Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

CrashedOutAndBurned

Clegg To Throw Money At Stupid Parent Problem

Recommended Posts

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE69D6EG20101015

(Reuters) - The government plans to set aside 7 billion pounds to help educate poorer children, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said on Friday, in advance of a review next week detailing funding cuts.

The announcement was a boost for Clegg after the Lib Dems reluctantly backed proposals to remove a ceiling on fees universities can charge students, despite the fact that they had campaigned in the May election to abolish the fees altogether.

A decision to cut child benefits for about one million higher-earning families has also been criticised partly because it broke pre-election pledges.

Clegg said he regretted changing his policy on tuition fees, but that the government had no choice, given the scale of cuts needed to reduce a record peacetime budget deficit.

"We will not balance the books on the backs of the poor," he said in a speech. "But nor will we balance the books by scaling back our moral obligations to do more to help the next generation to determine their own lives, rather than have their lives determined for them by the circumstance of their birth."

Next Wednesday's spending review will provide an extra 7 billion pounds over four years to help educate poorer children aged between two and 20, he added.

Schools are funded like never before - sprawling labs full of new Dells or iMacs, pointless interactive whiteboards everywhere, gloss and glitz. Crap teaching and crapper parents are the problems.

I know some 'starving artist' parents - not a penny to rub together but their kids have education coming out of their ears. So how does money really help?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What kids need is books at home.

Oh hang on nulabour did a book scheme -

What kids need is internet at home

Oh hang on nulabour did a home computer scheme

What kids need is parents who give a sk^t

Oh hang on nulabour did a lot of sh&t...

hmmm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LibDems reeling from crisis to crisis and broken promise to broken promise produce their latest bribe soon to be reneged on.

If the crisis is so much worse than expected that they have to break solemn promises then explain to the UK people the reasons why it's worse and not just the usual rubbish and lies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick Clegg says he wants to throw money at 'poor' parents.

Nowhere in the Telegraph article can I find any definition about what is a 'poor' parent.

This is worrying, because as we have seen here, someone with a nominal income of zero, can actually have more income and benefits in kind, than someone on £35 grand a year if you take out the tax the 'rich' person has to pay.

I am also disturbed by the effect that this is going to have on the 'poverty trap'. IDS wants to simplify the system, so that work pays. The biggest enemy of such a sensible idea, is stupid patch on benefits such as this one. You are almost certain to get a situation where if you earn a pound more, then your kid loses out on their share of the seven billion of benefits.

It isnt joined up government, it is just crass stupidity. The amount of 'educational benefit' available to each child in the state education sector should be roughly equal. No special help for anyone, and that includes free school meals and school trips, just get rid of it all. And then build a simple system based around a citizens income and special benefits for those really in need physically and mentally, so that the more you earn, the more you really earn.

And I can see what they mean by children being handicapped by 'challenged parents'. It seems one such 'challenged parent' is unable to play a team game in government, and wants to make a name for himself at the expense of society at large.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't sound too terrible to me - it all depends how they spend it. Subsidising HE for poorer kids (i.e. a scholarship fund) seems sensible. There is a problem with how you help bog-standard kids from shite backgrounds in infant, primary and secondary education, but conflating the two issues is not correct IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick Clegg says he wants to throw money at 'poor' parents.

Nowhere in the Telegraph article can I find any definition about what is a 'poor' parent.

This is worrying, because as we have seen here, someone with a nominal income of zero, can actually have more income and benefits in kind, than someone on £35 grand a year if you take out the tax the 'rich' person has to pay.

I am also disturbed by the effect that this is going to have on the 'poverty trap'. IDS wants to simplify the system, so that work pays. The biggest enemy of such a sensible idea, is stupid patch on benefits such as this one. You are almost certain to get a situation where if you earn a pound more, then your kid loses out on their share of the seven billion of benefits.

It isnt joined up government, it is just crass stupidity. The amount of 'educational benefit' available to each child in the state education sector should be roughly equal. No special help for anyone, and that includes free school meals and school trips, just get rid of it all. And then build a simple system based around a citizens income and special benefits for those really in need physically and mentally, so that the more you earn, the more you really earn.

And I can see what they mean by children being handicapped by 'challenged parents'. It seems one such 'challenged parent' is unable to play a team game in government, and wants to make a name for himself at the expense of society at large.

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Radio 5 Live interview this morning had some self proclaimed expert on. She was saying that they needed money for 'poverty' children so they can have the same clothes as others.

Right, so a child is in poverty if they don't have the same clothes as others. Nikes, Reeboks, designer labels eh. If you don't have them you are in poverty. They are p*ssing my taxes up the wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard something else about this since. It seems that the money is to be targeted specifically at education, not for throwing at parents or fashionable clothes. Doesn't mean it won't be a disaster, but let's not get carried away.

Here's a suggestion for how best to spend it. Set it all aside for higher education grants. Make university education a reasonable aspiration for poorer parents of bright kids.

If and when you figure out how to spend money to cure sh1te parents, please feel free to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE69D6EG20101015

Schools are funded like never before - sprawling labs full of new Dells or iMacs, pointless interactive whiteboards everywhere, gloss and glitz. Crap teaching and crapper parents are the problems.

I know some 'starving artist' parents - not a penny to rub together but their kids have education coming out of their ears. So how does money really help?

you can give them all the flashy gadgets they like,but if the curriculum and the people teaching it are substandard then you still produce garbage.

...and it doesn't really matter how early you start to teach them garbage.....they could take all the babies from the maternity unit and still churn out crap 18 years later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Subsidising HE for poorer kids (i.e. a scholarship fund) seems sensible. There is a problem with how you help bog-standard kids from shite backgrounds in infant, primary and secondary education, but conflating the two issues is not correct IMHO.

they used to have soomething like this with the bursary/government assisted place schemes for poor kids who were smart enough to pass entrance exams at some of the private ones....they'd be better re-instating that.

...and also adopting something similar to the aussie's "tiered" system of degrees.

where those doing the hard stuff like science pay just a little bit.

..and those doing a masters in waste management+dance pay considerably more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Radio 5 Live interview this morning had some self proclaimed expert on. She was saying that they needed money for 'poverty' children so they can have the same clothes as others.

Right, so a child is in poverty if they don't have the same clothes as others. Nikes, Reeboks, designer labels eh. If you don't have them you are in poverty. They are p*ssing my taxes up the wall.

Correct, what we need to see is all the celeb's going out in their tesco jeans and Sainsburys trainers all topped off with some stuff from Lidl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct, what we need to see is all the celeb's going out in their tesco jeans and Sainsburys trainers all topped off with some stuff from Lidl.

Sartorial elegance indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the poorest parents are the best parents...why would the amount of money you have have anything to do with how good a parent you are....believe me some of the rich parents never have the time to give their kids positive attention and grounding, their kids are given no boundaries and are thrown material things to help overcome their guilt feelings....kids need love, attention, guidance and to feel safe and protected, you don't require money for that. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like the Child Benefit cuts are going to go towards Teachers and School Staff Benefits.

Cuts to reduce the deficit, pah.

They are leading the UK people and taxpayers up the garden path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 140 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.