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/

lemonhope-

Re-read what I posted about that. I don't think all Tory voters are psychopaths.

No, they just choose to vote for psychopaths

Yep.

" 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."

OP whilst I think you make some valid points, this is again, nonsense. There must be an awful lot more rich people in the country than you think, as the Conservative party have the largest number of MP's currently so lots of people voted for them. Oh and people tend to forget that the now demonised Mrs Thatcher won 3 democratic votes in the 70's/80's, so many, many people liked her policies at some point. And she was born above a grocer's shop - not rich at all dons hard hat at having mentioned the T word

This idea that non tory voters have a monopoly on social conscience is bollocks. You are correct in that Tories believe in a smaller State, but that does not make them phsycopaths of fanatics. It just means they have a different view of how best to create a prosperous country where people can look after themselves rather than being dependent on the State.

Also, whilst there have been "scandals" re tax avoidance in the last 5 years, the coalition has reacted by bringing in new measures to close loopholes and deal with the problem. Labour did nothing. Under the coalition, the rich have paid a higher % of income tax than under the previous government.

Absolutely.

OP whilst I think you make some valid points, this is again, nonsense. There must be an awful lot more rich people in the country than you think, as the Conservative party have the largest number of MP's currently so lots of people voted for them.

Oh and people tend to forget that the now demonised Mrs Thatcher won 3 democratic votes in the 70's/80's, so many, many people liked her policies at some point. And she was born above a grocer's shop - not rich at all dons hard hat at having mentioned the T word

Not quite the full story:

"Unlike previous governments, Thatcher's never commanded anything close to a majority in a general election. The Tories' biggest share of the vote under her was less than 44% in 1979, after which her vote fell. The false assertions about her popularity are used to insist that Labour can only succeed by carrying out Tory policies. But this is untrue.

The reason for the parliamentary landslide in 1983 was not Thatcher's popularity – her share of the vote fell to 42% – but the loss of votes to the defectors of the SDP and their alliance with the Liberals. Labour's voters did not defect to the Tories, whose long-term decline continued under Thatcher."

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/11/throw-out-myths-margaret-thatcher

Furthermore, our electoral system in this country is so screwed that parties can get in with large majorities whilst still only commanding a small portion of the total popular vote.

And before you get started on Labour, yes, it is absolutely equally true when it pertains to Labour.

This idea that non tory voters have a monopoly on social conscience is bollocks. You are correct in that Tories believe in a smaller State, but that does not make them phsycopaths of fanatics. It just means they have a different view of how best to create a prosperous country where people can look after themselves rather than being dependent on the State.

Sorry, but I don't buy that narrative. It is one thing to consider reducing the size of the state to reduce bloat. It is quite another to reduce the size of the state out of an ideological drive.

And by ideological, I mean that not only cutting state services and social security where they could be better served by the private sector, and where large sums of money are spent, but cutting public services where private sector has consistently shown to provide a worse service than the public sector, and/or where the savings made a tiny and the social costs great.

It is ideological to cut family centres, council budgets, cuts for disabled people, EMA, etc.

www.greenbenchesuk.com/2013/10/list-100-failures-by-david-camerons.html

You say that the Tories want people to stand on their own two feet instead of depending on the state. Well, what the Tories are doing is precisely the opposite to what they should be doing in order to achieve that.

Limiting people's access to healthcare, education, affordable housing, and other public services like transport, and forcing people to work for free (Workfare) thereby suppressing wages... are precisely the kinds of things which make people poor and destitute, unable to cope, and unable to take care of themselves.

Sorry, you personally, and the Tory voters you know, may really believe that voting Tory will reduce dependency on the state and create conditions where people take care of themselves.

I respect your belief, and I believe you truly believe that, but I still think it's complete bollocks, and it's not borne out of the facts.

Since the coalition has come to power, we've seen cuts which have affected the poorest and women hardest. We've seen a huge rise in poverty, inequality, homelessness, and the use of food banks.

You don't reduce state dependency by removing every safety net, every piece of help, everything that provide you with opportunities to take care of your education and health. They don't care about the public. Their motive isn't compassion. It's ideological and it's greedy, because they don't want to pay for taxes which makes any sort of civilised society possible.

blacksunday

Your argument about cutting may hold water if we did not have a deficit and public spending was not as high as it is. It is currently 44% of GDP, higher than at any point since the early 80's. It is not idealogical to plan to spend only what you have.
The conservatives are also not planning to suppress wages by importing east european workers as the Labour party did throughout thier time in office. They increased the population by 3.6 million, over 5%, which has put a lot of pressure on the NHS etc.

Carol-

Your argument about cutting may hold water if we did not have a deficit and public spending was not as high as it is. It is currently 44% of GDP, higher than at any point since the early 80's. It is not idealogical to plan to spend only what you have.

Public spending as a percentage of GDP is NOT high. We have a large deficit - defined as spending / income - because we've just experienced the worst recession since the 1920s.

During a recession, GDP decreases drastically, tax receipts plummet, and social security costs rise.

We don't have a problem of 'too much public spending' in this country. Christ, look around you. Does the UK appear to be like Sweden or Denmark to you?

"Viewed as percent of GDP, UK public spending shows a significant decrease in the late 1980s, declining from 41.7 percent in 1985 to 34 percent of GDP in 1989. Then an increase begins, reaching 38.9 percent of GDP by 1996. A decline in spending took place in the late 1990s, declining to 34.6 percent of GDP by 2000. A modest increase in public spending started in the early 2000s, reaching 39 percent of GDP in 2007. Then the financial crisis of 2008 took over and boosted public spending to 45.47 percent of GDP in 2010. Modest declines in public spending are estimated for the mid 2010s."

www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/recent_spending

The conservatives are also not planning to suppress wages by importing east european workers as the Labour party did throughout thier time in office. They increased the population by 3.6 million, over 5%, which has put a lot of pressure on the NHS etc.

They are planning to suppress wages by other means, such as limiting the right to strike, increasing the minimum ballot vote, removing employment tribunal funding (so employees have to pay the cost themselves), Workfare (forced labour), and removal of the social security net so that employees become absolutely desperate for any kind of work and will take any job at any pay, under any conditions.

Please, please don't try to argue that the Tories are on the side of workers rights. You'll have to argue against decades of history.

blacksunday - The Huffington Post article to which you link concerns inequality in the USA. The situation in the UK is very different. You are correct that I was referring to income inequality which has fallen sharply since the crash. Wealth inequality in the UK has remained broadly unchanged over the same period according to the ONS.

It is interesting that you refer to IDS as a psychopath when the Labour party support his policies as the best way to help the poorest members of society.

OP I think we will just have to agree to disagree and as you say, espect each others views, that is what politics should be about.

You can quote stats till the cows come home, the fact is, from 1979 onwards, the Tories won 3 elections, and 44% or close sounds pretty popular to me. It is not a *small portion of the total popular vote". If Labour voters did not defect, fine, but others did.

Last time I looked, healthcare was still effectively available to all as is education. They have not removed "every safety net" and unfortunately no matter how much tax we all pay, it will never fund every demand and every need much as we all might like it to. Tax rates in the UK are already high. A higher rate tax payer is already paying more than half their earning to the state in the higher band (and yes I know there are anomalies for marginal rates for lower earners.) There is a limit to what the country can afford.

blacksunday It is interesting here that the strongest European economies (Germany and the UK) has the lower government spending.

UK GDP per capita is at about the same level now as 2005, when public spending was less than 40% of GDP. The conservatives are therefore currently spending more than the Labour party did - doesn't appear to be cuts to me.

*prh47bridge-

The Huffington Post article to which you link concerns inequality in the USA. The situation in the UK is very different. You are correct that I was referring to income inequality which has fallen sharply since the crash. Wealth inequality in the UK has remained broadly unchanged over the same period according to the ONS.

Really? Can you provide a link? According to a Credit Suisse report, the UK is the only country in the G7 to experience rising wealth inequality from 2010:

"The UK is the only G7 country to record rising wealth inequality in 2000-14. Wealth inequality has risen four times faster in the seven years after the crash compared with the seven years before. The rich in the UK are becoming richer faster than ever. Wealth inequality rose under Labour; it rose faster under the coalition."

www.theguardian.com/business/2014/oct/14/richest-1percent-half-global-wealth-credit-suisse-report

It is interesting that you refer to IDS as a psychopath when the Labour party support his policies as the best way to help the poorest members of society.

I really don't care what Labour does or does not support, but I doubt any party would come out with an honest statement that they supported removing social security for people with disabilities which mean they cannot work, cancer, and people with terminal illnesses.

mateysmum-

You can quote stats till the cows come home, the fact is, from 1979 onwards, the Tories won 3 elections, and 44% or close sounds pretty popular to me. It is not a *small portion of the total popular vote". If Labour voters did not defect, fine, but others did.

Or another way of looking at it is that the haven't won a majority in over 23 years or so. The highest recent percentage of vote was %41.9 in 1992.

Since then, they have consistently drawn about 32% of the vote. It is unlikely they will win a majority again.

Last time I looked, healthcare was still effectively available to all as is education.

Both healthcare and education are being privatized.

They have not removed "every safety net"

No, it's still a work in process. They've certainly come a long way towards their goal, however.

and unfortunately no matter how much tax we all pay, it will never fund every demand and every need much as we all might like it to.

That's a straw man. We are one of the richest nations on the planet. We can afford to pay for basic security.

Tax rates in the UK are already high.

Compared with what? Which taxes? Many UK Tax rates are comparatively low compared EU countries.

A higher rate tax payer is already paying more than half their earning to the state in the higher band (and yes I know there are anomalies for marginal rates for lower earners.)

The highest rate tax band currently stands at 45% for income over £150,000. Do you know what percentage of the population earns that? 1%.

www.gov.uk/government/statistics/percentile-points-from-1-to-99-for-total-income-before-and-after-tax

There is a limit to what the country can afford.

Sure there is, but we're not overspending on public services, and most economists agree that austerity harms economy recovery.

in what way are healthcare and education being privitised - soem 60% of all NHS spending has always gone to private companies and that % is broadly unchanged since the 40's
what is the 'correct' level of spending and taxation?

Really? Can you provide a link?

Take a look at the ONS website and you will find statistics. The answer depends on the timeframe you use. The Credit Suisse report you quote looks at the timeframe 2000-2014 whereas I was only looking at what has happened since the crash - a somewhat shorter timeframe. Up to the crash wealth inequality was rising, since the crash it has remained broadly unchanged.

I doubt any party would come out with an honest statement that they supported removing social security for people with disabilities which mean they cannot work

I do not believe that is the policy of any of the major parties. It is true that all three major parties (Lab, Con, LibDem) have supported reassessments of people on disability benefits so that people do not continue to receive them if they become fit for work. It is also true that the reassessments have at times been poorly handled resulting in a high number of successful appeals and worrying stories about benefits being withdrawn inappropriately. If it were genuinely policy that benefits should be withdrawn from people who cannot work there would be very few successful appeals.

Blacksunday … A predominantly left wing Teaching establishment and trade union, talking so much about poverty A MONTH before the General Election, how very predictable.

One would hope that the ‘establishment’ and trade unions should be more focused ON THEIR JOB;the direction for 13-years that these ‘leaders’ took teaching in this country.

“England’s young adults trail the world in literacy and maths”.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-24433320

”Young adults in England have scored among the lowest results in the industrialised world in international literacy and numeracy tests.”

”A major study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shows how England's 16 to 24-year-olds are falling behind their Asian and European counterparts.”

”England is 22nd for literacy and 21st for numeracy out of 24 countries.”

“More than four in 10 employers are being forced to provide remedial training in English, maths and IT amid concerns teenagers are leaving school lacking basic skills, it emerged today.”
www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9322525/School-leavers-unable-to-function-in-the-workplace.html

”A study by Nationwide finds that more than half of secondary school pupils struggle to work out change in their heads, prompting claims that maths lessons are leaving them "unequipped for everyday situations"

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10631728/Pupils-cannot-count-out-change-due-to-poor-maths-skills.html

“TA’s;Teaching Assistants impair pupil performance.”
www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6022071

“Pupils who receive intensive help from teaching assistants make less progress than their classmates, damning research into a key Labour education policy has concluded.”

“The more attention students receive from support staff, the worse their attainment in the core subjects of English, maths and science, a government-funded five-year study has found.”

*So lets look at the NATIONAL results, not the rollocks in left wing papers slapping their own backs by attacking Conservatives; the end product teaching FACTS of a 13-years of a left wing Teaching Establishment and a left wing government able to DOUBLE their Education budget on the ‘Brown financial bubble’ proceeds – and the use of a few hundred thousand new teacher assistants;

Looking at 16-24 year old unemployment in July 2004 (during a lowering inflation/interest rate global boom) as we opened up our borders to the EU there were 580,000 unemployed, in 2007 before the crash there was 711,000 - and in early 2010 Labour handed over 921,000 unemployed to the coalition.

Labour’s education (and other policies) with all that 'boom' money FAILED our children and EVERY class, not just the poor, giving the average a sub standard education to compete HERE, never mind within the EU – yet we are meant to return them to power and expect them to be better with a budget deficit they left? lol

What Labour couldn’t achieve in this country during the best UK/global decade (1997 to 2007) since god knows when, they now want another go with a deficit economy and increased UK DEBT from 2020 onward???

January 2010; Embarrassment for Brown as major report reveals inequality has increased under Labour.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245080/Embarrassment-Brown-major-report-reveals-inequality-increased-Labour.html

”The gap between rich and poor has widened under Labour, a major new Government report will say next week.”

”The 450-page study by the National Equality Panel is expected to report that the billions of pounds poured into extra benefits, tax credits and anti-poverty drives over the last 12 years have failed to reverse the rise in inequality.”

”The findings are a major embarrassment for Gordon Brown who has adopted a controversial ‘class war’ election strategy designed to position Labour as the party of equality.”

"Privately, ministers already conceded that Labour will miss its self-imposed targets for reducing both child poverty and fuel poverty."

”Speaking ahead of the report’s launch today Labour’s deputy leader Harriet Harman acknowledged that the study would set out some ‘tough home truths’. She said many in the party would find it ‘uncomfortable reading’.”

”Miss Harman said the report made it clear that more intervention was needed in the pre-school years, along with more help for youngsters leaving school and women returning to the workplace.”

Re General Election majorities - and dodgy English boundary line.

The Conservative need to be about 7-8 points in front of Labour in the Polls to win a majority as the boundary lines give Labour a substantial seat advantage.

Hence in 2005 when Labour had 35% of the vote they had a 66 seat majority.

In 2010 the Conservatives had 36% of the vote and were around 20 seats shorts of a majority.

Around 26,000 UKIPs votes across key marginals forced a 2010 Coalition, with 3% of the national vote - so as UKIP is polling around 15-17% with two ex Tories to every one ex Labour voter, this is Miliband's election to lose, as he just needs around 31-32% of his voters to turn out.

Isitmebut-

Blacksunday … A predominantly left wing Teaching establishment and trade union, talking so much about poverty A MONTH before the General Election, how very predictable.

What are you talking about? Start your own thread. Don't spam this one.

Re General Election majorities - and dodgy English boundary line.

The Conservative need to be about 7-8 points in front of Labour in the Polls to win a majority as the boundary lines give Labour a substantial seat a
advantage.

Uh huh. We need substantive constitutional and electoral reform all around.

We need to get rid of the FPTP system, for starters, so that MPs in Parliament are more representative of the will of the public.

carole-

in what way are healthcare and education being privitised - soem 60% of all NHS spending has always gone to private companies and that % is broadly unchanged since the 40's

See Lansley reforms:

More than 100 top doctors attack government record on NHS

Letter from senior health professionals say coalition has left NHS in weakest position ever and calls on people to use votes to reinstate service

www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/07/more-than-100-top-doctors-attack-government-record-on-nhs

what is the 'correct' level of spending and taxation?

Whatever the public decide it is. The post-war consensus has been that a decent health, education, and social security should be considered 'rights' in any modern democracy.

Blacksunday …. You deflect from the 13-year education RECORD of a toxic combination of a left wing government, teaching establishment and trade union – do you think those opposing changes FROM the polices of a Labour government causing that abysmal record, somehow don’t have an agenda against a Conservative government demanding more work related basics as a start - or can you show me the same people criticizing poverty under Labour, in 2009 and early 2010?

As for the NHS, again how can those doctors CRITICIZE the Coalition trying to reorganise a bloated NHS (in terms of money and structure) when Labour just allowed 13-years of organised chaos, less productive despite/because of all those managers they hired, more privitization under Labour, the Conservative coalition put more money in than Labour said they would in 2010, we’ve had less Mid Staff type cover ups – and the Conservatives have agreed what the NHS Chief Exective Simon Stevens said was needed over the years ahead.

It appears the heads of public services want to be left alone no matter what their record is, and believe a Labour Party will do that whether the money is begged, stole, or borrowed.

blacksunday The reforms have not significantly altered the amount of NHS money going to private profit making companies.