Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
interestrateripoff

Born Poor, Stay Poor: The Scandal Of Social Immobility

Recommended Posts

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/born-poor-stay-poor-the-scandal-of-social-immobility-7771336.html

There is a "stark gap" between the life chances of the poorest and the better-off in Britain, the Government will admit today, as it publishes alarming research that reveals how wide that gulf is.

The study, to be unveiled by Nick Clegg, shows that:

l One child in five is on free school meals, but only one in 100 Oxbridge entrants is.

l Only 7 per cent of children attend private schools, but these schools provide 70 per cent of High Court judges and 54 per cent of FTSE 100 chief executives.

l One in five children from poorer homes achieves five good GCSEs, compared with three out of four from affluent homes.

I mean who would have thought this!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good policies for tackling this would be to make the poor poorer (regional pay, unpaid labour etc), the rich richer (tax cuts for top earners) and make university more expensive. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good policies for tackling this would be to make the poor poorer (regional pay, unpaid labour etc), the rich richer (tax cuts for top earners) and make university more expensive. :blink:

Yep, but it's good to get one of these hand-wringing reports out every once in a while to show how "in touch" you are.

Or so my advisors tell me.

Edited by What's'isname

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good policies for tackling this would be to make the poor poorer (regional pay, unpaid labour etc), the rich richer (tax cuts for top earners) and make university more expensive. :blink:

scrap good state academic schools that can help intelligent kids from poorer homes, oh we did that 40 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good policies for tackling this would be to make the poor poorer (regional pay, unpaid labour etc), the rich richer (tax cuts for top earners) and make university more expensive. :blink:

Written like a true Guardian reader. Non-regional pay is nothing but a big, fat subsidy for the middle class at the expense of the poor. Free university education is, again, nothing but a big, fat subsidy for the middle class at the expense of the poor. How much could VAT and council taxes (taxes that disproportionately hit the poor) be cut if you got rid of Labour's middle class benefits?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Written like a true Guardian reader.

The irony being that the typical Guardian reader will lie and cheat his kids into the best schools, and give them private tutoring to ensure their kids get the few top public sector jobs that will be going in the future. They will then cry foul at the poor not getting jobs, when they have done their best to get their kids the unfair advantage to ensure the poor have absolutely no chance.

Edited by crashmonitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a brief period after the war when social mobility was built into the fabric of society as the 'grammars' gradually took the levers of power. All reversed by short sighted Labour policies that had an unintended consequence of suddenly making even Labour leaders mandatorily Private School educated.

Grammars as they were won't come back. They seem too unfair and are not democratically friendly.

However, I propose they do bring them back in a re-constructed form - make 70% of all school kids attend 'grammars'... with streaming. The rest to go to specialist schools whether for their special needs, mildly disruptive behaviour or vocational...their needs are not being met by the current set up either.

The answer does not lie in reducing standards for certain groups. That is the route to the madhouse.

+1.5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The irony being that the typical Guardian reader will lie and cheat his kids into the best schools, and give them private tutoring to ensure their kids get the few top public sector jobs that will be going in the future. They will then cry foul at the poor not getting jobs, when they have done their best to get their kids the unfair advantage to ensure the poor have absolutely no chance.

Has the Guardian ever, EVER?, had an editor who was not privately educated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.independe...ty-7771336.html

I mean who would have thought this!

if the amount of benefits would be dependent on the children school results UK underclass would start collecting more Nobel prizes than the rest of the world

as far as I know libraries are free of charge but you will have difficulties to spot underclass children in this type of promises ....

Edited by Damik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a brief period after the war when social mobility was built into the fabric of society as the 'grammars' gradually took the levers of power. All reversed by short sighted Labour policies that had an unintended consequence of suddenly making even Labour leaders mandatorily Private School educated.

Grammars as they were won't come back. They seem too unfair and are not democratically friendly.

However, I propose they do bring them back in a re-constructed form - make 70% of all school kids attend 'grammars'... with streaming. The rest to go to specialist schools whether for their special needs, mildly disruptive behaviour or vocational...their needs are not being met by the current set up either.

The answer does not lie in reducing standards for certain groups. That is the route to the madhouse.

It depends on what type of social mobility you want.

Old-style grammar schools were quite good at helping a small number of the children of slightly-above-average income families compete for Oxbridge places & suchlike with the children of the rich. But they were hopelessly bad at helping the children of low income families progress to average incomes or better.

I personally favour [as you say] big, well funded, comprehensives with lots of streaming. And quite possibly better non-academic options for the least able.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if the amount of benefits would be dependent on the children school results UK underclass would start collecting more Nobel prizes than the rest of the world

as far as I know libraries are free of charge but you will have difficulties to spot underclass children in this type of promises ....

Yeah, like you've ever been in one..

Tell me, why are they free again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maggie Thatcher Milk Snatcher. Hated her when I was a kid, growing up in the 80s. Single parent family, not a lot of money.

I went from a comprehensive to a red-brick university, Thatcher's government not only paid my tuitition but gave me a full grant of about £4000 a year, without which i would never have gone. That is social mobility. Labour killed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends on what type of social mobility you want.

Old-style grammar schools were quite good at helping a small number of the children of slightly-above-average income families compete for Oxbridge places & suchlike with the children of the rich. But they were hopelessly bad at helping the children of low income families progress to average incomes or better.

I personally favour [as you say] big, well funded, comprehensives with lots of streaming. And quite possibly better non-academic options for the least able.

I went to an old style state grammar school. It was not solely the preserve of 'the children of slightly-above-average income families'. I had classmates who came from childrens homes, middle class families, well off, very poor, the whole range except for the rich, who made their own arrangements as they do now. My school was destroyed by the socialists in 1975. I have hated the b'stards ever since. Why did they do it? To keep the children of their core voters, the uneducated urban working class, poor ignorant and in their place. Scum, utter scum, the lot of them from Wilson through to Milliband. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has the Guardian ever, EVER?, had an editor who was not privately educated?

Precisely, lefties will try and buy an unfair advantage for their kids through education (if it stae education that will mean coaching and lying your way into a catchment area) Tories through money. Either way the culture of both the left and right will damn the kids of the poor.

Those that pretend to be concerned are those that ensure there is no level playing field. If you buy advantage for your kids (Diane Abbott) you are buying the disadvantage of another.

Edited by crashmonitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maggie Thatcher Milk Snatcher. Hated her when I was a kid, growing up in the 80s. Single parent family, not a lot of money.

I went from a comprehensive to a red-brick university, Thatcher's government not only paid my tuitition but gave me a full grant of about £4000 a year, without which i would never have gone. That is social mobility. Labour killed it.

Grants were in the process of being phased out well before Tony's modernisation party came into power. But yes whether it was intentional or not, Social Mobility died under Labour. Tuition fees and Iraq on their own warrant political wilderness, pity the current lot are bending over backwards to ensure Labour get back in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Old-style grammar schools were quite good at helping a small number of the children of slightly-above-average income families compete for Oxbridge places & suchlike with the children of the rich. But they were hopelessly bad at helping the children of low income families progress to average incomes or better.

I don't believe this for a second. My 1920s-born grandfather was pure working class, he worked on fishing boats and the railways, lived in a council house and never had a car. My father passed his 11 plus and went to grammar school where they specifically taught kids like him how not to speak with their broad Lancashire accent so that it would not hold them back in life. He went to a Russell Group university and got a STEM degree which launched him into a well-paid professional career.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has the Guardian ever, EVER?, had an editor who was not privately educated?

I think one snuck in before their Grammar School got shut.

Edit bad syntax.

Edited by PopGun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went to an old style state grammar school. It was not solely the preserve of 'the children of slightly-above-average income families'. I had classmates who came from childrens homes, middle class families, well off, very poor, the whole range except for the rich, who made their own arrangements as they do now. My school was destroyed by the socialists in 1975. I have hated the b'stards ever since. Why did they do it? To keep the children of their core voters, the uneducated urban working class, poor ignorant and in their place. Scum, utter scum, the lot of them from Wilson through to Milliband. .

I went to one for one year (aged 11), before the family moved house to a comprehensivised area.

Academically it was a lot better than the comprehensive: one or two teachers there did some interesting things that motivated me to start learning at age 11-12, compared to just coasting and getting bored and complacent from 12-18. But socially it was a nightmare: everyone known by our surnames, bullying rife (with Yours Truly on the wrong end).

Good or bad? I think it would be pointless to generalise from your experience or mine. The thing that rings true is when you tell us they destroyed what was once good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe this for a second. My 1920s-born grandfather was pure working class, he worked on fishing boats and the railways, lived in a council house and never had a car. My father passed his 11 plus and went to grammar school where they specifically taught kids like him how not to speak with their broad Lancashire accent so that it would not hold them back in life. He went to a Russell Group university and got a STEM degree which launched him into a well-paid professional career.

i don't think the evidence backs that up.

but happy to trade anecdotes.

my father seems a fairly bright chap to me. he's excellent at pub quizzes and so on. he's logical, good at, for example, getting to the bottom of why an electrical appliance isn't working. he can understand and enjoy fairly serious novels. but he's done unskilled work all his life, mostly due to having left school at 14 [and put on a really rubbish apprenticeship by his parents] & then having had financial commitments [i.e. me & my siblings] too young to enable him to retrain. he told me that he wanted to sit the 11+, having always done quite well at primary school, but his [completely uneducated, dirt poor, farm labourer - I suppose these days they'd be 'long term unemployed'] parents wouldn't allow it since they'd not done anything like that, nor had any of his elder siblings, etc. so he went to a secondary modern, with predictable results.

i have first hand experience of the 11+ being a similar barrier to the poor today in areas where it still exists, such as Kent & various other towns including plymouth, i.e. poor kids not being encouraged [plenty of encouragement is needed to compete against the kids of richer families who are paying for private tuition] or even allowed to take it.

so anyway, aged 10 i was about as poor as my dad had been at the same age. but i went to a big [8-form entry] comprehensive. we did exams at the end of the first year after which we were streamed into 9 classes, for all subjects, top to bottom. having a whole year studying new material, getting the same standard of teaching, alongside a social mix of kids my background wasn't really a disadvantage at all. i was able to to go to a russell group university, get a graduate job with a big 4 accountancy firm, didn't push myself as hard as some in my career after that, but have moved up quite a few socio-economic notches. i am not at all sure that i'd have done the same at a secondary modern [as it happens i personally would have been able to go to a grammar because, although poor, my dad would probably have pushed me towards the 11+, but i mean someone with my genes but a less enlightened family ].

Edited by the flying pig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I attended a Grammar school which subsequently changed to a comprehensive as I entred the 4th year.

The drop in standards over a year was shocking.

Coming from a working class background a Grammar school represented an opportunity to get a quality of education something akin to the public school.

In the name of equality we now have mass mediocrity with the public school charging £3k per term.

So we have created an even more impenetreble elite by taking away the chances for the working class.

Ann Widdecombe famously debated the Grammar school abolition - she said that when they can demonstate the alterative is excellence for all she would agree with their abolition - until then it is better to offer opportunity to some regardless of income than none at all.

The supreme irony in scrapping Gramar schools is that the Labour party did it in the name of the working class.

Still their kids still go to selective schools - ask Tony Blair or Diane Abbot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't think the evidence backs that up.

but happy to trade anecdotes.

my father seems a fairly bright chap to me. he's excellent at pub quizzes and so on. he's logical, good at, for example, getting to the bottom of why an electrical appliance isn't working. he can understand and enjoy fairly serious novels. but he's done unskilled work all his life, mostly due to having left school at 14 [and put on a really rubbish apprenticeship by his parents] & then having had financial commitments [i.e. me & my siblings] too young to enable him to retrain. he told me that he wanted to sit the 11+, having always done quite well at primary school, but his [completely uneducated, dirt poor, farm labourer] parents wouldn't allow it since they'd not done anything like that, nor had any of his elder siblings, etc. so he went to a secondary modern, with predictable results.

i have first hand experience of the 11+ being a similar barrier to the poor today in areas where it still exists, such as Kent & various other towns including plymouth, i.e. poor kids not being encouraged [plenty of encouragement is needed to compete against the kids of richer families who are paying for private tuition] or even allowed to take it.

so anyway, aged 10 i was about as poor as my dad had been at the same age. but i went to a big [8-form entry] comprehensive. we did exams at the end of the first year after which we were streamed into 9 classes, top to bottom. having a whole year studying new material, getting the same standard of teaching, alongside a social mix of kids my background wasn't really a disadvantage at all. i was able to to go to a russell group university, get a graduate job with a big 4 accountancy firm, didn't push myself as hard as some in my career after that, but have moved up quite a few socio-economic notches. i am not at all sure that i'd have done the same at a secondary modern [as it happens i personally would have been able to go to a grammar because, although poor, my dad would probably have pushed me towards the 11+, but i mean someone with my genes but a less enlightened family ].

Actually went to a sink secondary modern school myself; didn't help having parents who weren't interested in eduation, being born in August and starting school at 5 and a half because of problems accomodating the boomers. I went from special needs at 5 to first in my year by 10 in the end of year exams, but by then I had already failed the 11 + and the secondary modern awaited . By the time I was 15 I got more O levels than just about everybody that went to the grammar school and went on to a professional job, also in accountancy. So not surprisingly I have a rather anti-education chip on my shoulder.

Edited by crashmonitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like one pithy liners:

"The Stone Age didn't end because we ran out of stones" - Sheikh Zaki Yamani, former Saudi oil minister

"The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" - Margaret Thatcher

"The problem with 21st Century Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's unborn children's money" - Me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're never going to get 'equality' until the state literally snatches babies from the womb - preferably from contraception, just to make sure the mum cant give the baby FAS or something (and of course a 100% IHT rate as well). I know this might be mandelbums wet dream (amongst other wet dreams), but its not something id want to see.

Complete equality cannot be achieved without a complete removal of freedom.

Personally id rather live in a rented hovel and scrimp and scrounge for part time work than have taken away even more freedom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 221 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.