'Big Society' Aide Turns On Cameron Over Children's 'Appalling Experience'

[Yorkshire Blue]

Class hatred is a terrible thing.I hope you're grateful for the opportunities you've had,which have allowed you to get to University.And I also hope that while you're there, you'll learn something about the class divide in British society, which makes it so very difficult for working class kids to achieve what you have.

On the subject of (child) poverty,here's a quotation for you from Owen Jones' "Chavs:The Demonization of the Working Class":-

"Poverty is generally defined as households with less than 60%of the nation's median income(currently 21,000 pounds)after housing costs are deducted.Less than five million people lived in poverty on the eve of the Thatcher counter-revolution,or less than one in ten of the population.(as a very young looking Simon Hughes pointed out to Mrs T.in your Youtube clip).Today,poverty affects 13,5 million people,or more than one in five.If you are a single adult without children,that means living on less than 115 pounds a week after housing costs are deducted.For a couple with two young children,it is less than 279 pounds a week.There are only four EU countries with higher rates of poverty."

Qatar has a GDP approximately three times that of the UK. Let's assume that their median income is also three times that of the UK's, that would make the poverty line in Qatar £63,000. Would living on £62,999 (after housing costs are deducted of course) be living in poverty?

I'd suggest that it doesn't, and in that case the definition you use is complete and utter bollocks. Poverty is the want of basic essentials like food and shelter; it is not an exercise in relative wealth. If you want to talk about people living without a roof other their head, unable to afford to heat their houses in winter and who can't afford to feed themselves then you have my attention. But that is a completely different subject to whether your neighbour earns more or less than you. Poverty is not a relative concept and those who suggest otherwise for political gain are undermining the case of those who are in need of a roof over their head and food in their stomach.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Class hatred is a terrible thing.I hope you're grateful for the opportunities you've had,which have allowed you to get to University.And I also hope that while you're there, you'll learn something about the class divide in British society, which makes it so very difficult for working class kids to achieve what you have.

So you get housing bills paid for, and then 65 pounds a week for nothing? Sounds alright to me.

By the way, why did you assume that because I'm at university I had 'opportunities' that others didn't have? Yes I had great parents, and my education was fine, but I'm by no means from a wealthy background. Why is it that you make the assumption that I'm not from a working background? Because my views differ from yours? It seems like only one of us is making assumptions based on the academic qualities of the lower classes, and it ain't me.

Oh, and I get by spending about 20 quid on food a week. I know in your mind it'd be easier if I were a rich public school boy, but I'm not, and I know that 65 quid is enough for people to get by, especially as it should hopefully be a temporary scenario.

I don't think it's fair to infer from what I wrote above that I think you're not from what you call a "working background" or that you necessarily had opportunities which others didn't have.
It is however a matter of public record that kids from a working class background have the odds stacked against them where going on to a University education is concerned.For example only 55 children eligible for free school dinners made it to Oxbridge last year(out of 6,000 admissions).
FYI, both of my parents were working class(certainly in terms of background,perhaps not in terms of income, as my father was a relatively successful local builder until his early death at 50) and I was the first person in either of my parents extended families to get a degree,followed by my two brothers,whereas none of our many other relatives did to my knowledge.
I hope this helps to explain why I'm a socialist and why I believe in the importance of education.

 

[Neil_F]

It is however a matter of public record that kids from a working class background have the odds stacked against them where going on to a University education is concerned.

I agree entirely. This is because our education system is so poor with very few good schools. Places at good schools are allocated to the children of parents that can afford to buy a place (i.e. private education), those that can afford to live in the catchment area of a good school or those of faith (genuine or otherwise). There are the some honourable exceptions, such as grammar schools (but I presume you are against them, Barna?)

The government's education agenda is designed to end this injustice and move toward a good education for all (whether that is achievable or not is a point of debate). I presume, Barna, that you therefore support the academy and free school programmes?

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I don't think it's fair to infer from what I wrote above that I think you're not from what you call a "working background" or that you necessarily had opportunities which others didn't have.
It is however a matter of public record that kids from a working class background have the odds stacked against them where going on to a University education is concerned.For example only 55 children eligible for free school dinners made it to Oxbridge last year(out of 6,000 admissions).
FYI, both of my parents were working class(certainly in terms of background,perhaps not in terms of income, as my father was a relatively successful local builder until his early death at 50) and I was the first person in either of my parents extended families to get a degree,followed by my two brothers,whereas none of our many other relatives did to my knowledge.

Having a working class background does not make someone eligible for free school dinners. Kulaks are still peasants.

 

[londonblue]

"I'm sorry but I have to disagree with the pandering to the public sector. The inherent problem with the public sector is that the motivations are the polar opposite of what makes most service organisations work. Most businesses run to minimise costs whilst maximising service and stakeholder value, as their livelihood depends on it. Most public sector organisations aim to spend their entire budget while doing as little as possible to scrape past minimum expected value, as they know their livelihood is secure. I'm glad the Tories are shaking them up."

The problem for me is that most public sector workers I know made a choice when they left university. That choice was to go into the city (the ones I know are economists) and earn a huge amount, or work for the treasury and earn less with a promise of a good pension. What the Tories are asking these people to do is earn less, work longer and accept a smaller pension.

These people could easily go and work for an investment bank and earn double what they're on now. Where would that leave the public sector?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I agree entirely. This is because our education system is so poor with very few good schools. Places at good schools are allocated to the children of parents that can afford to buy a place (i.e. private education), those that can afford to live in the catchment area of a good school or those of faith (genuine or otherwise). There are the some honourable exceptions, such as grammar schools (but I presume you are against them, Barna?)

The government's education agenda is designed to end this injustice and move toward a good education for all (whether that is achievable or not is a point of debate). I presume, Barna, that you therefore support the academy and free school programmes?

I certainly used to be against Grammar Schools although I went to one(WHS)in the 6th form.I believe there are now only 166 left in the UK so (if you'll excuse the rather poor pun)this is now rather an academic argument.

You're entirely wrong however to think I might support the academy and free school system.The evidence we have from Sweden(a far more socially homogeneous country than the UK)where this experiment has already been deemed a failure and state support has been withdrawn, would indicate that something similar is likely to happen in the UK.What we do know already is that such schools, because they attract the children of middle class parents, tend to dilute the mix of children going to existing comprehensives.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Having a working class background does not make someone eligible for free school dinners. Kulaks are still peasants.

Don't Kulaks(and peasants for that matter)work?

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Don't Kulaks(and peasants for that matter)work?

Yes, but working class isn't defined by whether someone works or not, otherwise the middle class are all working class.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Yes, but working class isn't defined by whether someone works or not, otherwise the middle class are all working class.

Quite.But no children of middle class working parents would normally be eligble for free school dinners whereas children of parents living on benefits or in low paid employment almost certainly would be.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Don't forget the Kinnocks and Blairs,also loathsome i'm alright jack champagne socialists.

Talking of loathsome,your recent avators would seem to indicate an unhealthy interest in elderly women.:winking:

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Quite.But no children of middle class working parents would normally be eligble for free school dinners whereas children of parents living on benefits or in low paid employment almost certainly would be.

I'm not sure of the criteria for free school dinners - although I doubt you are either - but the middle class aren't immune from redundancy or unemployment (unless maybe if they work in the public sector) .

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I'm not sure of the criteria for free school dinners - although I doubt you are either - but the middle class aren't immune from redundancy or unemployment (unless maybe if they work in the public sector) .

All I know about the criteria for free school dinners is that one of the group of boys that I transferred to WHS(from EHS)with, was eligble for them.He was a dustman's son and lived on a local council estate.He's now a farm labourer in Canada.A tragic waste IMO.
My mother was a widow by the time I reached WHS and even if she had been eligble for free school meals for her three sons(a possibility I'd have though)she would certainly never have claimed for them.That's another problem with the benefit system-unclaimed benefits total far more than so-called benefit fraud does.

 

[Uncle Leo]

That's another problem with the benefit system-unclaimed benefits total far more than so-called benefit fraud does.

Interesting; do you have any figures to back that up? Not saying I don't believe you; genuinely keen to know what the situation is.

 

[MK Shrimper]

Interesting; do you have any figures to back that up? Not saying I don't believe you; genuinely keen to know what the situation is.

Wow, just googled this. http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/press_office201022

Unclaimed benefits total £16Bn whilst Benefit fraud costs the country £5.2bn.

 

[Napster]

Yes, but who would win, A or F?

 

[Napster]

Wow, just googled this. http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/press_office201022

Unclaimed benefits total £16Bn whilst Benefit fraud costs the country £5.2bn.

I'm sure I can claim a lot more, but I choose not to. Maybe I should and keep some public sector beancounter in work.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

All I know about the criteria for free school dinners is that one of the group of boys that I transferred to WHS(from EHS)with, was eligble for them.He was a dustman's son and lived on a local council estate.He's now a farm labourer in Canada.A tragic waste IMO.
My mother was a widow by the time I reached WHS and even if she had been eligble for free school meals for her three sons(a possibility I'd have though)she would certainly never have claimed for them.That's another problem with the benefit system-unclaimed benefits total far more than so-called benefit fraud does.

I suspect the criteria has almost certainly changed since then.

 

[MK Shrimper]

I'm sure I can claim a lot more, but I choose not to. Maybe I should and keep some public sector beancounter in work.

Can I ask why? It's your money after all.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Interesting; do you have any figures to back that up? Not saying I don't believe you; genuinely keen to know what the situation is.

Wow, just googled this. http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/press_office201022

Unclaimed benefits total £16Bn whilst Benefit fraud costs the country £5.2bn.

Yes.These are similar to the figures quoted in Owen Simpson's book.:thumbsup:

 

[OldBlueLady]

FSM qualifying criteria means if a parent or carer is eligible for Income Support, Jobseekers or Child Tax Credit amongst others, then the child qualifies. You would be amazed at the number of parents who DO qualify but choose NOT to take up the option.