The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[Bruce Wayne]

My understanding (and I could have got this wrong) is that the majority of cases of malnutrition are discovered on admittance to hospital for reasons other than nutrition.

On the issue of teachers / hungry kids I have known and do know of teachers who are regularly approached for money by desperate mothers & who give a fiver. They would be absolutely mortified if their charity was publicly spoken of.

Most schools will have a very clear policy of who does what / when where cases of extreme hardship are suspected.

Of course, that's quite probably the case. The NHS page on the topic suggests as many as 1/3 of all hospital admissions see patients with malnutrition

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Malnutrition/Pages/Introduction.aspx

So it's gone from a few thousand to probably tens of millions. Easy to see why it's so hard to get to the bottom of this when there appears to be such divergence in who is poor, what poor means etc.

 

[The Esk]

Is the money not simply the most visible, and of course, measurable aspect of the equation though?

What does that mean Bruce?

What we all know is that your life chances in the UK as a child are largely determined by the financial circumstances of your parents. That is wrong and inequitable. We should be striving for a society that regardless of their parents' circumstances children have as equal as possible chances to succeed in life.

Largely speaking the quality of education available to a child is determined by the location of their childhood. That location is largely determined by the parents' financial circumstances. This is in my opinion the primary driver in the growth in inequality throughout the UK.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

What does that mean Bruce?

What we all know is that your life chances in the UK as a child are largely determined by the financial circumstances of your parents. That is wrong and inequitable. We should be striving for a society that regardless of their parents' circumstances children have as equal as possible chances to succeed in life.

Largely speaking the quality of education available to a child is determined by the location of their childhood. That location is largely determined by the parents' financial circumstances. This is in my opinion the primary driver in the growth in inequality throughout the UK.

That the money may be the most visible, and most easily measurable, thing, but it may not be what really contributes to a child succeeding. Wealth is the outcome of a certain way of life, and it's that way of life that is important, not the money.

To give you an example. I get the sense from you that you value education and the importance of working hard in whatever you do in life, and that has probably contributed enormously to your current success. If you lost all of your money tomorrow (I'd be happy to help if you wanted to try this out for real btw ), then I'd imagine those characteristics you hold dear in life would still be passed on to your children, and I'd imagine they would have a good chance of doing well in life even though you're not very well off.

Contrast that with someone that doesn't value education at all and is happy to drift through life without trying. They win the lottery tomorrow and are financially rich beyond their wildest dreams. They have none of the characteristics mentioned above, and I wouldn't be anywhere near as confident that their child would do well.

I think focusing on wealth is looking in the wrong place. We should look instead at what causes the wealth.

 

[lightingman]

I keep seeing this line, but no one can explain why they would be more dangerous than a party which has just overseen the grossest of moral turpitude in regards to the suffering inflicted on the poor and vulnerable living in 2015 Great Britain. A party which is prepared to allow the electorate to vote us out of the European Market and as a consequence hit manufacturing and export harder than they'll ever have been hit before. A party who thinks that 'We're all in it together' means if you're rich we'll help you get richer and if you're poor we'll leave you behind. A party who are caving in to UKIPs ideology on immigration and as a result contributing to the division of communities as we all look at each other with suspicion and envy. A party who are looking to put profit before patients in the NHS. A party who are going about the social cleansing of long established communities to get their grubby little mitts on property. A party who treat the disabled as though they are a drain on society.

I could go on. Please can someone, anyone tell me why the two Eds aren't capable of serving the people of this country without being more dangerous than the last lot.

Fastest growing economy in Europe, record low inflation rate, unemployment at lowest rate since 2008 keep minimum wage earnings out of tax, 30 hours free childcare a week for 3-4 year olds etc etc

I hear you and i'm not a conservative voter, but there is real tangible evidence that things are improving from the incumbents after inheriting one of the worst economic positions that Britain and the world has ever faced - which should not be underestimated. I also am a believer that the NHS would fall apart without private companies involvements, people seem to think this would be a new thing, it's not, private companies have been working to help make the NHS better for as long as we've had an NHS, as long as it's free for the people of this country and the private companies are not grossly profiteering, then what on earth is the problem? Too much of this sort of stuff is over hyped and published by opposing politcal parties to score points. Who do people think have been supplying the beds and syringes?

I see the shameful list of Duncan Smith failings and i wonder if someone would care to list the innocent people who have been murdered and the fall out from Labours illegal Iraq war and what is has led to and cost Britain?

Until Labour publish their plans for cutting public spending, how much and where it will come from, i simply cannot even consider voting for them.
I also think Ed's attack on Cameron over the migrant situation in the Med is of poor taste and won't do him any favours.

I won't vote Conservative, although i can see why some would be tempting or swayed and i can't vote Labour as i wouldn't know what i'm voting for.

 

[lightingman]

There is loads in their (Greens) manifesto I agree with but there is also plenty of pie in the sky stuff. Far to much fantasy for me to consider them a serious alternative. I dont agree with everything Labour stand for, they even under red Ed are still too right wing but I have seen a genuine shift back to the left which gives me hope.

David Miliband was far to closely linked to Blair and Iraq. I was delighted he lost the leadership bid. I understand the aprehension around Ed Miliband but I've seen enough to genuinely believe he will be a good PM, time and again he's stood up to the establishment and fought for what is right. If he gets in to number 10 he'll be the first PM since the 1970s to have done so against the wishes of the controlling powerful mainstream media - quite something for democracy.

The Nick Clegg and Prince George are great on Newzoids to, but yeah the Osborne is excellent.

Wait, what, there is a political party i can vote for that have no pie in the sky stuff?

 

[The Esk]

I think focusing on wealth is looking in the wrong place. We should look instead at what causes the wealth.

Of course, wealth should not be the determinant of a good education which then leads to a good job which leads to further wealth creation, but sadly it is the key determinant in the UK, more so than in most other developed countries. This is the point I am trying to make to you, we have a system in the UK that benefits the better off, not those that actually need it more.

This system has to change, to place more resources (not less) in areas where the poor can benefit from them. By doing so you then make the shift in society which leads eventually to the equalisation of educational attainment, income and wealth opportunties regardless of parental circumstances.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Of course, wealth should not be the determinant of a good education which then leads to a good job which leads to further wealth creation, but sadly it is the key determinant in the UK, more so than in most other developed countries. This is the point I am trying to make to you, we have a system in the UK that benefits the better off, not those that actually need it more.

This system has to change, to place more resources (not less) in areas where the poor can benefit from them. By doing so you then make the shift in society which leads eventually to the equalisation of educational attainment, income and wealth opportunties regardless of parental circumstances.

I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself very well. That book you recommended (which must not be named ) for instance, it advocates certain behaviours that the authors believes are key to success in life. Lets say you started living according to that guidance, and a few years later it made you very successful. You then had a family and made sure you passed on those habits and beliefs to your children.

Given that those habits cost nothing to obtain (bar the few pounds to buy the book), would it be right therefore to attribute the success of the children to the wealth of their father rather than to the habits he had acquired which had made him wealthy?

 

[The Esk]

Given that those habits cost nothing to obtain (bar the few pounds to buy the book), would it be right therefore to attribute the success of the children to the wealth of their father rather than to the habits he had acquired which had made him wealthy?

Of course not, but we can only examine these matters in general terms and by looking at the population as a whole. There are always exceptions and of course, many more skills required to succeed in life than purely academic qualifications. However the link between opportunity and parental wealth is real and most prominent for the vast majority.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Of course not, but we can only examine these matters in general terms and by looking at the population as a whole. There are always exceptions and of course, many more skills required to succeed in life than purely academic qualifications. However the link between opportunity and parental wealth is real and most prominent for the vast majority.

I just wonder how we distinguish between the two? How can we tell it's a lack of finance that contributes to poor outcomes in life rather than poor habits?

I mean you have the well known study suggesting that kids from well off families are exposed to 30 million more words than their peers from poorer families. That study found that the vocabulary of the children was practically identical (at 3 years of age) to that of their parents.

The results showed a doubling of words from parents on welfare to working class parents, and from working class parents to professional parents. Not just the number of words differed though, but the kind of words used too, with child psychologists saying a similar relationship was found (ie professional parents best, then working class, then those on welfare).

This was just in terms of conversations they were having with their children, so it wasn't something they had to buy or anything of that nature.

The flipside of course is the issue of mental bandwidth. It's been shown that peoples intellectual capacity is reduced when they're distracted by other things, including money worries.

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S37/75/69M50/index.xml?section=topstories

"Poverty and all its related concerns require so much mental energy that the poor have less remaining brainpower to devote to other areas of life, according to research based at Princeton University. As a result, people of limited means are more likely to make mistakes and bad decisions that may be amplified by — and perpetuate — their financial woes."

Which undoubtedly adds a layer of complexity to the matter. I'm just inclined to think that unless we try and understand the root causes, all we can ever hope to achieve are sticking plaster remedies. The lack of social mobility over the last 50 years suggests we haven't found the right answer yet.

 

[COYBL25]

 

[peteblue]

There are certainly children who come into my school hungry in the mornings.

So how is it being dealt with.......

 

[Pienaar's gloves]

We weren't always comfortable but I never went to school hungry.

I appreciate sometimes the money just isn't there, but I think quite often parents are putting other things before feeding their kids - even with benefit money that is supposed to do just that.

I reckon all schools should provide breakfast, which is subsidised for all and free for those at risk of not getting any on some sort of means tested basis.

 

[Toffeelover]

Largely speaking the quality of education available to a child is determined by the location of their childhood. That location is largely determined by the parents' financial circumstances. This is in my opinion the primary driver in the growth in inequality throughout the UK.

Your points are certainly relevant factors. However think how many parents actually push their children to do well inn school. To make sure they sit down and do their home work before playing on the Xbox, PS3 or computer and leave their mobile phones alone. You seem to have ignored these factors. I know of a some cases where parents are all too ready to sit and watch the TV rather than pay attention to their children!

Another point in this is how readily do the children actually want to do well in school and knuckle down to homework before play? In other words we are talking of ambition, if a child has that in my view they will get on regardless of wealth or location.

 

[Seanjd]

The school I work in provides breakfast for every single child for free. It came about after an increasing amount of children being referred to child protection due to hunger and poor diet. Poverty exists in this country. Starvation exists in this country.

 

[Walken]

So how is it being dealt with.......

they are told to get a job and support themselves