Join the Labour Party and save your country!

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Education has improved

That's quite an admission on this thread. Quoted for future debates with lefties

To be used out of context for years to come!

So what's the right context? Just for future reference

Pretty much since the beginning of the 20th C, no?

The cohorts coming out of education now are the best educated children the U.K. has ever seen, believe it or not.

Same across most of the west.

The question re exam results, beyond questions of what they actually tell you, is whether you want grades to be administered proportionally (so whichever 10% you’re in determine your grade outa 10) or if you like to anchor the difficulty to a level so you can examine YoY if pass rates are improving etc.

Stevo_666

morstar wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

morstar wrote:

My daughter is hoping to go to veterinary college and she is planning her applications and open day visits at present.
Two of the 8 universities on her list will accept AAB rather than AAA that all the others require. I am reliably informed that one of those AAB uni's is one of the most demanding in terms of interview procedure and looking at the person as a whole.

Small world, so is mine. There are a few people on here who have veterinary parents or other halves if you want some independent input.

Thanks for heads up. May well have to draw on the collective expertise.

Happy to share and also to point you towards those in the know.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Education has improved

That's quite an admission on this thread. Quoted for future debates with lefties

To be used out of context for years to come!

So what's the right context? Just for future reference

Pretty much since the beginning of the 20th C, no?

The cohorts coming out of education now are the best educated children the U.K. has ever seen, believe it or not.

Same across most of the west.

The question re exam results, beyond questions of what they actually tell you, is whether you want grades to be administered proportionally (so whichever 10% you’re in determine your grade outa 10) or if you like to anchor the difficulty to a level so you can examine YoY if pass rates are improving etc.

I probably wouldn't disagree, based partly on what I see as a parent of a kid currently in 6th form and working towards uni. Just surprised there isn't more of the usual knee jerk 'education is getting worse' (and blaming the evil tories for it).

rick_chasey

Look I don’t think the state school system is in good shape right now and I don’t think anyone with any sense would disagree.

I’m talking long term really.

Ben6899

Middle class folk, calling their daughter Tarquin...

If you're gonna be chippy, at least be accurate and well-informed.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Look I don’t think the state school system is in good shape right now and I don’t think anyone with any sense would disagree.

I’m talking long term really.

I think that graph tells you what you need to know. Funding has dropped in the last 3 years despite an increasing school age population and ever increasing expectations. There's still a big improvement on 30 years ago, though.

morstar

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Look I don’t think the state school system is in good shape right now and I don’t think anyone with any sense would disagree.

I’m talking long term really.

I think that graph tells you what you need to know. Funding has dropped in the last 3 years despite an increasing school age population and ever increasing expectations. There's still a big improvement on 30 years ago, though.

I would classify education currently as too narrowly focussed but very effective against the measures in place.

I worry how sustainable it is though. There is an optimal ROI and then there is the vanity of cost cutting which seems to improve ROI in the short term but ultimately can lead to the whole thing going pear shaped.

rick_chasey

On what basis is education too narrowly focused, Morstar?

morstar

Rick Chasey wrote:

On what basis is education too narrowly focused, Morstar?

Grades and academic subjects!
I see equal merit in vocational subjects for those of a less academic nature and pursuit of the arts and sport as providing a well balanced learning environment.
Vocational somehow seems a dirty word and yet we wonder why a lot of less academically capable but otherwise gifted set of people leave school feeling disenfranchised.
Sport, art, soft skills are getting increasingly sidelined in pursuit of grades.
My daughter had her options moved forward a year at about 2-3 months notice when the new GCSE format was announced. This was in order to spend 3 years (rather than the historic 2) on a very narrow range of subjects to the exclusion of other subjects she also enjoyed.
Not a major issue for her as she is academic. Definitely worked for the school which is climbing into higher echelons of league tables than ever before.

https://www.tes.com/news/gcse-results-732-pupils-get-straight-grade-9s
4 of these pupils were from my daughters school and it is a very mixed income catchment, not an affluent suburb.

But, surely for those less inclined, breadth of education is more likely to achieve positive engagement.

rick_chasey

Depends what you think school is for.

Accusing schools of being too academic does seem odd though.

I think there is probably a decent case to be made to start more vocational education sooner but budgets are tight so most state schools can’t afford to do that.

morstar

Rick Chasey wrote:

Accusing schools of being too academic does seem odd though.

I can respect that argument but disagree. I'd argue that school is an educational environment. Education is far broader than academic studies.

To take your argument to its logical conclusion, why force kids who do not thrive in an academic environment into schools. They need to go somewhere else in that case. Which is then the old grammar school debate.

Do you know many teachers? Particularly any working in a deprived area.

How do you expect any result other than disenfranchisement if you take somebody who is capable of learning, but not suited to classroom study, and put them in a classroom all day 5 days a week? It is a recipe for failure which is what we see consistently in the struggling schools.

I know plenty of adults who always declare, 'I couldn't work in an office'. As grown ups they can choose not to. As kids we force them into an environment no dissimilar to an office all week with no option to get out other than rebellion.

Provide more balanced education and less classroom time for the less academically focussed and I'd argue you'd be more productive in the classroom time that is deployed.

Funding or lack of doesn't change the argument. Just the mechanisms available.

Stevo_666

In other news, Ken Dodd had the last laugh with the tax man by marrying 2 days before he died, avoiding an 8 figure inheritance tax bill on his estate:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/8388029/ken-dodd-left-wife-27m-marriage-taxman/

Reminds me of the old joke - Ken Dodd has 2 new Diddymen; Diddy Pay and Diddy F***.

morstar

morstar wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Accusing schools of being too academic does seem odd though.

I can respect that argument but disagree. I'd argue that school is an educational environment. Education is far broader than academic studies.

To take your argument to its logical conclusion, why force kids who do not thrive in an academic environment into schools. They need to go somewhere else in that case. Which is then the old grammar school debate.

Do you know many teachers? Particularly any working in a deprived area.

How do you expect any result other than disenfranchisement if you take somebody who is capable of learning, but not suited to classroom study, and put them in a classroom all day 5 days a week? It is a recipe for failure which is what we see consistently in the struggling schools.

I know plenty of adults who always declare, 'I couldn't work in an office'. As grown ups they can choose not to. As kids we force them into an environment no dissimilar to an office all week with no option to get out other than rebellion.

Provide more balanced education and less classroom time for the less academically focussed and I'd argue you'd be more productive in the classroom time that is deployed.

Funding or lack of doesn't change the argument. Just the mechanisms available.

Not that odd maybe.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-47149808

Have to say, I don't necessarily agree fully with the viewpoint but it is entirely consistent with the concept that education has become too narrowly focussed. This is a common view amongst teachers.

wants to end what he sees as an excessively narrow academic pathway in secondary schools.

rick_chasey

Sure a bunch of close friends teach in the tougher parts of Barnsley and Donny.

Of course having different types of teaching to suit different people is the ideal, but that costs a lot more money, and people aren’t willing to spend that.

rick_chasey

Amber Rudd admits UC rollout has caused an increase in people having to use food banks.

I mean ffs. Why is this tolerated?

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Amber Rudd admits UC rollout has caused an increase in people having to use food banks.

I mean ffs. Why is this tolerated?

I have to say that I like the principle of UC but the implementation is inhumane

morstar

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Amber Rudd admits UC rollout has caused an increase in people having to use food banks.

I mean ffs. Why is this tolerated?

I have to say that I like the principle of UC but the implementation is inhumane

That's the problem. I have nothing against a simple structured system. I have no idea how you can leave people with no income for 4-6 weeks. This where some people in power have absolutely no understanding of the difference between losing some disposable income and simply not having enough to get by (with no savings to cover the shortfall).

john80

morstar wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Amber Rudd admits UC rollout has caused an increase in people having to use food banks.

I mean ffs. Why is this tolerated?

I have to say that I like the principle of UC but the implementation is inhumane

That's the problem. I have nothing against a simple structured system. I have no idea how you can leave people with no income for 4-6 weeks. This where some people in power have absolutely no understanding of the difference between losing some disposable income and simply not having enough to get by (with no savings to cover the shortfall).

The roll out was just plain dumb. If the idea was to get people used to post date benefits similar to working then for a few million they could probably have started on day 1 with a one off payment and advised people that their future payments would be given 4 week in arrears. This would have stopped the liberal nonsense about people not being paid and then it would have been up to individuals to live within their means. For a fairly trivial amount of money they could have made the transition much less painful and brought significantly less ire upon themselves.

The debate as to whether you should be in poverty when not working would still have raged on though.

tangled_metal

A recent report by the Rowntree Trust iirc gave a high figure for children living in poverty. That figure was derived by the number of single parent and double parent families living on incomes after costs of housing have been covered if £260 or £360 per week. This being something like 60% of the national average salary.

My first thought was how those figures didn't seem that low to me. Is this really a poverty level considering it's really only to clothe and feed the family?

Obviously not relevant to UC but if there's inflation if the poverty figure does that distract from concentrating on real poverty or does it help fighting poverty?

surrey_commuter

john80 wrote:

morstar wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Amber Rudd admits UC rollout has caused an increase in people having to use food banks.

I mean ffs. Why is this tolerated?

I have to say that I like the principle of UC but the implementation is inhumane

That's the problem. I have nothing against a simple structured system. I have no idea how you can leave people with no income for 4-6 weeks. This where some people in power have absolutely no understanding of the difference between losing some disposable income and simply not having enough to get by (with no savings to cover the shortfall).

The roll out was just plain dumb. If the idea was to get people used to post date benefits similar to working then for a few million they could probably have started on day 1 with a one off payment and advised people that their future payments would be given 4 week in arrears. This would have stopped the liberal nonsense about people not being paid and then it would have been up to individuals to live within their means. For a fairly trivial amount of money they could have made the transition much less painful and brought significantly less ire upon themselves.

The debate as to whether you should be in poverty when not working would still have raged on though.

I would add that expecting people to move from budgeting on a weekly income to a monthly one shows a lack of understanding as well.

surrey_commuter

Tangled Metal wrote:

A recent report by the Rowntree Trust iirc gave a high figure for children living in poverty. That figure was derived by the number of single parent and double parent families living on incomes after costs of housing have been covered if £260 or £360 per week. This being something like 60% of the national average salary.

My first thought was how those figures didn't seem that low to me. Is this really a poverty level considering it's really only to clothe and feed the family?

Obviously not relevant to UC but if there's inflation if the poverty figure does that distract from concentrating on real poverty or does it help fighting poverty?

I am sure this is something Brown brought in that I really don't understand. How can you reduce poverty when you define it as being under 60%?

How about this for an idea ? - set the income tax allowance at the poverty level

kingstongraham

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

A recent report by the Rowntree Trust iirc gave a high figure for children living in poverty. That figure was derived by the number of single parent and double parent families living on incomes after costs of housing have been covered if £260 or £360 per week. This being something like 60% of the national average salary.

My first thought was how those figures didn't seem that low to me. Is this really a poverty level considering it's really only to clothe and feed the family?

Obviously not relevant to UC but if there's inflation if the poverty figure does that distract from concentrating on real poverty or does it help fighting poverty?

I am sure this is something Brown brought in that I really don't understand. How can you reduce poverty when you define it as being under 60%?

How about this for an idea ? - set the income tax allowance at the poverty level

Narrow the gap between the lowest and the average. Statistically, if you have 9 people earning £20K, and one earning £11k, the average is £19.1k. 60% of that is £11.46k. Increase the lowest earner to £11.5k without changing the others, the average is now £19.15k, and they are over the 60% which is now £11.49k.

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

A recent report by the Rowntree Trust iirc gave a high figure for children living in poverty. That figure was derived by the number of single parent and double parent families living on incomes after costs of housing have been covered if £260 or £360 per week. This being something like 60% of the national average salary.

My first thought was how those figures didn't seem that low to me. Is this really a poverty level considering it's really only to clothe and feed the family?

Obviously not relevant to UC but if there's inflation if the poverty figure does that distract from concentrating on real poverty or does it help fighting poverty?

I am sure this is something Brown brought in that I really don't understand. How can you reduce poverty when you define it as being under 60%?

How about this for an idea ? - set the income tax allowance at the poverty level

It must be a leftie definition, then they can always moan about those in poverty.

I'm sure some people 'in poverty' in places like Luxembourg and Switzerland could probably do without that label.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

A recent report by the Rowntree Trust iirc gave a high figure for children living in poverty. That figure was derived by the number of single parent and double parent families living on incomes after costs of housing have been covered if £260 or £360 per week. This being something like 60% of the national average salary.

My first thought was how those figures didn't seem that low to me. Is this really a poverty level considering it's really only to clothe and feed the family?

Obviously not relevant to UC but if there's inflation if the poverty figure does that distract from concentrating on real poverty or does it help fighting poverty?

I am sure this is something Brown brought in that I really don't understand. How can you reduce poverty when you define it as being under 60%?

How about this for an idea ? - set the income tax allowance at the poverty level

It must be a leftie definition, then they can always moan about those in poverty.

I'm sure some people 'in poverty' in places like Luxembourg and Switzerland could probably do without that label.

The 60% of median income was first officially used in 2010 under Cameron. But abolished in 2015 and replaced with the new SMC measure

"The SMC measure sets a poverty threshold of 55% of median total available resources – in effect creating a poverty line relative to what the median family has available to spend. A key principle of the measure is that poverty “should be related to the extent to which people have the resources to engage adequately in a life regarded as the norm in society”."

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... -it-needed

Further info here.

https://fullfact.org/economy/poverty-uk ... d-figures/

surrey_commuter

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

A recent report by the Rowntree Trust iirc gave a high figure for children living in poverty. That figure was derived by the number of single parent and double parent families living on incomes after costs of housing have been covered if £260 or £360 per week. This being something like 60% of the national average salary.

My first thought was how those figures didn't seem that low to me. Is this really a poverty level considering it's really only to clothe and feed the family?

Obviously not relevant to UC but if there's inflation if the poverty figure does that distract from concentrating on real poverty or does it help fighting poverty?

I am sure this is something Brown brought in that I really don't understand. How can you reduce poverty when you define it as being under 60%?

How about this for an idea ? - set the income tax allowance at the poverty level

Narrow the gap between the lowest and the average. Statistically, if you have 9 people earning £20K, and one earning £11k, the average is £19.1k. 60% of that is £11.46k. Increase the lowest earner to £11.5k without changing the others, the average is now £19.15k, and they are over the 60% which is now £11.49k.

I applaud your carefully chosen numbers (I really do, I even checked them) but in the real world with 30 million data points your target is moving away from you.

Surely a definition like we have for fuel poverty makes more sense.

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

A recent report by the Rowntree Trust iirc gave a high figure for children living in poverty. That figure was derived by the number of single parent and double parent families living on incomes after costs of housing have been covered if £260 or £360 per week. This being something like 60% of the national average salary.

My first thought was how those figures didn't seem that low to me. Is this really a poverty level considering it's really only to clothe and feed the family?

Obviously not relevant to UC but if there's inflation if the poverty figure does that distract from concentrating on real poverty or does it help fighting poverty?

I am sure this is something Brown brought in that I really don't understand. How can you reduce poverty when you define it as being under 60%?

How about this for an idea ? - set the income tax allowance at the poverty level

Narrow the gap between the lowest and the average. Statistically, if you have 9 people earning £20K, and one earning £11k, the average is £19.1k. 60% of that is £11.46k. Increase the lowest earner to £11.5k without changing the others, the average is now £19.15k, and they are over the 60% which is now £11.49k.

I applaud your carefully chosen numbers (I really do, I even checked them) but in the real world with 30 million data points your target is moving away from you.

Surely a definition like we have for fuel poverty makes more sense.

Again, the relative poverty metric was removed from official use in 2015 and replaced with the SMC measure.

kingstongraham

Surrey Commuter wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

A recent report by the Rowntree Trust iirc gave a high figure for children living in poverty. That figure was derived by the number of single parent and double parent families living on incomes after costs of housing have been covered if £260 or £360 per week. This being something like 60% of the national average salary.

My first thought was how those figures didn't seem that low to me. Is this really a poverty level considering it's really only to clothe and feed the family?

Obviously not relevant to UC but if there's inflation if the poverty figure does that distract from concentrating on real poverty or does it help fighting poverty?

I am sure this is something Brown brought in that I really don't understand. How can you reduce poverty when you define it as being under 60%?

How about this for an idea ? - set the income tax allowance at the poverty level

Narrow the gap between the lowest and the average. Statistically, if you have 9 people earning £20K, and one earning £11k, the average is £19.1k. 60% of that is £11.46k. Increase the lowest earner to £11.5k without changing the others, the average is now £19.15k, and they are over the 60% which is now £11.49k.

I applaud your carefully chosen numbers (I really do, I even checked them) but in the real world with 30 million data points your target is moving away from you.

Surely a definition like we have for fuel poverty makes more sense.

Your target is not moving away from you if you are enacting policies that actively try to narrow the gaps. But agreed, it is a terribly crude measure. It implies that you can reduce poverty by doing nothing for the lowest earners, but reducing the earnings of the highest paid.

Stevo_666

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

A recent report by the Rowntree Trust iirc gave a high figure for children living in poverty. That figure was derived by the number of single parent and double parent families living on incomes after costs of housing have been covered if £260 or £360 per week. This being something like 60% of the national average salary.

My first thought was how those figures didn't seem that low to me. Is this really a poverty level considering it's really only to clothe and feed the family?

Obviously not relevant to UC but if there's inflation if the poverty figure does that distract from concentrating on real poverty or does it help fighting poverty?

I am sure this is something Brown brought in that I really don't understand. How can you reduce poverty when you define it as being under 60%?

How about this for an idea ? - set the income tax allowance at the poverty level

Narrow the gap between the lowest and the average. Statistically, if you have 9 people earning £20K, and one earning £11k, the average is £19.1k. 60% of that is £11.46k. Increase the lowest earner to £11.5k without changing the others, the average is now £19.15k, and they are over the 60% which is now £11.49k.

I applaud your carefully chosen numbers (I really do, I even checked them) but in the real world with 30 million data points your target is moving away from you.

Surely a definition like we have for fuel poverty makes more sense.

Your target is not moving away from you if you are enacting policies that actively try to narrow the gaps. But agreed, it is a terribly crude measure. It implies that you can reduce poverty by doing nothing for the lowest earners, but reducing the earnings of the highest paid.

Based on that, if Labour ever get into power it probably wouldn't take them long to claim that they had 'reduced poverty'.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

A recent report by the Rowntree Trust iirc gave a high figure for children living in poverty. That figure was derived by the number of single parent and double parent families living on incomes after costs of housing have been covered if £260 or £360 per week. This being something like 60% of the national average salary.

My first thought was how those figures didn't seem that low to me. Is this really a poverty level considering it's really only to clothe and feed the family?

Obviously not relevant to UC but if there's inflation if the poverty figure does that distract from concentrating on real poverty or does it help fighting poverty?

I am sure this is something Brown brought in that I really don't understand. How can you reduce poverty when you define it as being under 60%?

How about this for an idea ? - set the income tax allowance at the poverty level

It must be a leftie definition, then they can always moan about those in poverty.

I'm sure some people 'in poverty' in places like Luxembourg and Switzerland could probably do without that label.

The 60% of median income was first officially used in 2010 under Cameron. But abolished in 2015 and replaced with the new SMC measure

"The SMC measure sets a poverty threshold of 55% of median total available resources – in effect creating a poverty line relative to what the median family has available to spend. A key principle of the measure is that poverty “should be related to the extent to which people have the resources to engage adequately in a life regarded as the norm in society”."

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... -it-needed

Further info here.

https://fullfact.org/economy/poverty-uk ... d-figures/

Fair enough, although it is a handy way of giving lefties a continuing point to their existence as there will always be people 'in poverty' for them to rescue, no matter how well off any country gets.

john80

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

A recent report by the Rowntree Trust iirc gave a high figure for children living in poverty. That figure was derived by the number of single parent and double parent families living on incomes after costs of housing have been covered if £260 or £360 per week. This being something like 60% of the national average salary.

My first thought was how those figures didn't seem that low to me. Is this really a poverty level considering it's really only to clothe and feed the family?

Obviously not relevant to UC but if there's inflation if the poverty figure does that distract from concentrating on real poverty or does it help fighting poverty?

I am sure this is something Brown brought in that I really don't understand. How can you reduce poverty when you define it as being under 60%?

How about this for an idea ? - set the income tax allowance at the poverty level

Narrow the gap between the lowest and the average. Statistically, if you have 9 people earning £20K, and one earning £11k, the average is £19.1k. 60% of that is £11.46k. Increase the lowest earner to £11.5k without changing the others, the average is now £19.15k, and they are over the 60% which is now £11.49k.

I applaud your carefully chosen numbers (I really do, I even checked them) but in the real world with 30 million data points your target is moving away from you.

Surely a definition like we have for fuel poverty makes more sense.

Your target is not moving away from you if you are enacting policies that actively try to narrow the gaps. But agreed, it is a terribly crude measure. It implies that you can reduce poverty by doing nothing for the lowest earners, but reducing the earnings of the highest paid.

Above is why this measure should be ditched. You can't have a basic calculation of poverty when actual measures are more important. Can you pay for housing, can you get your kids educated, can you feed yourself etc. are more measures of poverty. But then you get the ridiculous claims that not having sky TV means you are in poverty and no one can agree on the criteria. It is a mess whichever way we look at it and we miss the bigger picture to get equality of opportunity for all and not equality of outcome.