Gordon Brown is grabbing at PR straws

[AtheneNoctua]

I thought the key to social mobility was education. Wouldn't his my money would be better spend on the (failing) education system?

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7468506.stm

Perhaps I'm a cynic, but this program sounds as if it will cost a lot of money and won't actually achieve its intended purpose. But, rather will serve as a quick PR scam for Gordon Brown.

I'm not sure what the 200 quid is for, but I think the motivation is right. Maybe its to encourage some engagment from parents who may not feel that 'engaged' - not too sure if that will help. But he has recognized where things have gone wrong at a very basic level in the education system and is taking it seriously.

Guess it depends on your view!!

But, wouldn't these kids be better helped by better education? I just think Gordon is in need of some PR. But, that this isn't really going to achieve anything.

Actually Athene, the problem is that the most socially excluded don't access services such as surestart. You must have noticed that the bookstart scheme etc is great and is mobbed by middle class mothers such as myself.

This is about encouraging the least able to access services. If you can get these children into a nursery, for example, they might actually benefit from being an environment where books, healthy food etc are available.

Education is all very well but that's from 5 up by which time it's frequently too late.

I know a little bit about the govt's strategy on this and I can assure you it's not PR. Actually none of it is PR. These people actually want to tackle poverty. It's hard and expensive and takes time.

And I find this bit creepy:

"Parents who agree to options such as treating children with behavioural difficulties or accepting free childcare places will receive £200."

So, only if you treat your child with behavioural difficulties in the way that our numbskull social workers says will you be eligible for this help.

Yikes! I don't like the sound of that at all. More choices of people being given to the overgrown government. I think it's time to downsize the government. They are too powerful.

Just give money to the schools so they can educate the kids. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but won't that actually do more for the kids?

But, margo, why would they take up this program if they don't take up the others?

Is it expensicve to achieve an end or is expensive and still won't achieve the end?

I take your point that 5 is a bit late. But I interpreted behavioural difficulties as something for older children. Was picturing teens and such. Is this just for help with young children?

When do they get the 200 quid? Because it's OK to sign up and say yes my child will go to nursery, but who is actually going to take them every day?
These families have problems that can't be solved by bribing giving them £200. It sounds a very simplistic solution to incredibly complex problems.

What does exactly does social mobility mean?

Does GB want to help my children move from being middle class to working class? I don't think so! Isn't 'social mobility' a euphemism for the gentrification of the lower classes. Isn't this a bit insulting to Labour's core supporters: we want your votes but actually we don't think that you are good enough people.

Social mobility is a polite way of saying help people out of the underclass. Not about working class any more.

My parents' generation benefited hugely from the social mobility for the working class that occurred after the war when opportunities were suddenly opened up to them. I don't think there's any need to be cynical about that. It was a great social change.

The problem is, the easy wins have all been achieved (universal education, broadening higher education, legislation against various forms of discrimination that kept people in their "place" etc) but there's a hard core of people who are very difficult to reach.

This scheme is an attempt to see if money will motivate people. The problem with social policy is that there is huge dead weight (you incentivise people with money and some take it who would have done it anyway). But some might be new to the scheme and it might change one child's life.

I don't know when it's paid to people - they will have thought about that. It might not work and it might be a waste of money but sometimes in social policy you have to try stuff. Sometimes it's about being experimental. And sometimes it is as simple as money. You can offer people all sorts of social benefits such as libraries and swimming lessons but if you incentivise them, uptake increases. That's just a fact of life.

IMHO It is a daft idea to just hand out £200

What about making schools go back to giving out free milk and free cooked school meals for the children who don't get fed properly at home

What about the familes who are poor but spend their money on their children rahter than Satelite dishes, alcohol, fags etc.

I think a better idea would be to give the families actual milk or vegs rather than money.

One of the schools round here pays children if they go to school £20

What about all the well behaved children who go to school at other schools?

"The problem is, the easy wins have all been achieved (universal education, broadening higher education, legislation against various forms of discrimination that kept people in their "place" etc) but there's a hard core of people who are very difficult to reach."

I don't know about that, Margo. I don't think any of these things are easy, and:

I don't think we have unversal education in this country -- certainly not of a universal standard.

Broadening of higher education -- perhaps but more could be done. We still have a lot of people who don't get there.

As for discrimination, that certainly still exists.

I think there is more work to be done before we abandon the basics for sill expensive programs that aren't likely to work.

Early years education is probably the place to start. And, as Kanga says, giving those kids some wholesome food would probably do a lot more in the longrun than £200 in cash.

Don't suppose he'd consider allowing more grammer schools. Weren't they shown to have assisted social mobility ?

There's a very radical and unthinkable thing that no government seems to dare to offer incentive payments to "the underclass" for participating in and that's the take up of medium term contraception alternatives such as implants or injections.

Less children should leave parents more time and resources to focus on the needs of the children they already have.

I'm saying anyone should be denied the "right" to have as many children as they see fit to bring into their financially challenged household but maybe a financial incentive for the parents to not have more children would change some children's lives for the better.

Radical thinking and probably going to be subject to wilful/indignant misinterpretation by some posters but let's see what others think about the idea anyway.

that should read "I'm not saying anyone should be denied the right......."

This is all because under Labour social mobility has died completely.

Once a person from a working class background could achieve a better lifestyle through hard work or getting a degree which led on to a profession. It wasn't about denying being of working class stock, it was simply to provide a better life, to have things they wanted, to achieve something.

Labour has made this impossible with people either working themselves to an early grave simply to stand still or remaining on benefits because to work would make the family worse off (I don't include those who are scroungers in this as they have no intention of aspiration or ambition for them or their children.)

Yet again Labour think the solution is to throw money at something and hope it goes away. Really clueless. As mentioned, a better idea would be to improve education so poorer kids could have a chance rather than lose out when the middle-class parents scramble to the better school (higher housing costs are one way of keeping people put.) Also certain professions should be free to study at university, there could be a way about it to ensure they gave back to society without having a £20k debt on their back when they leave - that if fine if mummy and daddy can help you out but you are stuffed otherwise.

Didn't GB go to a grammer school?

Agree with twoifbysea's ideas.

But grammar school = tory. He could never do that!

I think building schools and community centres in the more deprived area would go a lot further toward helping the communities. They could offer day car in the day and older children's activies after school. The community could run them.

I would like to know how much this program is going to cost. How many community centres do you think it would pay for?

And how many nintendo games can you buy with £200?

Better educational opportunities for all in society and not just school leavers would be a good idea and make it more accessible.

This government seems to overlook (in my view) many adults in thier late twenties, thirties, forties etc who leave school with no qualifications who come from very poor and difficult backgrounds who can only get lowpaid aqnd unskilled jobs.

A great many jobs on the jobseeker website are for those who have 'experience' or so many qualifications for a jobs that you don't need a degree in rocket science for.

You can only study up to 16 hours a week or it affects your benefits,

You can only access (correct me if I'm wrong, this is my experience) help with cv's etc if you are claiming jobseekers Allownace and even then the help is scanty.

Then when you do find a job you are faced with the problems with childcare, transport difficulties if you can't drive or don't have a car. Dp has had to turn down a few jobs because of transport issues. (no buses running at 3am!!)

I've got a degree and I've just been turned down for a library assistants job! Not experienced enough.

Dp got turned down for a job because he was over dressed!! He always goes smartly dressed to an iunterview. It's pride.

Give more help to those who are not just on benefits but on low paid unskilled wages.

Widening free school meal eligibility would be a start!

typos- baby playing with keyboard

"easy wins" = not easy to achieve but able to help the easy-to-help constituency (ie, working class but aspirational).

You now have left a hard core of families who don't really care and aren't really motivated.

As I've said, by school age a lot of this is too late. How else do you get wholesome food into three year olds? Leave pots of stew on parents' doorsteps?

I don't think some posters here are really understanding the target audience.

I completely agree about grammar schools btw but these kids wouldn't get into grammar schools even if they existed.

I think he's trying to get to the 'working class aspirational' with the lines that you have to 'buy in'and 'aim high'.

I suppose the 200 quid is a way of getting pple to sit down and work through what needs to be done.....hummm. Tough one.

I honestly, honestly think GB has the heart in the right place. I think he wants to put things 'right'. Not sure it isn't too late though, for him at least.

Are we talking about a target audience of an underclass mostly funded through the benefits system ?

I know what you mean by saying by schoolage it is too late

But I really doubt that if families are given £200 they will spend it on buying books or food for toddlers

What about giving all the children FREE milk and Free HOT school meals and then at least when they are 5 years old they are fed properly at least once a day

One of the mums who had a DS in same class as my DS at junior school thought that FRUITWINDERS was a good brekkie cos it had fruit in it!!!!!!!!!!

It is a candy sticky chewy thing !!!!!!!!

And this was a rich woman who was well educated!!!!!!!!

So ignorance isn't only in poor children's families

Sounds barmy to me and typically Labour. As for 'easy wins', erm Imperial has had to reinstate entrance exams as 'A' levels have been so degraded, more and more universities are putting on remedial reading and maths classes as schools have failed so abysmally to teach these basic concepts, we have a generation of unemployable school leavers who can barely write their own name and think that the State owes them a house, car and wide screen TV.

If Labour really wanted to remove the barriers that keep people 'in their place' they have scored a whopping own goal. There is higher child poverty and far less social mobility than the 'awful' Thatcher years.

i have another stance.

firstly i am sick to death of the schools system being used for surrogate parenting - it is a huge bugbear of mine.

the schools food police
health police
citizenship ffs!

there is a huge section within society that just doesn't care quite frankly. its not condusive with the hippy mumsnet mantra i realise and i don hardhat - only to qualify this statement by adding that i am not speaking about all the underclass.

I am a firm believer in cultural change - rather than forced change ( through schools)

I am often amazed at the brilliant work that Sure Start has done with underprivalaged communities with regards to cultural change ( smacking and in particular breastfeeding) i have seen this first hand in more than one area and although it mightn't be nearly enough, the cultural change with regards to Breastfeeding is IMO spectacular - considering my peer group 18 years ago when my son was born.

this is becuase surestart works with parents to educate them on parenting issues.

and it is THIS IMO which is the key driver behind cultural change in this country.

educate the parents. I don't know how this would take shape - i have said this before to be met with other poster saying "how do you suggest this is done?" i acknowledge that the sections of society that most need help are going to be the most reluctant to take part in parenting classes - which should and coulc be called something else.

no one likes to think that they need teaching parenting skills - and i am sure some great person with word spin could change that 'title'

I don't know how to enforce it other than to link it to Child benefit. I don't say this lightly as (rather like peoples stance on changing abortion times) i rather thing that i would like the govt to not interfere with CB, but i think that working class and middle class people could probably afford to make a decision - yes i shall go and get my cb - nah how very dare thay!

underclass will probably participate.

i think this infinately better than giving certain sections of society yet more money on top of - more of my tax that is.

i mean with the £200 to give up smoking, crack, heroin whatever, the other incentives i cant think of at the mo and this extra £200 - even if given weekly is a huge amount of money both to the govt purse and to the poor person recieving it.

if this is given in vouchers or is watered down to £5 voucher per week - its simply a waste, becuase it will then become a "cheers" for someone who wanted to do it anyway - rather than an incentive for someone to do it in the first place.

its all about parental cultural change IMO

Agree with Custardo.

When I said give the money to schools instead, I didn't mean to add another area of responsibility the their remit. I just meant improve funding to improve the quality of education (more books, computers, safe playground equipment, etc.) they are already providing.

But, Custy, I think the heart of your argument is to get into the community and teach them how to help themselves. I totally agree with that.