Osborne is showing his intention at last

"There were many schemes and centres to help develop parenting skills" - I was going to say something like that, Luckygirl. Also schemes for pre-schoolers who needed extra language help. In my working days as an EP at our base we did some research into the developmental needs of young children from deprived backgrounds .The first 5 years of life are crucial in laying the foundations. We worked with the parents too.
As a result we had a Language Unit which did excellent work. That was in the 70s to 80s.

There used to be many schemes and centres to help develop parenting skills - the government wiped them out, leaving LAs only just enough money for firefighting problems Prevention? - what is that? It has gone down the pan.

Speak to any SW and they will tell you that prevention is the way forward. Some hopes.

Well anya that is something to consider, but there is a wealth of evidence that underlines the argument for the best possible nursery education The improved outcome at the end of a child's school life shows the value of it.

Are you saying WW that this disadvantage is the fault of the parents and that by providing better nursery care, in the form (presumably) of caring and trained staff, this will go a long way to counteracting the disadvantage?

Wouldn't the money be better spent on teaching and/or helping parents to become more effective at parenting? At least this might have greater value than just intervening in the early years and might continue throughout their education and especially into their difficult teenage years?

Is 5 years old!!!!!

One thing you can do is to start at birth. By the time a child from a deprived background he is a couple of years behind other children, years that he is never able to make up, leading to poorer educational outcomes.. If we got these children almost from birth and provided excellent nursery care then this difference would disappear. That is one way of mitigating advantage. There are many others.

Or any Goverment.

I think the argument relating to income, misses one thing and that is the ability to accumulate wealth and the subsequent power this may give you. Those on the minimum income. will never accumulate any savings, indeed they will almost certainly as we have seen with our fictitious family accumulate debt. No-one is arguing as far as I am aware for equal pay that is spurious, but what many people understand is the unfairness leading to the inequality wealth accumulation brings. Of course if we choose there are many things we can do to mitigate this unfairness, but there is no evidence that this government intends to address the problem.

we can hardly be compared to Norway! They have a low population and we have a huge population, given our land mass size.

" Let's not kid ourselves that everyone is being equally disadvantaged - or disadvantaged at all."

Exactly.

The social disruption that results from ignoring the least advantaged is frightening.

I agree it will probably affect most of us in the long run. However, some people may be feeling quite comfortable at the moment - particularly those older people whose mortgages are paid off, whose homes have increased considerably in value and who have the benefit of final salary pension schemes.

Older people who are in a more tricky financial position - perhaps living in rented accommodation, relying on a state pension and finding it lower than they had expected due to the "levelling out" of state pensions, and possibly experiencing health problems - are likely to be affected much more quickly.

People in low paid work and the under 25's will be immediately hit and hit a lot harder than those who might be more able to withstand a drop in income. Let's not kid ourselves that everyone is being equally disadvantaged - or disadvantaged at all.

Granjura. 16,15

No it won't affect them probably.

When I said it will affect all of us I wasn't thinking about the 'We are all in this together' saying at all.

I meant what I said , the cuts will affect us all , unless there are a few extremely well off people on GN, that could be the case I suppose. If there are then they would be in the same bracket as bankers and high earners I suppose.

If I was being pedantic I could have said 'it will affect us all, accept those GN'ers who are extremely wealthy or don't live in the UK' but to my mind that would be an uneccessary comment to make and is tantamount to being rude to other posters.

Nightowl

Norway has been hailed as a country of sound finances and an excellent welfare system. The SNP hailed it as a country that Scotland could mirror.

Norway made good sound financial decisions and chose to build a cash reserve rather go down the line of prolific spending, it was cautious, disciplined and has done very well for itself.

HOWEVER, read up on Norway's current 'potential' looming problems due to the price of oil plummeting. It is still a relatively wealthy country but it knows that it will have to possibly take some hard decisions in the future . I believe immigration is an issue there too but I could be wrong.

Indeed - democratic socialism is the way as far as I am concerned. A recognition of the reality of market forces with a social conscience.

Although of course Norway is not a member state of the EU. The UK is subject to EU rules and regulations and is restricted as to what it can and can't do to a certain extent.

Norway - democratic socialism for example.,

I am not an economist roses (far from it) but they will tell you that there are choices other than capitalism or communism.

I know what your're saying, but if you think that capitalism has lost it's way what choice is there but communism? we must always provide for those not able physically or mentally to work for a living, and as a country, we are doing.
As to limiting business bonuses, Government never wants to interfere with that, any Government.

Indeed the poor will always be with us - all I am saying is that when it is time to tighten the belt the load should not be targeted at the poor but should be distributed fairly.

I am not a communist, but it is clear that capitalism has lost its way and we may all live to regret this government clinging on to purist capitalist ideas.

The government could indeed set limits to bankers' bonuses.

People managing on low salaries/benefits have been around for a long time, as have people in jobs where they pocket large bonuses.The large bonus is a reward for the job done, you cannot have capitalism and market forces prevailing and have everyone earning more or less the same ( that's Communism.)
The second thing is that making sure the wealthy pay more, is that there are not enough of them to make enough difference, it's all the 'workers' that provide the money more than anyone else.

How is this or any other government supposed to stop banks paying such bonuses?

We cannot have people in poverty and using food banks whilst others are trousering bonuses that are quite unnecessary for anyone - it is a recipe for social disruption.

It is the inherent unfairness and moral emptiness of these policies that is causing such a problem.

Particularly not in those banks that we, the public, bailed out. Why reward failure?

Not giving them million pound bonuses would be a start.

But how can bankers be made to bear the brunt? Squeeze them until the pips squeak? They wouldn't stay long enough for a fraction of the deficit to be cleared.