• REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do much without having been registered!

    At the moment you have limited access to view all discussions - and most importantly, you haven't joined our community. What are you waiting for? Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Join Talking Horses here!

We Should Be Ashamed

BrianH

Dormant account
Joined
May 3, 2003
Messages
6,108
Location
Banstead, Surrey
British children: poorer, at greater risk and more insecure

· UN puts UK bottom of 21 advanced nations
· 'A crisis at heart of our society' - children's commissioner

Sarah Boseley, health editor
Wednesday February 14, 2007
The Guardian


Children growing up in the United Kingdom suffer greater deprivation, worse relationships with their parents and are exposed to more risks from alcohol, drugs and unsafe sex than those in any other wealthy country in the world, according to a study from the United Nations.

The UK is bottom of the league of 21 economically advanced countries according to a "report card"' put together by Unicef on the wellbeing of children and adolescents, trailing the United States which comes second to last.

Today's findings will be a blow to the government, which has set great store by lifting children out of poverty and improving their education and prospects. Al Aynsley Green, the children's commissioner for England, acknowledges that the UN has accurately highlighted the troubled lives of children. "There is a crisis at the heart of our society and we must not continue to ignore the impact of our attitudes towards children and young people and the effect that this has on their wellbeing," he says in a response today.

"I hope this report will prompt us all to look beyond the statistics and to the underlying causes of our failure to nurture happy and healthy children in the UK. These children represent the future of our country and from the findings of this report they are in poor health, unable to maintain loving and successful relationships, feel unsafe and insecure, have low aspirations and put themselves at risk.

"It is time to stop demonising children and young people for what goes wrong and start supporting them to make positive choices. To bring an end to the confusing messages we give to young people about their role, responsibility and position in society and ensure that every child feels valued and has their rights respected."

The Unicef team assessed the treatment of children in six different areas - material wellbeing; health and safety; educational wellbeing, family and peer relationships, behaviours and risks; and the young people's own perceptions of their wellbeing.

The Netherlands tops the league, followed by Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Spain. The bottom five are Portugal, Austria, Hungary, the US and the UK.

Nine countries, all of them in northern Europe, have brought child poverty down below 10%, the report shows. But it remains at 15% in the three southern European countries - Portugal, Spain and Italy - and in the UK, Ireland and the US. Child poverty is a relative measure that shows how far their standard of living has fallen below the national average.

The Unicef report adds: "The evidence from many countries persistently shows that children who grow up in poverty are more vulnerable: specifically, they are more likely to be in poor health, to have learning and behavioural difficulties, to underachieve at school, to become pregnant at too early an age, to have lower skills and aspirations, to be low paid, unemployed and welfare-dependent."

The Conservatives seized on the report, claiming that it endorsed their attack on the way in which Gordon Brown had addressed the issue of child poverty, and the prime minister had demonised the role of children in his drive against antisocial behaviour.

The shadow chancellor, George Osborne, said: "This report tells the truth about Brown's Britain. After 10 years of his welfare and education policies, our children today have the lowest wellbeing in the developed world."

Labour said it had taken 700,000 people out of child poverty and was mounting an unprecedented investment programme in a network of children's centres. A government spokesman argued that in many cases the data use d in the report was several years old and "does not reflect more recent improvements in the UK such as the continuing fall in the teenage pregnancy rate or in the proportion of children living in workless households".

Some of the most shocking findings concern the relationships children and adolescents have with their family and peers. The UK is bottom of the 21 countries.

This, says Unicef, "is as difficult to measure as it is critical to wellbeing".

To attempt to score countries, the experts have focused on children's own reports of how much time their parents spend "just talking" to them, how many say they eat the main meal of the day with their parents more than once a week and the percentages of 11, 13 and 15-year-olds who find their peers "kind and helpful". UK parents do reasonably well on "talking regularly" - 60% of children say they chat, putting Britain 12th in the league table. But while a similar proportion say they eat together more than once a week, the UK lags towards the bottom of the league, with Italy, Iceland and France at the very top end.

The report presents a sad picture of relationships with friends, which are so important to children. Not much more than 40% of the UK's 11, 13 and 15-year-olds find their peers "kind and helpful", which is the worst score of all the developed countries.

The UK takes bottom place "by a considerable distance" for the number of young people who smoke, abuse drink and drugs, engage in risky sex and become pregnant at too early an age. For 16 out of 17 OECD countries with the data, between 15% and 28% of young people have had sex by the age of 15. For the UK, the figure is 40%.

On education, the UK comes 17th out of 21. At the age of 15, British children score relatively well on reading, mathematical and scientific literacy. But more than 30% of 15- to 19-year-olds are not in education or training and are not looking beyond low-skilled work.

That's the Guardian's summary of the report - should anyone wish to read it in full it's here in pdf format:

Unicef Report On Child Well-being

Full List

Netherlands
Sweden
Denmark
Finland
Spain
Switzerland
Norway
Italy
Ireland
Belgium
Germany
Canada
Greece
Poland
Czech Republic
France
Portugal
Austria
Hungary
United States
United Kingdom
 
222px-Maggie_Simpson.png
 
There's no one to blame except ourselves - whether we're parents or not. We elect our government at national and local levels and we are therefore able to influence the issues that directly affect our children should we be bothered to do so..

Although as the majority seem to spend their time glued to such choice media offerings as Celebrity Big Brother, EastEnders, Corry et al, then there should be no surprises as to how the next generation will turn out...
 
Some very dodgy data in there which is penalising low income families for having babies and indicating national trends in children's capacity to moan, rather than anything politically inciteful.
 
It was the lead subject on the Radio 5 phone in, where one fella put it in context. He recanted the horror and total incredulity felt by his Dutch friends when visiting an English pub and noticing a sign.

It read "No Dogs, No Children" or was it "Dogs and Children welcome"

Whatever, I'd never considered how inappropriate this sign is previously but have seen like everyone else doubtless, seen it displayed enough times
 
Originally posted by Songsheet@Feb 14 2007, 02:01 PM
There's no one to blame except ourselves - whether we're parents or not. We elect our government at national and local levels and we are therefore able to influence the issues that directly affect our children should we be bothered to do so..

Although as the majority seem to spend their time glued to such choice media offerings as Celebrity Big Brother, EastEnders, Corry et al, then there should be no surprises as to how the next generation will turn out...
You have said it all for me Songsheet :(
 
It's no surprise to me that at the top are the nations who are prepared to tax, regulate and create the conditions for a strong society and so get the best of all worlds - a strong economy and increased wellbeing.

Songsheet is right that we only have ouselves to blame but if some of the comment on here when taxaton is discussed is representative of the nation as a whole there is little chance of matters being put right. We need leadership that is prepared to take on the likes of Rupert Murdoch, the Daily Mail and those who seek to justify the £9 billion in City bonuses. The first step towards solving the problem will be greater equality - and that means more taxation. It's similar to the debates on health, education, global warming and much more - everyone wants to see the issues addressed but not everyoe s prepared to pay their share of the cost of the solutions.

Allied to the need for increased tax revenues is their wise distribution. Billions spent on an illegal war doesn't help persuade the electorate that they should contribute more, bt that's another story.
 
By more taxation are we talking a rise in the basic rate or a steady increase, let`s say:

BR 25%
30K-50K 30%
50K-75K 40%
75K-100K 50%
100K-200K 60%
200K+ 75%

That could result in a "brain drain" What would we do if all the City ponces fecked off?
 
Is the tax take in the Netherlands significantly higher than in the UK?

Answer: Yes it does. (Yes it is, even)
 
Originally posted by Euronymous@Feb 14 2007, 03:24 PM
By more taxation are we talking a rise in the basic rate or a steady increase.

What would we do if all the City ponces fecked off? That could result in a "brain drain"

There are may taxation methods that could be used, though certainly a progressive tax would be necessary.

Firstly, you flatter some of the city bonus earners when you talk of a "brain drain" and secondly incentives don't have to be in the order of £50m as it has been reported that one high earner is being paid in he form of a bonus. There is no shortage of bright, innovative people in many spheres in those countries with a more equitable system.
 
Originally posted by Melendez@Feb 14 2007, 03:42 PM
Is the tax take in the Netherlands significantly higher than in the UK?

Answer: Yes it does.
You've got it. The Netherlands has high income tax rates and moderate corporate tax rates. The top income tax rate is 52%, and the top corporate tax rate is 29.1 %. They also have VAT, an insurance tax and propert taxes. In 2005 overall tax revenue as a percentage of GDP was 39.3 percent.

Total government expenditure in the Netherlands, including consumption and transfer payments, is very high. In 2005 government spending equalled 46.6% of GDP, and the government received 4.6 percent of its total revenues from state-owned enterprises and government ownership of property.
 
This doesn't answer your question directly, Mel, but it's interesting. It comes from the current report but is a summary of some of the main findings from earlier reports:


Report Card 1 (2000) and Report Card 6 (2005) addressed the issue of
child income poverty in the OECD countries. Some of the main findings:

 In recent years, child poverty has risen in 17 out of 24 OECD
countries for which data are available.

 Higher government spending on family and social benefits is
associated with lower child poverty rates. No OECD country devoting
10% or more of GDP to social transfers has a child poverty rate
higher than 10%. No country devoting less than 5% of GDP to social
transfers has a child poverty rate of less than 15%.

 Variation in government policy appears to account for most of the
variation in child poverty levels between OECD countries.

 There appears to be little relationship between levels of employment
and levels of child poverty. It is the distribution of employment among
different kinds of household, the proportion of those in work who are
on low-pay, and the level of state benefits for the unemployed and
the low-paid, that contribute most to differences in child poverty rates
between countries.

 Variations between countries in the proportion of children growing up
in lone-parent families do not explain national poverty rates. Sweden,
for example, has a higher proportion of its children living in loneparent
families than the United States or the United Kingdom but a
much lower child poverty rate than either.

 There is considerable variation in child poverty rates even in countries
with broadly similar levels of government spending.

 A realistic target for all OECD countries would be to bring relative
child poverty rates below 10%. For the countries that have already
achieved this, the next aim might be to emulate the four Nordic
countries in bringing child poverty rates below 5%.

 In many OECD countries there is a pronounced trend towards lower
relative earnings for the lowest paid.

 There is a trend for any increase in social spending in OECD countries
to be allocated principally to pensions and health care, leaving little
for further investment in children.
 
You can get around the matter of higher rate taxation = brain drain by encouraging those who are in this elevated bracket to use their wealth wisely ie by giving them serious tax incentives to create further employment and wealth generating schemes - or by enabling them to pay less tax if they fund charitable trusts etc. I know there are measures in place already that meet some of these suggestions but I believe they don't go far enough.

I am not against paying more tax (I wouldn't like it !!) but. as Brian mentions, it's what my hard-earned is spent on that I want to have my say in. As an opponent of the Iraqi invasion from the get-go, I do not accept that any tax increases should be directed to pay for this folly - my money is better spent on education and health than in paying for more body bags.
 
Originally posted by BrianH@Feb 14 2007, 03:05 PM
It's no surprise to me that at the top are the nations who are prepared to tax, regulate and create the conditions for a strong society and so get the best of all worlds - a strong economy and increased wellbeing.

Songsheet is right that we only have ouselves to blame but if some of the comment on here when taxaton is discussed is representative of the nation as a whole there is little chance of matters being put right. We need leadership that is prepared to take on the likes of Rupert Murdoch, the Daily Mail and those who seek to justify the £9 billion in City bonuses. The first step towards solving the problem will be greater equality - and that means more taxation. It's similar to the debates on health, education, global warming and much more - everyone wants to see the issues addressed but not everyoe s prepared to pay their share of the cost of the solutions.

Allied to the need for increased tax revenues is their wise distribution. Billions spent on an illegal war doesn't help persuade the electorate that they should contribute more, bt that's another story.
This is something with which I'd heartily agree but, like Songsheet (and, presumably, Brian), I wouldn't be happy to pay more to fund any unnecessary military action.

My one reservation is that the Dutch youngsters I've met on holiday - a limited experience - have been very poor representatives of their country. If looking after them well makes them as loud, ignorant and arrogant as those I met then maybe we should look to other countries for good examples.
 
I think you have all got this the wrong way round.

Surely they higher paid, higher educated, more skilled workers should be rewarded by being taxed less because of the positive impact that they have on the country's economy.

Conversely those unskilled, lower paid workers should be penalised with higher taxes. This would create conditions where self-improvement was actually rewarded and a real improvement in the standard living attainable through a little bit of hard work and entrepreneurial spirit.

If, as is being proposed on here, you were to remove the incentives for people to better themselves - by progressively penalising people for taking risks and attaining new skills then you are encouraging a malaise.

Under=productivity, inefficiency and the absence of creativity are all tried and trusted symptoms of socialist regimes.

All that is needed is a solid education system, backed up by a minimalist but effective welfare state that supports those that can't learn/work not those that choose not too. That way every capable person has the choice and the incentive to succeed.
 
Originally posted by BrianH@Feb 14 2007, 03:05 PM
It's no surprise to me that at the top are the nations who are prepared to tax, regulate and create the conditions for a strong society and so get the best of all worlds - a strong economy and increased wellbeing.

Songsheet is right that we only have ouselves to blame but if some of the comment on here when taxaton is discussed is representative of the nation as a whole there is little chance of matters being put right. We need leadership that is prepared to take on the likes of Rupert Murdoch, the Daily Mail and those who seek to justify the £9 billion in City bonuses. The first step towards solving the problem will be greater equality - and that means more taxation. It's similar to the debates on health, education, global warming and much more - everyone wants to see the issues addressed but not everyoe s prepared to pay their share of the cost of the solutions.

Allied to the need for increased tax revenues is their wise distribution. Billions spent on an illegal war doesn't help persuade the electorate that they should contribute more, bt that's another story.
Amen to that Brian - in every respect.
 
Sorry, but what does the second last paragraph of the quoted Report Cards mean? "... trend towards lower relative earnings for the lowest paid."

I'm not sure it's all down to money, although I recognise that not putting enough into children's welfare certainly doesn't help. If you look at the European countries ahead of us, the family is still very much a valued entity. Most of these countries presumably don't have the high incidence of single-parent families that we do, where in particular young girls beget one, two, three kids by often assorted mates, with none of those providing for the fruit of their loins. I have nothing against single mums who've been left high and dry with kids following a steady relationship which has failed. I do have a criticism (which I know, politically correctly, I'm not supposed to have) of fleeting liaisons - it'd be ridiculous to call some of the pairings relationships - where child after child is brought into the world to be dependent on an ill-educated, too young, too immature young woman who has no prospects of ever working. She's going to be dependent on the State for her hand-outs for her kids, and they in turn are brought up in an environment of dependency on others.

Italian families still hold strong ties through the generations. The grandparents are included in day-to-day family life and valued for their experience, the little kids are spoiled rotten and enjoy a real childhood, often in the care of granny and gramps while their parents work. Their brothers and sisters are rarely by assorted sires who never visit, never bond with them, or even show the slightest interest in their existence. I am convinced that it is ESSENTIAL to a child's full emotional development to be aware that it is loved and it was wanted by both parents - not just an 'accident' because Mum had been binge-drinking and was off her head, and that he or she might be by Gary, Chaz, or even a drunken visiting cousin. Not something to be shoved in front of telly while she schmoozes over the Argos catalogue with her mates, smokes heavily and dumps the child on her Mum while she goes out to binge-drink herself into another 'accidental' birth.

So many children live in completely chaotic homes - there's no regular pattern or order to their mealtimes, or indeed any proper meals, they don't know whether anyone's home when they return from school or when they'll be in, there's dirt and squalor, and shouting and bawling down mobile phones while the tv roars away in a corner. There are thousands of kids living without any boundaries set for them as to acceptable language (you only have to hear the level of effing and blinding in the street to know what they're exposed to), acceptable appearance, acceptable behaviour, acceptable goals. Dad - or the latest bedmate - is possibly off scoring or doing a job on the QT while claiming benefits, Mum's always next door or doesn't want to know the kid/s anyway.

How on earth can any child be expected to thrive, do well at school, grow up with any sense of personal, social, or civic responsibility, when those are the common values around it? More and more money doesn't make people better parents - getting them to want to stay at school might help, but there's a mindset conditioned by at least 30 years of a 'whatever' attitude in this country, where the bottom line is it's a right to claim all kinds of benefits, but not the country's right to expect good citizenship.

From babyhood onwards, kids need to feel secure, safe, loved, wanted, and valued. They need the balance of steady, reliable male and female role models, even if an uncle or an older cousin has to play at 'dad'. It's a big job being a parent, I'd say THE most responsible job in the world, and there are thousands of breeders who aren't up to looking after a stick insect, let alone 'Britain's future'.

It's these sort of scenarios we should be ashamed of, and while I think it's absurd there are monster City bonuses, I don't see the connection between someone earning far too much than is good for them through their job, and children being brought up in chaos and violence while their begetters rely on the State to fund them all. You may as well say footballers and F1 drivers should earn much less - to what end? To help fund the bearing of yet more emotionally-deprived, hopeless, bored, ill-educated, fatherless children?

You can tick all the boxes at school, after-school, and in paediatric care. The boxes that aren't being ticked are those that give children their sense of place in society - the home environment. There have been masses of stories of kids coming from poor backgrounds and doing outstandingly well for themselves, whether in industry, business, or the Arts. Being poor never stopped a kid from being creative, inventive, or original. What stops them is the mindset of ignorant, stupid parents telling them to shut up, keep quiet, go away, play a computer game or watch the tv. What's poor is the nourishment of their souls.
 

Recent Blog Posts

Back
Top