas in the Borough.

The increasing gap between rich and poor, I believe, lies at the heart of many of our social ills. The cut-throat, do-eat-dog world of rampant capitalism that we as a society have sleepwalked into allows for huge profits in certain sectors of industry whilst communities reliant on a mono-industry are allowed to collapse if it isn' as profitable as it once was. But I think you're close Steve, when you talk about "not having much" - the desire to consume, to buy, to attemt tp have what those economically above you have is driving us towards an ever more unhappy society.

Work less. Consume less. Own less. Be happier.

This isn't only happening in Britain. A fascinating documentary on the fate of Detroit (called Requiem for Detroit - watch on iplayer NOW) highlighted what is fast becoming the first post-industrial city in the USA. Over a third has been reclaimed by nature, the population has halved and unemployment runs at 30%. Yet this occurs in the richest nation on Earth.

Something is definitely wrong.

[SteveT]

Yet this occurs in the richest nation on Earth.

Rich in resources but not in ready cash. China, Japan, and India has that. They have been giving China government bonds for years to settle a percentage of their debts which was fine, until China demanded more dollars.

[Brendan]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I thought 25 years ago that this country's

> population has a (relatively) hard heart and I

> think that now -

Relatively? The type of views held by some people in this country when it comes to issues like social equality would make the toes curl of even the most conservative people where I come from. And I come from a population which has an international reputation for being supposedly ?right-wing?.

It?s no wonder it has to be countered by self defeating concepts like socialism just to ensure that some semblance of a fair capitalist system and liberal society can exist.

Good thing about discussions like this is though that these people who use the guise of conservatism to vindicate their antisocial views often exposed themselves as the amoral bigots they actually are.

[david_carnell]

SteveT Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yet this occurs in the richest nation on Earth.

>

> Rich in resources but not in ready cash. China,

> Japan, and India has that. They have been giving

> China government bonds for years to settle a

> percentage of their debts which was fine, until

> China demanded more dollars.

Steve - a somewhat simplistic and "splitting hairs" approach. See here for GDP tables all showing the USA by some distance to still be the world's wealthiest nation. Not per capita perhaps, but in absolute terms, absolutely.

Another interesting aside to this debate was featued in the press today. The head of the Independent Schools Council (ISC), essentially the trade body for private schools, has attacked the "liberal hypocrites" who make parents feel guilty about sending their children to fee-paying schools yet spend their money instead on disposable goods like cars and holidays.

He fails to spot the manifest difference between the two, but the idea that exhuberent displays of wealth and large disposable incomes can leave a bad taste in the mouth are closer to the mark.

[Brendan]

Part of that argument is the question of why State Schools, which everyone pays for regardless of where their children actually go, do not compete favourably with private ones. I think an entrenched culture of privilege is as much to blame as the bad management of state education is.

[david_carnell]

I would suggest a much simpler reason(s):

Smaller class sizes

Better teachers

Better facilities

All of which are due to the funding they receive.

A comparison of Dulwich College with, say, the brand new Harris Academy being built on Forest Hill Rd would give a interesting insight.

I would also venture that not having to adhere to the national curriculum nor participate in league tables allows these schools to produce a more well-rounded and balanced educational programme as opposed to one driven by political motivations.

[Brendan]

Yeah that?s something I only learnt about the British system recently. In the system I was educated in the private schools obviously had more poncey facilities and access to extra courses and extracurricular activates but all the schools wrote the same exams. Although I think that?s all changed now too.

[david_carnell]

Well, they can (and do) sit A-Levels just like any pupil but the International Bac is more popular at private schools.

Obviously universities want good exam results but (Oxbridge especially) are now looking for more than just 4 x A grade. They want well-rounded individuals with outside interests. Private schools produce these in droves. They have access to the finest arts and sports programmes and not having to worry about a place on a league table allows education to be broader than the exam-hot-houses that state schools are becoming.

[Brendan]

That does appear to be a problem. What may remedy it in state schools is lessons ending at about 1:30pm and then 2 hours a day given to sporting or cultural activities. Also competitive regional and national inter-school sports leagues established with matches played during this time.

Then maybe you could stop poaching our cricket players.