Cameron’s delight: school pupils suffering ‘Victorian conditions’

[blacksunday]

Don’t you just hate it when politicians rig the statistics to show ‘facts’ that are demonstrably untrue?

According to the Conservative Party, the number of children in poverty has fallen by 300,000 under the Coalition Government – but poverty is measured as a percentage of average income; when the nation’s average income drops, poverty is said to have dropped as well, even though this is clearly untrue.

According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, “Those with less than 60 per cent of median income are classified as poor. This ‘poverty line’ is the agreed international measure used throughout the European Union.”

Here in the UK, wages have suffered their longest-sustained fall for no less than 150 years.

Average incomes in the years up to 2012. This is the most up-to-date graph I have. Source: ONS.

So no wonder the BBC and the Mirror are reporting that children are arriving at school in “Victorian squalor”. This is what the Coalition Government wants.

The BBC reported: “Claims about poverty in the school-age population will be heard at the NASUWT teachers’ union annual conference in Cardiff. The union asked members for their experiences and received almost 2,500 responses. It was not a representative sample of teachers, but among those replying more than two in three reported seeing pupils come to school hungry.

“Almost one in four of the teachers who responded said they had brought in food for pupils who were hungry, and an even higher proportion had seen the school feeding pupils.

“More than three in four had seen pupils arriving at school with “inappropriate clothing” such as no socks or coats in bad weather.

“Similar numbers claimed that a bad diet meant that pupils were unable to concentrate on their work.”

The Liberal Democrats said they had helped families by introducing free school meals for all infant children. That’s the caring side of the Coalition Government for you. Rather than sort out the underlying problems – that they created – they put a patch on it and say it’s solved.

Meanwhile, a Tory spokesman said – get this: “Because of our policies, there are more jobs than ever before, wages are rising faster than prices and with the lowest inflation on record, family budgets are starting to go further. The NASUWT should recognise how the Conservatives have rescued the economy, and through that, delivering the jobs that secure a better future for families.”

Jobs that pay far too little to make any real difference – 28 per cent of them are on insecure zero-hours contracts.

Who do these selfish toffs think they’re fooling?

We must get rid of them before they cause any more harm to our children.

voxpoliticalonline.com/2015/04/05/camerons-delight-school-pupils-suffering-victorian-conditions/

[caroldecker]

Poverty has always been measured on this (frankly bonkers) measure. Why do you think Gordon Brown played around with CTC, to get as many 'out of poverty', ie £1 a week above an imaginary line.

there are an estimated 700,000 people on zero hours contracts, about 2.8% of the working population and 68% of those say they prefer these contracts.
This leaves around 1% of people in a position they don't like, but maybe it is better than not having a job? The labour oarty has always left unemployment higher at the end of a term in office than when they started - so much for being the workers party.

[blacksunday]

Relative poverty is also important, though not as important as absolute poverty - defined as the inability to fulfil basic needs.

It seems that since average wages are now so low and so many families are struggling, that being in relative poverty will now also put you in absolute poverty.

[Queenofwands]

It's all about sanctions. People with children are being targeted for any minor infringements, and they have no money to feed their children. That's where food banks step in ( but it's difficult to get vouchers) Benefits agencies are targeted to find reason to sanction people ...those with learning difficulties or mental health issues are especially easy targets. We no longer have a welfare safety net. What is happening now is worse than what happened under Thatcher. At least she was honest, now everything is spun and the propaganda machine keeps everything under the radar. I am ashamed of our country. If you think I'm a bleeding heart, I'm not. Ask people who work with children, ask the church. Another 5 years of Cameron and we will be like America. Every man for himself and poverty tolerated.

[Fugacity]

Why is it an educational issue if children show up at school inappropriately dressed?

That is a parenting issue, and before anyone says, Tesco school uniform costs next to nothing.

I wonder how many children who go without have smoking and drinking parents.

[AuntieStella]

The BBC report says that the 'Victorian' survey was not a representative sample, but one union's call for anecdotes from its membership.

It has served to put the issue up for discussion, but isn't really giving reliable indicators about whether the situation is worsening, or improving, or how it has been over the last parliament or two.

[ooerrmissus]

I think you have written a very confused post.

You start by lamenting people who ' rig the statistics to show ‘facts’ that are demonstrably untrue' but then use an example of statistics that is quite correct- the number of children deemed to be 'in poverty' has fallen because of the way poverty is calculated. It is for this reason that the Labour party failed in their aim to 'eradicate child poverty'- because such a thing could not be done under the accepted measure.

You then go on to use a report of a non-representative sample of teachers who say they have seen children arriving at school hungry. Well, lets see now.

I can't find the membership numbers on their website but according to Wikipedia in 2013 there were 333,223 members. So that would mean just 0.75% of members responded. Of those, 'more than 2 in 3' said they had seen pupils coming to school hungry. So that's 4.9% of all members. And of course, those 4.9% may not all talking about different children. So the numbers of children actually going to school hungry could be very small indeed. Of course it could be much larger, but such a small response rate makes it very hard to tell.

You say that children are arriving at school in 'Victorian squalor', and that 'this is what the coalition wants'. I have read the original newspaper reports and nowhere does it give any kind of description of what 'Victorian squalor' is. It is an emotive term used without any substance. And where do you get the information that 'this is what the coalition wants'? It may be the result of their policies, but that is not the same thing at all.

If you want to express concern about the government policies, then fine. I am not a supporter either. But don't start on about people mis-using statistics to prove things that you happen not to agree with, unless you know something about statistics.

[mateysmum]

Yep, all tories and tory voters are toffs of course, devoid of all human compassion. I'm getting really fed up of the number of stories on here today which express this as fact. It isn,t.

Incomes are now rising, school meal provision has been improved and more parents are in work.

Because poverty is measured in relative terms, if most of us were billionaires, millionaiires would be classes as poor so I find it really hard to know the truth of poverty measures. i've no doubt there are children living in real poverty that come to school hungry but to suggest that the government wants to see children living in Victorian poverty is nonsense.

[CharlesRyder]

I'm not quite sure what point NASUWT is trying to make with this when Pupil Premium is already in place.

£900 is enough for a school to buy breakfast, a snack and uniform for a child for a year if lack of these were a barrier to their education.

Obviously it would not do anything about them having an emotionally insecure home life, disrupted sleep, no support for learning at home etc. but they have chosen to play the 'hungry and badly clothed' card. For why?

[Itchylegs]

Because teachers experience this nightmare, that you might want to ignore.mWe cannot deny that we have a haves and a have nots in this country and it is getting worse.

[prh47bridge]

I'm afraid there will always be haves and have nots - which does not, of course, mean we shouldn't try to help the have nots. Inequality rose steadily over most of the last 50 years but has fallen significantly since the 2007/08 financial crisis.

I agree with others that suggesting David Cameron wants to see children living in Victorian poverty is nonsense. The phrase "Victorian squalor" is clearly being used for party political reasons. I suspect that most, if not all, of the children being described are actually much better off than those children who genuinely lived in Victorian squalor in the 19th Century.

[blacksunday]

ooerrmissus -

This is not me writing! It's from a blog.

That's not to dismiss the points you make, which I'll reply to soon.

[lemonhope]

Sometimes mine don't wear a coat to school. We are not poor. I think it's ridiculous to suggest that ANYONE wants a return to Victorian squalor. Stupid report.

[blacksunday]

prh47bridge-

I'm afraid there will always be haves and have nots - which does not, of course, mean we shouldn't try to help the have nots.

Not just help the have nots, but diminish wealth and income inequality. There is no 'natural' state of inequality. It has changed drastically throughout time and can be changed in favour of low inequality if there is public will.

Inequality rose steadily over most of the last 50 years but has fallen significantly since the 2007/08 financial crisis.

That's simply not true. You may be talking about income inequality, which decreased slightly, but wealth inequality - where the top 20%, and especially the top 1% have their wealth - has increased considerably.

Please have a look at this:

No, The Rich Have Not Gotten Poorer Since The Financial Crisis

www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/17/inequality-upshot-new-york-times_n_6702264.html

[lemonhope]

And the former govt started needless wars and bankrupted the country. And then have the temerity to blame the poor sods who have made themselves so unpopular trying to get us out of the mess!

[sanfairyanne]

imequality has increased sharply not decreased

[blacksunday]

Yep, all tories and tory voters are toffs of course, devoid of all human compassion. I'm getting really fed up of the number of stories on here today which express this as fact. It isn,t.

It may not be true of all Tory voters, but I do believe that the Tories in government, namely Cameron, Osbourne, Theresa May, and Ian Duncan Smith are either: ideological fanatics, psychopaths (IDS), or have absolutely no understanding of the struggles 'normal' (i.e. not rich) families face.

Incomes are now rising, school meal provision has been improved and more parents are in work.

Since the crisis, households have suffered the largest drop in income since the great depression. Slowly rising income after 7 years is nothing to shout about:

"It's astonishing actually that seven years later incomes are still no higher than they were pre-recession and indeed for working-age households they're still a bit below where they were pre-recession," IFS director Paul Johnson told the BBC

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31711854

Because poverty is measured in relative terms, if most of us were billionaires, millionaiires would be classes as poor so I find it really hard to know the truth of poverty measures.

Poverty is measured in both absolute and relative terms. Whilst it may be true that fewer people are in 'relative' poverty because incomes dropped, it is clear that we're seeing a rise in absolute poverty in society, where people can't afford food, housing, or the basics they need to live.

i've no doubt there are children living in real poverty that come to school hungry but to suggest that the government wants to see children living in Victorian poverty is nonsense.

I think the government would like to completely abolish social security and model the economy on the United States. They are free-market ideologues, and want to see a drastic reduction in the size of the state.

The consequences to them seem irrelevant.

[blacksunday]

And the former govt started needless wars and bankrupted the country. And then have the temerity to blame the poor sods who have made themselves so unpopular trying to get us out of the mess!

The former government did indeed start needless wars. Tony Blair is a war criminal and should be put on trial at the Hague.

However, the financial crisis was not caused by the Blair government. It was a global financial crisis caused by casino capitalism and dodgy loans. It wasn't caused by public overspending.

[ajandjjmum]

I understood that a certain percentage of the lowest income families would always be classed as being poverty stricken, ie. if every single family in the country earned at least £2,000 a week, the bottom ?? percent would still be classed as poor.

Stupid measure to me.

[Casuallyvacant]

The vast majority of smokers are in the lowest income bracket. At £9.50 a packet that's an awful lot of breakfasts.

[lemonhope]

However, the financial crisis was not caused by the Blair government. It was a global financial crisis caused by casino capitalism and dodgy loans. It wasn't caused by public overspending.


Partially it was I am afraid.

[blacksunday]

ooerrr-

You start by lamenting people who ' rig the statistics to show ‘facts’ that are demonstrably untrue' but then use an example of statistics that is quite correct- the number of children deemed to be 'in poverty' has fallen because of the way poverty is calculated. It is for this reason that the Labour party failed in their aim to 'eradicate child poverty'- because such a thing could not be done under the accepted measure.

It is not impossible to eliminate relative poverty. It isn't calculates as 'the bottom 20%' or somesuch of all earners. It is calculated as a living X% below the median income. It would simply mean reducing inequality drastically.

You then go on to use a report of a non-representative sample of teachers who say they have seen children arriving at school hungry. Well, lets see now.

Sure, fair enough, it's not a representative sample.

You say that children are arriving at school in 'Victorian squalor', and that 'this is what the coalition wants'. I have read the original newspaper reports and nowhere does it give any kind of description of what 'Victorian squalor' is. It is an emotive term used without any substance. And where do you get the information that 'this is what the coalition wants'? It may be the result of their policies, but that is not the same thing at all.

This is not my article, it's from my blog. It's true that language is emotive. People feel passionate because they know it's wrong that in one of the richest countries on earth, (large numbers of) children are needlessly going hungry.

And I honestly don't think the Coalition cares if the UK did return to Victorian squalor, whether or not that is their intention. They are the party of the rich, for the rich. Historically, that has always been true, and it continues to be true to this day.

[CharlesRyder]

Because teachers experience this nightmare, that you might want to ignore.

Itchylegs, was that to me?

I am a specialist teacher in the area of SEMH and over the years I have taught many children with shockingly dreadful home lives. Rather than ignore it I am a front line practitioner trying to do something about it???

However, I remember the days before Pupil Premium when I used to buy a whole nurture group's worth of children breakfast and snacks every day out of my own salary. The financial situation in terms of what schools can do for children who don't have enough is SO much better than it was.

[blacksunday]

I understood that a certain percentage of the lowest income families would always be classed as being poverty stricken, ie. if every single family in the country earned at least £2,000 a week, the bottom ?? percent would still be classed as poor.

Stupid measure to me.

That's not the way it is measured. I used to think that as well, but it is often defined (and is defined in the UK) as a certain percentage below the median.

Here is a very brief and informative summary:

www.poverty.org.uk/summary/social%20exclusion.shtml

[blacksunday]

This is not my article, it's from my blog.

Doh! It's NOT my blog - honest!

[lemonhope]

The trouble is, if you are fairly well off financially, you get totally sick of people suggesting that you are uncaring and when people say that people you know to be nice, decent people are actually psychopaths, it makes you assume that everything else that person says is bollocks.

I know, for a fact, that not all tory voters or rich people are horrible. So why would I listen to anything else you have to say?