Britain ‘has worst social mobility in the Western world’

May 1st, 2012

FAKE NEWS for the Zionist agenda

Study shows prospects of half of UK children almost entirely linked to circumstances of parents

By
Daniel Martin

PUBLISHED:

18:03 EST, 30 April 2012

|

UPDATED:

18:04 EST, 30 April 2012

Comments: Damian Hinds said the UK lagged behind international competitors

Social mobility in Britain is the worst in the Western world and the gap between rich and poor has become ingrained in children as young as three, MPs conclude today.

They quote a study showing that the prospects of half of all children born in the UK can be almost entirely linked to the circumstances of their parents – compared to only 15 per cent of those in Denmark.

Differences are also noticeable at a very young age, with toddlers doing far better in vocabulary tests if they grow up in a more affluent household.

Controversially, the MPs call for more
intervention in the lives of under-threes. The report also shows that
despite all the money spent to get more teenagers into university, the
access gap between rich and poor has actually widened in recent years.

Last
night Tory backbencher Damian Hinds, chairman of the All-Party Group on
Social Mobility, which wrote the report, said: ‘For a long time, we
have lagged behind our international competitors in ensuring all Britons
can realise their potential.

‘To
bridge the gap will require a shared commitment between schools,
universities and firms, government and the voluntary sector. The scale
of the challenge is immense.’

The
report quotes a study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development which compared the extent to which children’s prospects are
predictable from parents’ circumstances.

In
the UK, the OECD says 50 per cent of children’s prospects are
predictable from the position of their parents – a sign of low social
mobility. This was worse than Italy (48 per cent), the US (47 per cent)
and France (41 per cent).

Poverty: Britain's failure means a poor child born in 1970 is less likely to have gone to university than one born in 1958, MPs say (file photo)

Poverty: Britain’s failure means a poor child born in 1970 is less likely to have gone to university than one born in 1958, MPs say (file photo)

The prospects of poorer children born in Australia (17 per cent) and Denmark (15 per cent) are much brighter.

Britain’s failure means a poor child born in 1970 is less likely to have gone to university than one born in 1958, the MPs say. The report makes it clear the differences become ingrained as young as the age of three.

Studies have shown that while only 42 per cent of parents in the poorest fifth of homes read to their children every day, 78 per cent of those in the richest fifth do so.

Wealthier parents are also more likely to send their children to bed at a regular time. It has led to richer children being more likely to be deemed ‘ready’ for school at three.

Better future: The prospects of poorer children born in Denmark (above) and Australia (below) are much brighter

Better future: The prospects of poorer children born in Australia are much brighter

They also perform much better in vocabulary tests at five. Children from poorer households are more likely to be hyperactive.

The MPs called on the Government to consider ways of improving the education of those from poor backgrounds, such as means-testing fees at independent schools to get more poor people into top schools and sending more poor children to summer camps.

But it failed to mention either the return of grammar schools or the assisted-places scheme for poorer families, which was abolished by the last Labour government.

The MPs’ report concluded that the biggest impact on social mobility was the quality of parenting, whether the home environment was educational and whether the parents had good mental health.

Daily Mail Comment

It says: ‘A child’s development from zero to three is the point of greatest leverage for social mobility. It is acknowledged that this is difficult territory for policy makers as it relates to parenting as well as what happens in childcare and nursery settings.’

The conclusion will be controversial because it could be used to support greater ‘nanny state’ interference into families.

The MPs urged ministers to do more to encourage parents to read to children using techniques similar to the ‘five-a-day’ campaign which encourages people to eat more fruit and veg.

The study also found that the gap between rich and poor on university access has widened.

In 1981, children from the richest fifth of households were three times more likely than those from the poorest fifth to go to university. By the late 1990s, they were five times more likely to go.

Here’s what other readers have said. Why not add your thoughts,
or debate this issue live on our message boards.

The comments below have not been moderated.

Newest
Oldest
Best rated
Worst rated

Lots of mobility cars where I live!!

– sicon67, Gosport, Hampshire, 01/5/2012 10:47

Maybe the breakdown of the family and something for nothing culture has got something to do with it!Get off to school,work hard and you will do well.Children in India VALUE education.WE DON’T

– ngreen, london, 01/5/2012 10:47

By saying that no-hoper parents produce no-hoper children who become no-hoper parents etc and that breaking that cycle is good for the nation overall even if it upsets some middle class parents who find that their little dear doesn’t do as well as they do currently?

– alan, edinburgh uk, 01/5/2012 10:46

Blair’s Britain created ghettoes; labour voting ghettoes.
– Lurch (ex-pat), Palma, Mallorca, 1/5/2012 1:30 ………So why aren’t labour in power, hmmm?

– Phil, Ardrossan, Scotland., 01/5/2012 10:44

It is nothing to do with ‘Affluence’ and all to do with RESPONSIBILITY. If you have children, it is your RESPONSIBILITY to ensure that they get the best education that they can. If this means sitting down with them talking to them, get on with it. People on benefits may have more ‘disposable’ income than those in work. They also have more time so they should be able to put some effort into educating their children if they can be bothered. RESPONSIBILITY, ATTITUDE EFFORT need to be applied.

– Greytide, Middle England, 01/5/2012 10:43

Another thing about this country is that we never really had a revolution or lost a war to get rid of the ‘aristocratic’ land owners. Many people living in uncontacted tribes in the jungle are ‘richer’ than the average Briton as they still have enough land to feed themselves and their families on without needing outside help. Most Britons have to slave away in a meaningless job to pay the bankers and the tax man.

– Barry, Brighton, 01/5/2012 10:41

Labour has encouraged a large number of cuckoos who expect the cost of raising their children to be paid for by the hard work of others. ConLib are too weak to solve the problem. The other issue is very expensive housing which discourages social mobility and greatly increases the benefits bill because of the cost of housing benefit. Those who make a net contribution to society, or have done so and are now retired should get 2 votes, those who keep costing the tax payer should only get 1 vote. Ancient Rome went bankrupt because of the cost of paying for the army, we are now bankrupt because of the welfare state, too many taking out, not enough paying in.

– Simon, Bradford, 01/5/2012 10:40

We should not be lampooning the poor. Did the poor decide to offshore their jobs? do they have access to the best schools, grow up in areas where violence isn’t a daily occurrence? Despite the occasional headline showing someone on benefits living in a mansion, the benefits system hardly provides a great living standard. Being able to afford a tv doesn’t mean life is great. There are 4 applicants for every job going going at the moment, not everyone wants to be on benefits. What should be looked at is why we have the worst social mobility, and there are scientific explanations on the detriments of poverty and how it affects mentality instead of cliche’s about the poor and our own self righteous on how we are ourselves are not poor. It also means if you are rich you are most likely to stay rich. We have to break this idea of the go it alone millionaire. Success is born out of decent education etc We live in a plutocracy, not my words, citigroups own description.

– Chris Barnes, Maidstone, Kent, 01/5/2012 10:38

How about they make it possible for people to be able to afford going to university again?
It’s that simple.

– cynical, Lancashire, 01/5/2012 10:36

Alan,Edinburgh UK. You are definitely part of the problem.

– Alfred Saxon, West Sussex, 01/5/2012 10:34

The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.