Inequality in Britain

[DJKillaQueen]

With Iain Duncan Smith as a Minister perhaps some of these ideas will get a decent chance of implementation

Hmm whilst at the same time cutting benefits to the most vulnerable and therefore increasing poverty.....

He was on the Politics Show at the weekend and was repeatedly asked how he would find the extra money needed to put in place all the programmes he thought would be needed to combat poverty and unemployment (especially for the Long T Unemployed) and had no answers. He was asked if cutting child benefits and family tax credits to the better off would be one of his options of raising money but he said that child benefit reform wasn't even in the picture.

I suspect that there with never be enough money to implement even half the 'extra' help he would like to and meanwhile pressure to get the welfare bill down will see already poor and vulnerable people pushed further into poverty.

[Huguenot]

LM, I was only indulging a pun with the 'nanny' state. I wasn't disagreeing with the thrust of the argument, just pointing out that it was easier said than done.

You're right about Singapore having a greater gap between rich and poor..

...and yet you'll find social harmony, and housing estates with the same architecture as those in Camberwell and E&C that are a picture of cleanliness and social cohesion.

Interestingly Singapore teeters at the very top of education rankings, despite the massive inequality.

So perhaps indeed harmony has nothing to do with wealth and everything to do with education?

[Ladymuck]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> LM, I was only indulging a pun with the 'nanny'

> state.

Oh I know, Mr. H...and I used your...ahem...indulgence...to the fullest advantage as an excuse to promote mischief!!

Can't stop...but intend to return to inequality/welfare reforms/education and the like much, much later tonight/early tomorrow morning.

Carry on indulging!;-)

[Ladymuck]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> There are many parents

> that would embrace the opportunity for their

> children to get pre-schooling even though they are

> not able to help their children with schoolwork

> themselves.

>

> Some schools now have homework clubs for children

> to use that don't have either a quiet area at home

> to do their homework or parents that can help.

> Clearly providing extra help and schooling where

> it's needed would be a step in the right direction...

Well, here is an extract (cut and pasted) from the Report: Low income and early cognitive development in the U.K. (link to full report provided a few posts back). The following is basically a list of what the researchers believe should be priorities in terms of reducing existing educational inequalities pre-(state)-school.

1.Children's centres should offer effective parenting programmes which have been evaluated and proven to work by robust research, and which engage parents/carers and empower them to be their child's first educator.

2.Sure Start early learning practitioners should work in partnership with health professionals to support families, including home visits for the hardest to reach children.

3.Specialised outreach projects should be established as part of the wider Sure Start children's centre provision to improve contact with vulnerable families.

4.New funding the Government plans to allocate to extend free nursery education entitlement to 3 and 4 year olds should be redirected to provide 25 hours of nursery education a week to 2-4 year olds from the 15% most disadvantaged families.

5.Access to these extra nursery places should be complemented by automatic access to a proven parenting programme.

[Ladymuck]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> The one thing that stood out with Jamie Oliver's

> school dinners campaign was how many parents were

> actively and aggressively opposed to it.

Agreed. Though some opposition to such a campaign was inevitable in my opinion. After all, it was viewed by objectors as undermining the ability of parents to look after their children ? controversial to say the least. Thankfully, despite receiving a fair bit of media attention, the dissenters were in the minority. It is the end result that counts.

[Ladymuck]

Marmora Man Wrote:

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

> Have a look at Centre for Social Justice - Family

> Policy...

>...With Iain Duncan Smith as a

> Minister perhaps some of these ideas will get a

> decent chance of implementation

Thanks Marmora Man. I have read through the Green Paper. It's quite an indepth examination into social breakdown (under Labour). It controversially, I think, brings up issues which some might consider ought not to be the subject of state intervention (e.g. measures to be put into place to ensure fathers take on more of the burden in rearing their offspring). How far should the state properly intervene in such matters? I am not sure ? it depends on the motive behind the proposal I guess.

However, I'm not comfortable with some of the social policies which have a whiff of the right-wing about them (and which might only serve to help those who are already better off). The paper also tediously, and repetitively bangs on about marriage, to the point of obsession. Is it right for any government to suggest that one type of relationship is preferable over another? And, as for providing tax incentives to people simply because they hold a marriage certificate, this is, to my mind, quite misguided. It also promotes strong relationships (whatever they are) and emphasises the need to prevent relationship breakdowns. Add to that IDS's current welfare reforms (and the fact that he's a Tottenham Hotspurs supporter!) and I am left bereft of enthusiam.

IDS says that poverty and inequality must be tackled and (sensibly) talks of making work pay. However, he simultaneously speaks endlessly about the need to cut back on benefits, so I guess we shall just have to see whether his proposals end up helping the most needy ? or not. One particular concern which I have is that his proposed reforms might have the effect of plunging those who are genuinely unable to work into even deeper poverty, thus causing them additional hardship.

Edited to add:

@ Huguenot

I think I was overly mean earlier - sorry.

[Ladymuck]

HAL9000 Wrote:

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

> 1) Never trust a politician.

They promised to protect the poor.

I had hoped that HAL9000 was just being cynical.

[DJKillaQueen]

The following is basically a list of what the researchers believe should be priorities in terms of reducing existing educational inequalities pre-(state)-school.

Yep I totally agree with all those suggested measures LM. I think they would make a huge difference to the chances of disadvantaged children.

[Ladymuck]

They would, wouldn't they DJKQ.

It would make far more sense to target funds at that stage of the learning process rather than later on when the education gap has perhaps widened to such a degree that, to expect a child to fully catch up at that later stage, would prove unrealistic. The more I think about it, increasing parental engagement in the education of their young has to be one way to level the playing field before those children enter the state education system. The more these children are nurtured and encouraged to develop, the more their confidence and their motivation to do well are likely to increase. Thus the greater the likelihood of them feeling a part of society (because society will be more accepting of them) as opposed to experiencing social alienation from an early age which, I suspect might be partly responsible for some of the disruptive behaviour seen in class once school starts.

The crucial role which education plays in determining an individual?s position in the employment market and therefore life in general, means that it is probably a false economy to scrimp on producing well educated children. Countries should, therefore aim for all its citizens to develop to their full potential, so that they become as productive and as fully integrated into society as it is possible to be.

[DJKillaQueen]

The more these children are nurtured and encouraged to develop, the more their confidence and their motivation to do well are likely to increase.

Totally agree with all that. And it also would serve to get children interested in the process of education itself, because to learn well, you have to like to learn.

Far too often we hear it said that school needs to be more fun but of course the reality of life is that hard work often isn't fun. But to work hard might be the only way to get to a fun place. So I think children not only need to be encouraged to want to learn as early as possible, but also need to understand that learning will sometimes be just about perseverance and hard work. At the moment at the first sign of 'hard work' too many children give up.

[Odyssey]

It's good to see that the education of children has been taken seriously for a little while now. Clearly there is still a way to go. But where I think the government have gone too far on reform is that heads/teachers are no longer allowed to punish children.

The childrens' rights' campaigners have gone too far. Children are children and should be treated as such. They are not adults.

[Ladymuck]

The criminalisation and demonisation of children by some newspapers doesn't help.

[Ladymuck]

On the proposed Government spending cuts, Brendan Barber (TUC General Secretary) comments that: "This is a recipe for deeper economic trouble, growing poverty and inequality and, ultimately, wider deficits and panicky lenders. We may conclude some months hence not only that the pain resulted in no gain but that it led to even further pain". Full article here.

Is he being unnecessarily pessimistic? I am not so sure. Given that the proposed cuts will probably affect the poorest/most vulnerable to a greater extent, coupled with the fact that they may well send unemployment rising, shouldn't the emphasis perhaps be shifted more towards raising taxation? I would have thought that most would prefer to work/pay more tax rather than be unemployed. No?

[david_carnell]

LadyM ? you may be interested in some of the arguments and commitments put forward by the different Labour Party leadership candidates on Monday night regarding reducing inequality.

[Ladymuck]

"...may be interested" DC? The article took many of the words straight out of my mouth! Interesting blog...I've bookmarked that one - thanks!

Regrettably the Labour Party aren't in power...perhaps Cameron/Clegg might fall out soon...;-)

[vinceayre]

What a load of bollox, the labour party has had thirteen years to reduce child poverty and economic inequality in the country and it has totally failed to do both. Give the new people a chance at least before they are ousted. They really cat f*ck it up much more than labour has.

[Odyssey]

I wouldn't say that Labour f*cked up everything in the last 13 years. There are a lot of good things that they've achieved. I certainly remember how bad the NHS was pre-1997, going into hospitals, long waiting lists and things like that. OK they didn't get everything right with education. Some of the policies didn't work out. Maybe there are too many tests between the ages of 5 and 14. Maybe they did waste some money and put us into a phoney war. But it wasn't all bad.

[Brendan]

Oh yes there were the good times. It is easy to remember the good times. We loved each other once. But then there came the lies, the fights the drinking the unfaithfulness and the dirty underwear left on the floor.

[Ladymuck]

Brendan Wrote:

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

> ...and the dirty

> underwear left on the floor.

Presumably that's a euphemism for the expenses scandal.

[Brendan]

There?s been some sort of expenses scandal?

[Ladymuck]

Oh it was all a bit mountain out of molehill...something to do with some MP claiming for his moat to be cleared. Rumour has it that a high profile Tory Toff may be buying an up and coming football team - Milfwall - and that he may be seeking to subsidise this purchase via the MPs' expenses system. I don't know, they'll be claiming against the services of their domestic staff next.

[vinceayre]

I will grant you that the NHS is far better now to the extent I cancelled our private medical cover years ago. As for helping the poor they have failed miserably. The rich have got significantly richer under Labour but the poorest in society have simply got poorer.

Under the Tories that is sort of expected to an extent but under Labour its shameful. If Labour don't represent the working class and the poor people in our society who does?

They seem to forget that they came about by pushing aside the Liberals, maybe now the tide is turning.

[Odyssey]

I don't think so somehow. I think the liberals will be damaged for a generation through their coalition with the conservative party. I think Nick Clegg is leading the Liberal Party quite swiftly to the right and once these cuts which they are making (in my opinion too soon) start to take effect, the ordinary liberal voter will not fogive them for it. So I think that what will happen in 5 years' time, or maybe even sooner, is the election of another labour government.

[Odyssey]

I believe that's why the labour party didn't want to get into a pact with the liberal party and the others because they realised this.

[Ladymuck]

vinceayre Wrote:

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

>Give the new people a

> chance at least before they are ousted. They

> really cat f*ck it up much more than labour has.

Of course they can! If all the proposed cuts go ahead, (to me) it seems reasonably foreseeable that further unemployment will follow.

Furthermore, given that it is those at the lower end of the socioeconomic heap that use our welfare/public services the most, it also follows that they are likely to be the hardest hit.