Fantastic comment piece from the Times on the giveaway to mortgage holders

carolt

Fascinating list, but a lot of them seem to have more to do with preference than some sort of agreed 'deprivation'.
What about children who hate swimming? Or parents who both work full-time and can't have friends over for tea every couple of weeks?

They seem a bit arbitrary - what if the kid does basketball instead, or spends quality time with grandparents, say, instead?

Who on earth came up with these utterly random standards and how?

RobertoMoir

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Two things strike me about that - surely the state sector's not doing well, if so few top A level students are from their schools, given that I think more than 2/3 rds of pupils attend state schools?

There is also a cause and effect issue, here, in that it's not clear what % of state school pupils apply there and are properly prepared. That suggests, again, a problem with the schools rather than the unis.

That depends. If the private schools are 'cherry picking' the best pupils, and leaving the public sector with a few 'best of the rest', that could account for it. I don't know what sort of value added attaches to private schools, so its impossible to say really.

SingleSue

Anne3333 wrote: »

Families are classed as being in poverty if they have a level of income below 60 per cent of the median household income. For example a family with two adults and two children needs to have £346 each week in order to be above the poverty line
3.9 million children - one in three - are currently living in poverty in the UK, one of the highest rates in the industrialised world.
The material deprivation indicators used to assess child poverty are;

• Go to a playgroup at least once a week?
• Go on a school trip at least once a term?
• Have friends round for tea or a snack once a fortnight?
• Swimming at least once a month?
• Hobby or leisure activity?
• At least one week’s holiday away from home with family?
• Leisure equipment such as sports equipment or a bicycle?
• Celebrations on special occasions?
• Enough bedrooms for every child 10 years or over and of a different gender?
• Outdoor space/facilities to play?

Children are too old for the playgroup

Hmm second one is difficult...middle one went to a show in London on Tuesday but then that didn't cost anything as he goes to a high school which is denoted as a specialist Arts and Drama school, eldest is off to High School Musical in Birmingham next week which does cost (£22) but my parents are treating him. Youngest doesn't go on school trips as he stresses too much.

No friends around....ever. Home is the haven and they will not accept others in it (all to do with their autism).

Middle son (Josh) belongs to a swimming club and has done since the age of 5..they offer special reduced rates for those on benefits, we paid full whack before for all 3 boys (the other 2 stopped going)

Hmm hobbies or leisure activity - Well it doesn't cost a penny to collect bugs from the back garden (middle son wants to be a entomologist) or play the drums on some pans. Eldest (James) hobby seems to be going around to his girlfriends house at the moment but he also goes to Army cadets. Youngest (Joe) plays with his lego, cars etc and his greatest hobby is looking at all the different cars on the roads which doesn't cost anything.

We do go on holiday but it doesn't cost us anything - parents own a caravan on a holiday site and let it out to us for nothing, we don't take spending money and only use what is normally used to food and electric/gas at home.

Cycle and exercise equipment - Erm, think we have some bikes around here somewhere!

Celebrations on special occasions - No official parties anymore but we do go around to my parents house where the rest of the family drop in, music is played, balloons and banners are displayed (we now have a good stock of them!) and either myself or my mum will make a cake.

Bedrooms - We have 3 bedrooms, 3 boys and one of me although at the moment, Joe is sleeping in my room as he was spooked by his recent hospital admission.

Outdoor space - We have a huge 130ft back garden! Mind you, it is now mainly landscaped with only a small space for games like football. We do have a trampoline which was purchased on the advice of the OT to help get some stability and build strength in Joe's joints.

On reflection, a lot of the things on the list can be done with no cost or very little cost so to my mind, not a true reflection of poverty especially bearing in mind I live in social housing and I can't help the size of the garden!

kennyboy66_2

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Two things strike me about that - surely the state sector's not doing well, if so few top A level students are from their schools, given that I think more than 2/3 rds of pupils attend state schools?

There is also a cause and effect issue, here, in that it's not clear what % of state school pupils apply there and are properly prepared. That suggests, again, a problem with the schools rather than the unis.

Whilst no one would pretend that the state sector is excellent, my guess is about 12-15% of pupils are in the independent sector.

Part of the problem is that state school pupils may not apply.

The point is, if you want the best pupils (and after all this is state money we are talking about) surely you would go and look for them rather than just actively encourage your public school chums.

Even the legal profession has a better record of widening access.

A very old article

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=109531&sectioncode=26

kennyboy66_2

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

If, say, 100 people in the UK suddenly became multi-billionaires out of nowhere (discovery and ownership of some rare widget or chemical) more families would suddenly be "poor".

This is wrong.

The definition of average earnings in this case, excludes the wealthiest members of society. So it makes no difference if 100 people became fabulously wealthy.

Of course the goalposts do move in the definition of poverty, and if we where a bit more honest there would be an absolute definition of poverty and the separate one that we currently measure which is really a measure of inequality in society.

Then there is the problem of some people who are defined as poor but are asset rich.

"Some ways of measuring poverty can be misleading, however.
For example, according to the goverment's Households Below Average Incomes Survey, more than half the people defined as in poverty are homeowners but many of these are pensioners who are asset rich but income poor.
Can an elderly person living on 60% of average income but with a very valuable property and no mortgage be considered poor?" - BBC quote

In Joseph Rowntree's time people who were poor would be gaunt and struggle to find eneough to eat.

Today they are often obese and have type 2 diabetes.

kennyboy66_2

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Who knows? I don't think it's much of a benchmark. If people of Asian descent account for, say, 5% of the British population, and therefore 1 in 20 people, and the average Prime Minister is PM for 10 years, you'd expect to have an Asian PM only once in every 2 centuries.

Britain has a PM of Jewish origin 140 years ago, and a woman PM 30 years ago, so it's ahead in many respects.

In 20th Century there were 19 PM's so really it should be closer to 5 years term not 10 years (Thatcher & Blair were exceptions really).

I wonder if Disreali would have been PM if he had not been baptised as an Anglican.
We haven't even had a Catholic PM yet & no doubt Neil Kinnocks obvious "welshness" put a fair few voters off (as well as Anne Robinson of course)

There are a mere 15 MP's who are classed as ethnic minority (although this excludes MP's who are Jewish - don't ask me why). So 2.3%.

"Ahead in many respects ?". Pfft

neverdespairgirl

kennyboy66 wrote: »

We haven't even had a Catholic PM yet & no doubt Neil Kinnocks obvious "welshness" put a fair few voters off (as well as Anne Robinson of course)

There are a mere 15 MP's who are classed as ethnic minority (although this excludes MP's who are Jewish - don't ask me why). So 2.3%.

"Ahead in many respects ?". Pfft

I don't know about the Welsh-ness, but we did have David Lloyd George.

2.3% sounds reasonable, bearing in mind that many immigrants are very recent (last 10 - 15 years).

DirectDebacle

Quote:
Is the gap between 'rich' and 'poor' widening?

It most certainly is and the chasm is engulfing the most vulnerable members of our society! The number of UK children living in poverty has in fact increased an additional 100,000 since last year. Shame on a government that touts a target of halving the number of children living in poverty by 2010.

Easily achieved by simply altering the their definition of poverty. Figure massaging is a favourite tool for Govts. As the old saying goes, statistics don't lie but liars use statistics.

Without a true definition of poverty it is impossible to determine how many poor their are.

The W.H.O. have a definition of poverty as less than $5.00 a day to live on. If H.M.G. used that then poverty has already been eradicated in this country.

I feel rather rich today, so off to the Woolies closing down sale.

DirectDebacle

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

I don't know about the Welsh-ness, but we did have David Lloyd George.

2.3% sounds reasonable, bearing in mind that many immigrants are very recent (last 10 - 15 years).

Not quite. A while back we had involuntary immigration. I think it was called slavery. Then after WW. 2. there was a massive recruitment drive for immigrants. Plane loads of people were flown in, mainly from the Carribean, to build up our workforce. All over the land you will find 2nd and 3rd generation British citizens who are the descendants of immigrants.

This section of our society is grossly underrepresented in Parliament as indeed are women.

kennyboy66_2

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

I don't know about the Welsh-ness, but we did have David Lloyd George.

2.3% sounds reasonable, bearing in mind that many immigrants are very recent (last 10 - 15 years).

And 19% of MP's being women sounds about right as well.

After all they only got the same voting rights 80 years ago.

Women - wait your turn !