Sorry if I went off on one last night (not enough distraction through the opium of the masses - telly!), and of course there are always exceptions which prove the rule. But what I'm saying, in essence, is that money per se makes no difference to the poor home environments, while 'failing' schools/hospitals, etc. are more the RESULT of sh1tty homes than the cause. If a child's 'bedroom' is a sofa at 2.30 a.m., its meals are chips and tomato sauce, it never exercises or has any social hobbies, and it's looked down upon if it gets 'too clever for its own good' (i.e. aspires to be out of its environs), then no wonder the schools are full of inattentive no-hopers and the clinics full of sickly, fretful kids.
There are enough baby-makers I've observed both in Staffordshire and here, always able to find the latest gizmos and gadgets, cigarettes, beer, trainers, ###### gear, etc., who moan that they can't afford to give their children 'proper' food because it's too expensive. That they live mainly on council estates should be immaterial. Maybe a certain section of society's always been like that - fags 'n' cheap gin - but nowadays everyone is bombarded with so much information as to what's healthy and what's not, there really is no excuse - just self-indulgence and self-gratification.