UK ranks behind Slovenia in childhood wellbeing

Guest

Six out of 1,000 British children will die before their fifth birthday and only four in five attend pre-school, says Save the Children

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2011/may/03/uk-behind-slovenia-childhood-wellbeing

Children in the UK are worse off than those in Slovenia, Estonia and Greece, according to Save the Children. The charity today ranked the UK 23rd out of 43 "more developed" countries for child wellbeing in its annual State of the World's Mothers report, and said the result was a "national embarrassment".

The charity's report ranked Sweden as the best place for a child's wellbeing, with Italy and Japan in joint second place. Somalia is the worst place on the planet for children's wellbeing.

Download report here:
http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/en/54_15480.htm

Justin Forsyth, chief executive of Save the Children criticised government plans to cut support for childcare costs, which he said would hurt the poorest children even further.

"By cutting childcare support, the government is making it harder for low-income parents to return to work but, just as important, more of our poorest children are likely to miss out on pre-school education, a key to later educational achievement," he said.

The UK's under-five child mortality rate – at six per 1,000 live births – was the joint 23rd lowest score out of the 43 countries. The lowest rates were three per 1,000.

And it found that only 81% of children under five were enrolled in pre-school education. In secondary schools, 99% of children were enrolled.

Guest

As I've said before this is not a good country for kids.

I take it you will be moving to Slovania.

Posts: 7840 Join date: 2010-04-22 Location: Purgatory

L_12 wrote:

As I've said before this is not a good country for kids.

Gary Glitter would agree, Cambodia would be better

_________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so sure of themselves, and wiser people are full of doubts

maybe something to do with the fact that our country is full of people from other countries like Slovenia, who are here for finacial gain.

If they were in their own country the stats would be completely different.

_________________
Thats It.....Game well and truly over....and I hate saying that!! Andy Gray 25/05/05.

http://dontbuythesun.co.uk/site/

Posts: 7840 Join date: 2010-04-22 Location: Purgatory

L22Red wrote:

maybe something to do with the fact that our country is full of people from other countries like Slovenia, who are here for finacial gain.

If they were in their own country the stats would be completely different.

yep, the Slovvenians are killing our kids

_________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so sure of themselves, and wiser people are full of doubts

Posts: 672 Join date: 2010-04-25

For some this would be further proof and the result of the repeated tinkering with the NHS and Welfare State System, in essence cost cutting, by various governments sine 1979 - as they try to privatise the aforementioned entities.

Posts: 1361 Join date: 2010-12-03 Age: 61

L_12 wrote:

As I've said before this is not a good country for kids.

What you complaining about, we let you use our grown ups forum dont we. Lol

Posts: 7626 Join date: 2010-04-22 Age: 45 Location: Wales

daveymac wrote:

L_12 wrote:

As I've said before this is not a good country for kids.

What you complaining about, we let you use our grown ups forum dont we. Lol

fucking hell davey, youve turned into alf garnett with piles recently, whats going on, you used to be such a happy chappy?

Posts: 1833 Join date: 2010-04-24 Age: 32

L_12 wrote:

Six out of 1,000 British children will die before their fifth birthday and only four in five attend pre-school, says Save the Children

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2011/may/03/uk-behind-slovenia-childhood-wellbeing

Children in the UK are worse off than those in Slovenia, Estonia and Greece, according to Save the Children. The charity today ranked the UK 23rd out of 43 "more developed" countries for child wellbeing in its annual State of the World's Mothers report, and said the result was a "national embarrassment".

The charity's report ranked Sweden as the best place for a child's wellbeing, with Italy and Japan in joint second place. Somalia is the worst place on the planet for children's wellbeing.

Download report here:
http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/en/54_15480.htm

Justin Forsyth, chief executive of Save the Children criticised government plans to cut support for childcare costs, which he said would hurt the poorest children even further.

"By cutting childcare support, the government is making it harder for low-income parents to return to work but, just as important, more of our poorest children are likely to miss out on pre-school education, a key to later educational achievement," he said.

The UK's under-five child mortality rate – at six per 1,000 live births – was the joint 23rd lowest score out of the 43 countries. The lowest rates were three per 1,000.

And it found that only 81% of children under five were enrolled in pre-school education. In secondary schools, 99% of children were enrolled.

Its a shame the Tories and Lib-Dems are going to make it even worse with their cuts isn't it? Please bear in mind that the following article is from no leftist paper, nor is the report in question from a leftist organisation. For me, this further cements my opinion that the way these cuts are being deployed is SHAMEFUL.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/14839ed4-70c5-11e0-9b1d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1LJbbMbJj

A decade’s investment in reducing child poverty in the UK looks set to be undone, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development warned on Wednesday.

In its first ever report on family well being in more than 30 countries, the Paris- based think tank said that before the financial crisis child poverty in the UK fell by more than in any other OECD country.

A period of sustained investment between 1995 to 2005 saw the proportion of children living in a household with less than half the median incomes – the OECD’s definition of poverty – drop from 17.4 per cent to 10.5 per cent, below the OECD average of 12.7 per cent.

Over the same period, thanks in part to higher benefit rates, welfare-to-work programmes and more employment, the growth in average family incomes was the third highest in the OECD.

However, “progress in child poverty reduction in the UK has stalled and is now predicted to increase,” the think tank said, adding that social protection spending on families itself “needs to be protected”.

Between 2003 and 2007 the UK became one of the biggest investors in families in the OECD, the report says. Early years spending rose substantially, driven by new cash supports for children around birth and increased investment in child care.

Today, however, “spending cuts, such as cutting benefits for pregnancy and childbirth, and a freeze on child cash benefits, will affect many families”.

Cutting back on early years services will make it difficult for the UK to achieve its policy of making work pay for all, the think tank said. And providing services such as affordable and good quality local day-care centres, with flexible opening hours, is key to helping families with children on low incomes into work.

Under moves to eliminate the deficit, the budget of many Sure Start centres which provide such services are being cut, with the coalition saying it wants such services focused on the most disadvantaged.

The coalition’s plans to extend 15 hours of free early education to disadvantaged children as young as two is a positive step, the think tank said. But childcare costs remain a barrier to work for parents higher up the income scale and “there is room in UK policy for an effective childcare supplement for working parents”.

After accounting for child care, over two-thirds of a typical second earner’s income is effectively taxed away, the report says. With 68 per cent of income typically going on childcare, that is comfortably ahead of the OECD average of 52 per cent.

Moreover, entering work does not guarantee that children in a low income family will be free of poverty – indeed, in-work child poverty has been growing recently.

The report shows that poverty in households with children is rising in nearly all OECD countries and these days children are more likely than pensioners to be poor. In some countries, including the US, one in five children now live in poverty.

Work forms a crucial part of tackling that, Angel Gurria, the OECD secretary general said, and “family benefits need to be well designed to maintain work incentives”. But benefits must also protect the most vulnerable, “otherwise we risk creating high, long-term social costs for future generations”.

Guest

cactusjon wrote:

Its a shame the Tories and Lib-Dems are going to make it even worse with their cuts isn't it? Please bear in mind that the following article is from no leftist paper, nor is the report in question from a leftist organisation. For me, this further cements my opinion that the way these cuts are being deployed is SHAMEFUL.

I think you're falling into the trap that most fall into. Poverty is only one problem; its a big one don't get me wrong, but there are so many other inequalities that affect the young relative to any other age group. If we want to improve children's wellbeing, it starts in the home, it also includes how we view and treat children in this country. In so many ways, in my opinion, this country lags behind Europe and has so many failings.

So the question I would like to ask is why, as so many studies have shown, is the UK faring so poorly relative to other countries (not just in the context of this quite limited study but others too) when those it is being compared to are much, much poorer? [In other words the solution cannot be economic if we're failing relative to poorer countries]

Posts: 2251 Join date: 2010-04-23 Age: 24 Location: Widnes

L_12, who do you support? I don't think I've ever seen you mention anythin about footy on this forum.

Guest

cactusjon wrote:

Its a shame the Tories and Lib-Dems are going to make it even worse with their cuts isn't it? Please bear in mind that the following article is from no leftist paper, nor is the report in question from a leftist organisation. For me, this further cements my opinion that the way these cuts are being deployed is SHAMEFUL.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/14839ed4-70c5-11e0-9b1d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1LJbbMbJj

A decade’s investment in reducing child poverty in the UK looks set to be undone, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development warned on Wednesday.

In its first ever report on family well being in more than 30 countries, the Paris- based think tank said that before the financial crisis child poverty in the UK fell by more than in any other OECD country.

A period of sustained investment between 1995 to 2005 saw the proportion of children living in a household with less than half the median incomes – the OECD’s definition of poverty – drop from 17.4 per cent to 10.5 per cent, below the OECD average of 12.7 per cent.

Over the same period, thanks in part to higher benefit rates, welfare-to-work programmes and more employment, the growth in average family incomes was the third highest in the OECD.

However, “progress in child poverty reduction in the UK has stalled and is now predicted to increase,” the think tank said, adding that social protection spending on families itself “needs to be protected”.

Between 2003 and 2007 the UK became one of the biggest investors in families in the OECD, the report says. Early years spending rose substantially, driven by new cash supports for children around birth and increased investment in child care.

Today, however, “spending cuts, such as cutting benefits for pregnancy and childbirth, and a freeze on child cash benefits, will affect many families”.

Cutting back on early years services will make it difficult for the UK to achieve its policy of making work pay for all, the think tank said. And providing services such as affordable and good quality local day-care centres, with flexible opening hours, is key to helping families with children on low incomes into work.

Under moves to eliminate the deficit, the budget of many Sure Start centres which provide such services are being cut, with the coalition saying it wants such services focused on the most disadvantaged.

The coalition’s plans to extend 15 hours of free early education to disadvantaged children as young as two is a positive step, the think tank said. But childcare costs remain a barrier to work for parents higher up the income scale and “there is room in UK policy for an effective childcare supplement for working parents”.

After accounting for child care, over two-thirds of a typical second earner’s income is effectively taxed away, the report says. With 68 per cent of income typically going on childcare, that is comfortably ahead of the OECD average of 52 per cent.

Moreover, entering work does not guarantee that children in a low income family will be free of poverty – indeed, in-work child poverty has been growing recently.

The report shows that poverty in households with children is rising in nearly all OECD countries and these days children are more likely than pensioners to be poor. In some countries, including the US, one in five children now live in poverty.

Work forms a crucial part of tackling that, Angel Gurria, the OECD secretary general said, and “family benefits need to be well designed to maintain work incentives”. But benefits must also protect the most vulnerable, “otherwise we risk creating high, long-term social costs for future generations”.

I thought these figures looked a bit suspect on child poverty, though I didn't want to comment until looking them up. The Child Poverty Action Group tell a very different story. From a report commissioned in 2009:

"The proportion of children living in poverty in the UK has doubled in the past generation. The UK has proportionally more children in poverty than most rich countries."

Also, "the UK is ranked 24th out of 29 countries surveyed for child health, and 24th out of 26 for material resources."

Posts: 7301 Join date: 2010-04-23

L_12 wrote:

As I've said before this is not a good country for kids.

It is heart breaking to agree with that. That is why it is up to us parents to provide the best we can for our kids.

Posts: 3623 Join date: 2010-07-19 Age: 41

L_12 wrote:

So the question I would like to ask is why, as so many studies have shown, is the UK faring so poorly relative to other countries (not just in the context of this quite limited study but others too) when those it is being compared to are much, much poorer? [In other words the solution cannot be economic if we're failing relative to poorer countries]

The culture of the UK is often not suited to promoting educational excellence, hard work, self improvement.

Social acceptance of the benefit culture.

The weather.

Fragmentation of society.

Loss of community spirit.

Celebrating mediocrity.

"I don't know" replacing "I'll find out".

Not my problem...who does she think she is...why should I when nobody else does...

Hate they neighbour.

Stealing directly or indirectly.

Punitive taxation on the responsible to fund the irresponsible.

Rooney.

Ineffectual punitive measures for miscreants.

Tony Soprano is a hero.

The term, "working stiff".

Hoodies and tracksuits.

Everyone gets an A*.

"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" - the opposite of that.

Labour Party being elected because they have "Labour" in their name.

No manufacturing base.