Inequality in Britain

[expat]

So if you get seriously ill in Singapore who will pay for the treatment?

[Ladymuck]

david_carnell Wrote:

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

> Actually LadyM, Singapore has a very high prison

> population. It's close to 400 per 100,000 people.

> In comparison the UK is just below 150 per

> 100,000. Interestingly, prison populations are

> almost directly related to income inequality

> within a society.

Although I didn't know for sure (my knowledge re. Singapore is sadly lacking), I suspected that the prison population might be quite high - hence my earlier comment: "Or does this absence of beggars/homeless persons have more to do with a highly effective police force efficient in swiftly clearing the streets of anyone considered remotely undesirable?".

I can see why there might be a direct correlation between an unequal society and prison populations. However, in the case of Singapore I am wondering whether part of the reason for the relatively high figures you have quoted are more to do with the fact that the Singaporean authorities are more likely to impose a custodial sentence for "lesser offences" - e.g. vandalism - in situations where we might impose a fine, community service, or even simply a caution. I am not sure what the situation is now, but I recall a taxi-driver in Singapore telling us that he was not allowed to discuss politics with us because it could land him a prison sentence (this was two years ago). Whether or not there was any truth in that statement I wouldn't know, but he seemed pretty cautious with us and there was a sense that he was not speaking freely. Another point which might be relevant is the fact the Singaporean Judicial System has some very different aspects to the way they deal with criminal cases. For example, there is no trial by jury which means that a case and the administration of a sentence are decided by (case hardened and hence, possibly, prejudiced) judges. Moreover, the Singaporean Government rarely provides any form of legal assistance (and where they do, this is usually limited to cases where capital punishment may be an issue).

Very interesting stuff though DC.

[Ladymuck]

PS: @ DC

Did you ever read The Spirit Level?

[Huguenot]

Prison population here is comparatively high - and terrible places they are too. I think the Singaporeans are probably keener on punishment rather than rehabilitation.

To pick up on expat's question I was talking specifically about economic welfare, as opposed to healthcare and education. Ecuation and healthcare are both exceptional in Singapore.

The WHO rates Singapore as 6th in the world, where the UK sits at eighteenth.

The government subsidises healthcare much like the NHS in the UK, although the primary point of difference is that subsidies may be income linked, and patients have the freedom to uprate the quality of their care (think 5 star hotels and butlers). The government also regulates the supply and prices of services.

For unemployed people in government housing, healthcare is free.

I think DJKQ may be thinking along far too rigid lines about the definition of 'family and friends' for economic welfare. The family unit extends itself far out from blood relations, often to encompass entire local communities (known in an earlier age as kampongs, but now not entirely dissimilar to the arrayed council tower blocks that in the UK created fractured societies).

This means that local communities are often politically very influential for their members. There's both upsides and downsides to that.

Economic welfare is considered a community concern, not a state one. The social pressure that this creates is sufficient to provide the checks and balances that an anonymous system like the UK fails to provide.

In times of crisis, the government may well subsidise job creation - meaning that effectively a degree of economic welfare is controlled by the state. However, the system ensures that those receiving the benefit have to be working, and hence by definition deliver economic value back to society.

[Ladymuck]

Thanks for that Huguenot...you have your uses being in Singapore!

Returning to the issue of prison populations (sorry, but I suddenly have this thirst for finding out more :-S), I just couldn't resist doing some googling.

I came across this graph (which incidentally backs up what DC was saying). It goes some way to showing a link between imprisonment and income inequality (though in the case of Singapore, I still think there may be other factors at play).

http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/images/imprisonment.gif

[Huguenot]

It's also possible that 'income inequality' is too rigid a measurement. One consequence of SGs education and housing policies is that income inequality doesn't necessarily translate to a poor standard of living or limited opportunity.

The large number of jailbirds may also be related to the very high number of migrant workers or the harshness of penalties.

A recent UK visitor had to pay around ?60,000 in fines for damage to public property on a drunken night out that would have warranted a ?500 fine in the UK. He had to remortgage his UK property to pay it off, or face very lengthy spell in a local cell. That wasn't a crime of economic inequality, it was simply brutal.

[Huguenot]

Yeah, just had a look at this. The assumption in the graph seems to be that inequality leads to crime, and crime can be measured by prison population.

In fact Singapore definitely does have very low crime rates, often the best in the developed world, it's the punishments that are harsh.

I was wrong on foreign workers. Only 20% of SG prisoners are foreign. A figure dwarfed by most European countries.

[Ladymuck]

Ah ha! Just what I suspected all along! Thank you for that.

Add to that the fact that there is very little in the way of legal aid/representation and both case and sentence are decided by judges (as opposed to an impartial jury), then it becomes clear as to why so many defendants, who in another country might have escaped with a non-custodial sentence, end up in Singaporean cells.

[DJKillaQueen]

This is a very interesting discussion.

This means that local communities are often politically very influential for their members. There's both upsides and downsides to that.

I guess a comparison would be a residents Association for example which works to create a community, to not only help residents personally...but lobby on other issues. We definitely need more of those in the UK. But to have them you also need people prepared to run them and organise everything (in their free time). I'll be honest and say (as a TA organiser) that it is like pulling teeth to get people involved. We definitely have the wrong attitude to 'community'. We could learn a lot form Singapore in that respect it seems.

[Ladymuck]

Did anyone manage to watch Monday's programme Unequal Opportunities With John Humphrys on the attainment gap in education between wealthy/poorer pupils?

[Huguenot]

Possibly DGKQ, although community groups here don't lobby externally because they're looking in not out.

There's effectively nothing to lobby for, because there's no government investment to be redirected.

The political influence it wields is inside the community. Community leaders exert a very strong influence on the people in a way that we as Brits might find a bit suspect. Favours and benefits in kind etc.

[DJKillaQueen]

That's certainly true of some community leadership, but there are others that are almost politicians and social services combined in the work they do for their local community. The only thing I would say is that far to many people in the UK think it is for others to make things happen or improve things for them - rather than getting directly involved themselves and I'm guessing in Singapore the opposite is true.

Yes I did watch the programme LM. It was spot on in it's analysis, but that is not a recent phenomenon. It has always been the case that (for most children) how well you do in life is mostly determined by how wealthy your parents are.

Two things interested me from the programme - the first being that the gap between independent and state schools in the UK is the largest gap in the world. Now that might be because our public school system is one of the best in the world but even still, the state school system should not be as far behind as it is.

The other thing was the measure of a childs cognitive developement by three years of age. That children from wealthier families are usually a year or more ahead by the age of three and that gap widens as they move through the school system. It seems clear to me that we need a state funded pre-school sysem to close that gap for children from poorer backgrounds. I think Sweden already has something like that.

I don't know enough about prer-school nursery or the state school curriculum or teaching methods to be able to say what is wrong or would work better on that level, but clearly something is missing that should on paper be reletively easy to change. The other factor of course is class sizes and retention of teaching staff. No child should be in a class of 35 pupils - that's just ridiculous. All the evidence shows that smaller class sizes benefit pupils more. And it also can't be right that some classes find they are given new teachers every three months because a school can't retain staff.

A child only gets one shot at education. How long must they pay for the incompetance of the adults that provide that it.

[Huguenot]

I agree that children need something better, but I'm not sure how narrow the 'incompetence of the adults that provide it' should be defined.

It is not my belief that the challenges in state education can be laid at the feet of the teaching profession or the national curriculum.

I think the British have reached a crisis of culture where meritocratic values of education, of self advancement, of hard work and application have been replaced by a simmering resentment that someone else is to blame for whatever perceived grievance we've generated this time.

We think politicians are liars, GPs are scoundrels, lawyers are liars, journalists are muckrakers, priests are paedophiles and accountants are cheats.

Most of all we think teachers are lazy, stupid and incompotent. We blame them because they can't control parents' bad driving. We come out with proverbs like 'those who can do, those who can't, teach'. We abuse them, teach our kids to abuse them. We push burgers through fences when schools try and improve our children's diets.

The only thing we admire is a pointless ten minutes of TV celebrity.

This means that we're teaching our kids that school is worthless and academic success has no value.

If we want to improve our education facilities we need to change our entire cultural ambition. I don't imagine this is going to happen without several decades and a major catastrophe.

In the short term I'm really glad that massive TV shows of the 21st century also include those like Numb3rs, CSI and House that celebrate academic success.

[Brendan]

Oh well, people are cunts.

Go figure.

[Ladymuck]

I am attempting to post the link for BBC iplayer Unequal Opportunities With John Humphrys, but seem unable to do this (message coming up with "install Adobe Flash Player"). I don't suppose someone else could do it please? It might be helpful for those who missed the programme/didn't record it, but wouldn't mind now viewing it?

[DJKillaQueen]

But there clearly ARE things wrong with class sizes of 35 or more children H and there clearly IS something wrong with a curriculum that delivers so many illiterate children. Other European countires do better than us on this. The evidence of this is blatent for all to see and to dismiss any criticism of the state school system and it's curriculum and teaching methods as invalid is nonsense.

I'll give you an example of something else that goes on. I have one friend who teaches in a college for 16 years olds upwards. He is given pupils whose only motivation for being there is the money they get from the state for going. They are never going to pass the course they are on but he still has to try and teach them. The consequence is that those who do want to learn suffer because of the disruption caused by those that don't.

From the college itself...he has been told that he must pass everyone that stays the course because the college needs the funding it gets for every pupil that passes. So worse than that you have young people with qualifications they haven't earned presenting themselves to employers, only for employers to find thay aren't qualified at all if they employ them. THAT is prevalent in the UK. THAT is a failed education system, create by the politicians and the teachers that enforce it. It fails pupils and it fails employers.

Of course there has been a culture shift too which has made teaching harder. Discipline and the ability of teachers to discipline has fallen apart (something the new coalition aer seeking to address). But enough better off children still do so well (in schools that use traditional teaching methods incidently) as to make the gap unnacceptable.

The link for the programme is;

Unequal Opportunities with John Humphries - iplayer

[Ladymuck]

Thanks for providing the link DJKQ.

[Ladymuck]

YES YES AND YES!!!!

Ed Miliband is in!

[Marmora Man]

YES YES AND YES!!!!

Ed Miliband is in!

As the actress said to the bishop!

Bet you he won't ever be a Prime Minister.

[MitchK]

I see he mentioned equality in his victory speech, Ladymuck. You must be delighted then. Fortunately the non-urban English middle-classes, i.e. the backbone of this country, will never vote for this man.

[Ladymuck]

Marmora Man Wrote:

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

> YES YES AND YES!!!!

>

> Ed Miliband is in!

>

> As the actress said to the bishop!

>

> Bet you he won't ever be a Prime Minister.

That's very funny MM! And...erm...we shall just have to see...;-)

[Ladymuck]

MitchK Wrote:

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

> I see he mentioned equality in his victory speech,

> Ladymuck. You must be delighted then. Fortunately

> the non-urban English middle-classes, i.e. the

> backbone of this country, will never vote for this

> man.

*flares nostrils*

I am part of this backbone. And I will vote for this man!

And yes, ecstatic! Thank you for caring.

[H.J.Vis]

Did anyone recorded Monday's programme Unequal Opportunities with John Humphrys? Last monday in zapped right into the middle of this program. It was impressing. I like to see the whole program but that isn't possible abroad via I-player. If there's anyone who recorded it and can put it on a DVD, I would be very very happy. I like to watch this program with some of my colleagues (I'm a teacher). Naturely I pay any costs.

I hope you can help me or foreward this request to someone who can.

Thank you,

Hendrik Jan Vis

The Netherlands

[Ridgley]

(tu)We shall see,what Ed does for the Labour party he seems more to the left and has an understanding for the working class voters, as this is what the party was original all about it. Under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown the Labour Party had become too Tory and the voters could not tell the difference between the two parties, only time will tell if things will change.

[Ladymuck]

"Non-essential" education schemes face cuts to fund premium for poor pupils

Given the importance of education and equality of opportunity, I think this is a good idea in principle. Not sure how much thought has gone into the proposal though. Would also be interested in seeing what constitutes "non essential" schemes.