Nearly 1 million children faced destitution in the UK in 2022..

Joseann

^we can see from many posts on GN that the only way to succeed is to go to university and anything less is considered to be failure^
Well that is nonsense.

Have you not read some of the posts?

Callistemon21

Joseann

we can see from many posts on GN that the only way to succeed is to go to university and anything less is considered to be failure
Well that is nonsense.

Have you not read some of the posts?

I've read many posts which wrongly measure everything by academic achievement. Out of my classmates 75% left school at 16, we were the first year I think who had to go beyond 15 years. Only 2 girls and 5 boys went to university.
Maybe London was different, but there were ample opportunities out there waiting for kids to succeed at.

I've read many posts which wrongly measure everything by academic achievement
Yes, that's what I meant.

There were, and there were plenty of jobs too but now many leave university with debt and still not qualified for the world of work.

The education system still fails a lot of children.

Absolutely correct, Callistemon, but don't we have to look at the reasons why the education system fails so many children?

In my view it is because the state education system is desperately underfunded, but then one might ask, Why should the state fund the system to a higher level?

And after that comes the question 'How much responsibility should the state take for the wellbeing of its citizens?

That, to me, seems to be the sticking point.

On the one hand, we have the Thatcherite view of individual responsibility, with minimal state involvement, that we should look to the 'markets' to service our needs and provide employment

On the other hand, we have the view that the state should be active in providing welfare and opportunity for all its citizens, including support for those who are unable to support themselves. And that state support should enable people to lead lives free of poverty. Not just those who are physically or mentally unable to support themselves, but also those who, however hard they might work, are unable to lift themselves out of the subsistence 'zone', or, however hard they work at school, live in areas where meaningful employment is scarce.

For every individual who has worked to lift themselves out of poverty, there are thousands, no, millions, who cannot achieve that. Is the quality of their lives unimportant? Are underfunded crumbling schools all they deserve? Is life on benefits, or funded by insecure poorly paid employment because they lie in a jobs 'desert', all they deserve?

When vast areas of the North of England, Scotland ,and Wales, were devastated by the demise of the industries which had provided employment and relative prosperity for their populations should the state have intervened to provide support in setting up new industries to replace them? Or was (what it actually mostly did), leave them to sink or swim, the right thing to do?

Very true. So many have no idea what career they want to follow but feel entitled to the university ‘experience’.

In my view it is because the state education system is desperately underfunded

That and also the fact that "one size does not fit all".

Countries like Germany recognise that better than we do here.

'The poor will always be with us'

Sawsage2

'The poor will always be with us'

Such a valuable contribution to the discussion...🙄

So you think it's fine for nearly 4 million of your fellow citizens to be destitute?

Callistemon21

^In my view it is because the state education system is desperately underfunded^

That and also the fact that "one size does not fit all".

Countries like Germany recognise that better than we do here.

Part of the reason for the lack of diversity in education is the lack of the funding to provide it...

For me, a problem with providing different 'pathways' is the age at which these decisions are made and the danger of children ending up in inappropriate provision. In the same way that the 11+ disadvantaged 'late developers'...

I do mostly agree with you, though.

Callistemon21

^In my view it is because the state education system is desperately underfunded^

That and also the fact that "one size does not fit all".

Countries like Germany recognise that better than we do here.

Germany also understands what to do when industries disappear. When coal mining in the Ruhr was closed down, the country invested billions in bringing new industries to the area.

This thread shouldn't be about any individual GN poster's personal experiences. Of course there have always been people who have succeeded and built careers and wealth for themselves from terrible beginnings, but they are the exception. The question is do we want a country where children are brought up in poverty, underfed, in poor health with inadequate housing and restricted life choices, or do we want a society that does its best to support those children?
Our parents and grandparents had absolutely no doubt "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" It is so funny that at a time when many people have far more than the amount they need, when capitalism has brought about the abundance of goods Marx envisioned communism would, we now seem unable to cater even for the basic needs of the poorest.
I could have entered into the discussion of whose life was worse and who worked hardest. I haven't. It's irrelevant. I know I pay taxes to support the less fortunate and I believe those who earn more should pay more.
But I was just thinking suppose it became possible to reduce your tax by undertaking a certain amount of support work in poorer communities. I wonder how many people would take that up? And how many would quickly abandon it and just pay up?

This thread shouldn't be about any individual GN poster's personal experiences
Apologies MaizieD, but I included my experiences as I am precisely one of those statistics in the NCDS government survey which is cited in this instance.
I can't help it if I bucked a trend when I was disadvantaged, but there were many of us who did, and that's exactly what the study tried to highlight and understand for future reference.

Oops sorry that should be * Glorianny*. Apologies * MaizieD * I know uou and I have a respectful understanding of each other's comments.

Germany also understands what to do when industries disappear. When coal mining in the Ruhr was closed down, the country invested billions in bringing new industries to the area.

And what did the UK government do when shipbuilding, steelworks, mining etc. were devastated in the 1980s?

The N.E got a Garden Festival and Nissan...

Ha I forgot about the garden festival.

Galaxy

Ha I forgot about the garden festival.

We'd only just moved to the NE from Yorkshire when it was opened and the company my OH worked for got free tickets. It was very impressive, but did it achieve anything? (Apart from lots of new housing..) The national company my OH worked for no longer has much of a presence in the NE...

But that's by the by, really {grin]

Joseann

^This thread shouldn't be about any individual GN poster's personal experiences^
Apologies MaizieD, but I included my experiences as I am precisely one of those statistics in the NCDS government survey which is cited in this instance.
I can't help it if I bucked a trend when I was disadvantaged, but there were many of us who did, and that's exactly what the study tried to highlight and understand for future reference.

I can't find the NCDS survey cited in this thread. Is it under a different name?

cls.ucl.ac.uk/cls-studies/1958-national-child-development-study/

One of my sisters was in the same cohort.

The data has been used for a number of individual reports, eg. cls.ucl.ac.uk/climbing-the-housing-ladder-is-getting-harder-for-those-whose-parents-are-not-owners/

cls.ucl.ac.uk/generations-of-less-advantaged-children-face-higher-risk-of-mid-life-obesity-study-finds/

Germanshepherdsmum

I’m not smug growstuff. Despite ill health (physical and mental) I often worked 70 hour weeks (working while my child slept). That’s what’s hard about being a solicitor at the level I was Glorianny, no such thing as regular hours and ‘eating what you kill’, no work dished out by an employer. Given that I came from a working class family and that my father was blind, but worked all his life at what he could do, and that I qualified as a solicitor by studying at home in the evenings and weekends whilst working full time before I had a child, pardon me if I have no time for those with ‘poor aspirations’.

What you did have that is clear from your post is at least one parent who set an example of hard work and integrity. You learned from that and made your way in the world.

So many of the young people now growing up do not have that, and have no concept of aspirations. As a previous poster said - they have no "socks to pull up", no solid base to work from. We need policies that break into this - the cycle of deprivation is alive and well in the 21st century.

Thanks, growstuff

How do you expect any government to change that Lucky? The policy of the current government is to make work pay rather than doling out benefits to people who can, but don’t, work. That’s not popular with those who just want benefits to be increased. There are, and will always be, people who are really not capable of work. There are, and always have been, people who simply don’t want to work. If in this materialistic world a child of fecklessness parents cannot see that work can provide a better lifestyle I despair - but then so many decide to acquire the goodies through crime. How is that to be changed? It’s the same mindset of not wanting to work.

Thank you for the links growstuff, there are some very interesting studies over the past 65 years and still ongoing.
Every bit of information is relevant and true, it was not a competition whose life was the worst, it was based on facts provided by all those in the study.
As I said earlier it's a shame disgrace that child poverty is just as bad today, despite advances in so many areas. I fear the problem is timeless.

Germanshepherdsmum

How do you expect any government to change that Lucky? The policy of the current government is to make work pay rather than doling out benefits to people who can, but don’t, work. That’s not popular with those who just want benefits to be increased. There are, and will always be, people who are really not capable of work. There are, and always have been, people who simply don’t want to work. If in this materialistic world a child of fecklessness parents cannot see that work can provide a better lifestyle I despair - but then so many decide to acquire the goodies through crime. How is that to be changed? It’s the same mindset of not wanting to work.

I would expect the government to pursue policies to improve the situation. That is not simply about increasing benefits of course. It is about funding a proper education system so that the children of unsatisfactory parents are given the support and opportunities to get on in life; it is about having a health service that has the funds and the staff to tackle addiction; it is about supporting young parents to be better at parenting; it is about sorting out the appalling mess our prison system is in where re-offending is the norm an drug barons run the prisons.

The problem with such policies is that they only show results in the long term, and our political system encourages short term thinking - sound bite policies that might get votes.