Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[HVC]

It's not like the kids will be homeless,

Not been following current trends in the UK then?

If the parents could afford a pre hike mortgage they could afford rent. Or social assistance can step in. I'm not for kicking people to the streets, but I'm also not for aiding in the artificial inflation of house prices which is also a societal problem.

[Josquius]

It's not like the kids will be homeless,

Not been following current trends in the UK then?

If the parents could afford a pre hike mortgage they could afford rent. Or social assistance can step in. I'm not for kicking people to the streets, but I'm also not for aiding in the artificial inflation of house prices which is also a societal problem.

Rent tends to be much more than mortgage payments.
There aren't enough social houses to go around.

Also there's huge value in stability in a kids life. Bounce a kid between hotel rooms today and you're upping the odds of paying more for social problems down the line

[Tamas]

So if people who caused prices to skyrocket because they YOLO-ed into maxing their personal budget out on 1-2% 2-year fixed ridiculously risky mortgages, thereby causing me to take out a big mortgage at 4%, are getting help, shall I be getting help as well?

And what about those who are still looking to buy? If these ridiculous mortgages are prevented from failing there will be a lack of new properties coming to the market, making kids homeless. Surely everyone should just be getting free money so we can pump demand further up, else we ran the risk of bats children becoming homeless!

[HVC]

It's not like the kids will be homeless,

Not been following current trends in the UK then?

If the parents could afford a pre hike mortgage they could afford rent. Or social assistance can step in. I'm not for kicking people to the streets, but I'm also not for aiding in the artificial inflation of house prices which is also a societal problem.

Rent tends to be much more than mortgage payments.
There aren't enough social houses to go around.

Also there's huge value in stability in a kids life. Bounce a kid between hotel rooms today and you're upping the odds of paying more for social problems down the line

My family went bankrupt in the 90s (housing bubble burst, ironically enough lol). I did the staying at family until we could rent. I'm not hooking on the street corner. The kids will be fine.

Further artificially inflating home prices has higher social harm. Ask all the millennials living at home and delaying their lives.

[Sheilbh]

Worth noting that over half of owners have already paid off their mortgages and only 25% of people with a mortgage are not already fixed.

Which argues against Davey's suggestion as well. The area with the highest increases in rates which will be passed on ASAP are buy to lets.

Price of my old flat is going up by 25-30% now I've left (Glaf to be out of that racket.

[Tamas]

We are going to have some viewers over this weekend in our rented flat (yay  ) the estate agency is trying to get 30% more than we have been paying this year, and around 15% more than they proposed we pay next year (before they learned we have bought a house).

[Josquius]

Worth noting that over half of owners have already paid off their mortgages and only 25% of people with a mortgage are not already fixed.

Which argues against Davey's suggestion as well. The area with the highest increases in rates which will be passed on ASAP are buy to lets.

He mentioned families losing their homes. Is he really suggesting extending this to buy to let scum?

y family went bankrupt in the 90s (housing bubble burst, ironically enough lol). I did the staying at family until we could rent. I'm not hooking on the street corner. The kids will be fine.

Further artificially inflating home prices has higher social harm. Ask all the millennials living at home and delaying their lives.

There you're drawing close to survivors fallacy.
"When I was a kid we always played with rusty scrap metal on local waste land and I'm still alive!".
Its a fact that messed up living situations and unstable schooling have a heavy correlation with worse life at outcomes. This is of course an average. There'll always be those who do well inspite of it, those who even thrive on it, and so on.

Nobody is talking about inflating house prices.

[HVC]

Nobody is talking about inflating house prices.

That's exactly what we're talking about. What do you think removing risk from mortgages will do?

And the fallacy in this scenario is that not bailing out people who gambled on mortgages will lead to a mass of homeless damaged children.

[Josquius]

Nobody is talking about inflating house prices.

That's exactly what we're talking about. What do you think removing risk from mortgages will do?

And the fallacy in this scenario is that not bailing out people who gambled on mortgages will lead to a mass of homeless damaged children.

We aren't talking about removing risk. We're talking about a temporary protection against the absolute worst outcomes from this in the current messed up economic circumstances.

You'd be surprised how many home owners have kids. That should absolutely be a key factor in avoiding repossessions.

[Sheilbh]

Two slightly more positive bits of modern Britain (and maybe slightly related) - first, which is a great success story of policy decisions in education over the last twenty years, children of immigrants outperform native-born more in Britain than any other OECD or European country. Via Jonathan Portes:


The impact of this is already starting to be felt. For example British Bangladeshis have gone from one of the groups with the lowest rate of education attainment to one of the highest - especially women. It's now showing up in other stats, which is very positive. A huge part of the story has been the particular success in improving state schools across London.

Incidentally I also think this is what I mean when Yi asked why I thought there was a difference between African Americans and Black Britons. Black Britons are often immigrants or the children of immigrants and have higher attainment than White British kids - I've heard an education policy expert say that when he says that in the US it tends to be a bit of a struggle for audiences to believe.

Also probably another one to counter the "genetic IQ differences"/return of race science folks.

The other from Simon Kuper who was at Oxford with Johnson etc and has literally written a book, Chums, about how a group of Oxford chums ruined Britain on how Oxbridge have changed since he was there in the 80s:

What elite American universities can learn from Oxbridge
US colleges could make themselves more meritocratic — but do they want to?
Simon Kuper June 15 2023

Both the US and UK preselect their adult elites early, by admitting a few 18-year-olds into brand-name universities. Everyone else in each age cohort is essentially told, "Sorry kid, probably not in this lifetime."

The happy few come disproportionately from rich families. Many Ivy League colleges take more students from the top 1 per cent of household incomes than the bottom 60 per cent. Both countries have long agonised about how to diversify the student intake. Lots of American liberals worry that ancestral privilege will be further cemented at some point this month, when the Supreme Court is expected to outlaw race-conscious affirmative action in university admissions.

Whatever the court decides, US colleges have ways to make themselves more meritocratic. They could learn from Britain's elite universities, which, in just the past few years, have become much more diverse in class and ethnicity. It's doable, but only if you want to do it — which the US probably doesn't.

Pressure from the government helped embarrass Oxford and Cambridge into overhauling admissions. (And yes, we have to fixate on Oxbridge because it's the main gateway to the adult elite.) On recent visits to both universities, I was awestruck by the range of accents, and the scale of change. Oxbridge colleges now aim for "contextual admissions", including the use of algorithms to gauge how much disadvantage candidates have surmounted to reach their academic level. For instance: was your school private or state? What proportion of pupils got free school meals? Did your parents go to university?

Admissions tutors compare candidates' performance in GCSEs — British exams taken aged 16 — to that of their schoolmates. Getting seven As at a school where the average is four counts for more than getting seven at a school that averages 10. The brightest kid at an underprivileged school is probably smarter than the 50th-best Etonian.

Oxbridge has made admissions interviews less terrifying for underprivileged students, who often suffer from imposter syndrome. If a bright working-class kid freezes at interview, one Oxford tutor told me he thinks: "I will not let you talk yourself out of a place here." And to counter the interview coaching that private-school pupils receive, Oxford increasingly hands candidates texts they haven't seen before.

Oxbridge hosts endless summer schools and open days for underprivileged children. The head of one Oxford college says that it had at least one school visit every day of term. The pupils are shown around by students from similar backgrounds. The message to the kids is: "You belong here."

It's working. State schools last year provided a record 72.5 per cent of Cambridge's British undergraduate admissions. From 2018 to 2022, more than one in seven UK-domiciled Oxford undergraduates came from "socio-economically disadvantaged areas". Twenty-eight per cent of Oxford students identified as "black and minority ethnic"; slightly more undergraduates now are women than men. Academics told me that less privileged students are more likely to experience social or mental-health problems, but usually get good degrees. These universities haven't relaxed their standards. On the contrary, by widening the talent pool, they are finding more talent.

Elite US colleges could do that even without affirmative action. First, they would have to abolish affirmative action for white applicants. A study led by Peter Arcidiacono of Duke University found that more than 43 per cent of white undergraduates admitted to Harvard from 2009 to 2014 were recruited athletes, children of alumni, "on the dean's interest list" (typically relatives of donors) or "children of faculty and staff". Three-quarters wouldn't have got in otherwise. This form of corruption doesn't exist in Britain. One long-time Oxford admissions tutor told me that someone in his job could go decades without even being offered a donation as bait for admitting a student. Nor do British alumni expect preferential treatment for their children.

The solutions to many American societal problems are obvious if politically unfeasible: ban guns, negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical companies. Similarly, elite US universities could become less oligarchical simply by agreeing to live with more modest donations — albeit still the world's biggest. Harvard's endowment of $50.9bn is more than six times that of the most elite British universities.

But US colleges probably won't change, says Martin Carnoy of Stanford's School of Education. Their business model depends on funding from rich people, who expect something in return. He adds: "It's the same with the electoral system. Once you let private money into a public good, it becomes unfair."

Both countries have long been fake meritocracies. The US intends to remain one.

I suspect one side effect of this is that Russell Group universities - at the tier below Oxbridge - are becoming even more posh as the Oxbridge rejects from private schools instead focus on Durham (its traditional role), London universities, Edinburgh etc.

Edit: Also on the chart - really intrigued by the difference between Sweden and its neighbours on the share that are "low educated"

[garbon]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jun/19/suella-braverman-tells-police-to-ramp-up-use-of-stop-and-search

Suella Braverman tells police to ramp up use of stop and search
UK home secretary says police have her full support in using tactic to prevent violence and save lives

Matthew Weaver
Mon 19 Jun 2023 06.00 BST
Suella Braverman has called on police to increase the use of stop and search powers "to prevent violence and save more lives".

In a statement aimed at all 43 forces in England and Wales, the home secretary said officers who used the powers had her "full support".

Her comments are likely to alarm critics of stop and search who point out that the technique disproportionately targets black and minority ethnic communities.

Government statistics suggest black people are seven times more like to be stopped and searched compared with white people. Campaign groups have previously said relaxing restrictions on police use of stop and search could compound discrimination.

In remarks that appear to be aimed at addressing anticipated criticism, Braverman said young black males were disproportionately affected by knife crime.

Her statement says: "Carrying weapons is a scourge on our society, and anyone doing so is risking their own lives as well as the lives of those around them. This dangerous culture must be brought to a stop.

"My first priority is to keep the public safe, and people who insist on carrying a weapon must know that there will be consequences. The police have my full support to ramp up the use of stop and search, wherever necessary, to prevent violence and save more lives."

Braverman's statement expresses backing for the police in tackling knife crime among young black males. "Every death from knife crime is a tragedy," she says. "That's why I also back the police in tackling this blight in communities which are disproportionately affected, such as among young black males. We need to do everything in our power to crack down on this violence."

Earlier this month, the head of the police inspectorate in England and Wales, Andy Cooke, acknowledged that the use of stop and search "polarises the public". But in his first state of policing report, he insisted that stop and search was an effective way of deterring crime and showing police visibility on the street.

He said police leaders should explain why it had been used disproportionally against black people. Launching the report, he said: "That doesn't mean that the police are being racist ... There's also more disproportionality for victims. It is four times more likely as a black man to be murdered than a young white man."

The inspectorates audited 8,902 stop and search records in 2020 and 2021 and found that 83.9% were reasonable. But it said the overall figures masked considerable differences between forces.

Cooke called for new research to assess the deterrent value of stop and search and the causes of disproportionality in its use.

[Sheilbh]

Always think stop and search is an example of a policy where you can make significant change without actually doing much/spending any money.

Theresa May massively reduced stop and search, and reduced the racial bias, simply by making the police fill in a form when they did it (including identifying their "reasonable grounds" for the search). That was reversed by Patel and now Braverman is backing it to the hilt - but the number of searches a year is still 1/3 what they were in 2010 when May became Home Secretary.

Of course because of austerity, we've also seen a collapse in the number of successful investigations or prosecutions. If they want to address knife violence or any other crime, I feel like that would probably be a better route but, with the courts almost at the point of collapse, that would cost money.

Edit: Also, inevitably in the week of the 75th anniversary of Windrush, Braverman has scrapped the Home Office unit responsible for reforming the Home Office following that scandal and, apparently, said it's time to "move on"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jun/19/unit-reforming-home-office-windrush-scandal-being-disbanded

[Tamas]

I find it depressing to have a succession of (two) Home Secretaries from various minorities themselves being this nasty on things that disproportionately affect minorities (I guess the fact that it is not disproportionately affecting their own particular minority just makes it worse).

Then again, maybe as I was musing about it earlier, I should feel happy about this - it's a nice showcase that eliminating racism will take a bigger effort than focusing on "whites vs. everyone else".

[Josquius]

Honestly sounds scummy but potentially smart politics.
The culture war is all the tories have. Whipping up some of the sillier sections of BLM et al will help fuel their voters in small grey-white towns.

Good news on Oxbridge? Maybe? Though I have been hearing ever more mutterings of Durham students being shit - they really need to put in more effort to recruit locals.

[Sheilbh]

I find it depressing to have a succession of (two) Home Secretaries from various minorities themselves being this nasty on things that disproportionately affect minorities (I guess the fact that it is not disproportionately affecting their own particular minority just makes it worse).

Then again, maybe as I was musing about it earlier, I should feel happy about this - it's a nice showcase that eliminating racism will take a bigger effort than focusing on "whites vs. everyone else".

Yeah - it is also mad that Theresa May, of the Windrush scandal and creating a hostile environment - was probably the best Home Secretary we've had in decades on police reform and challenging the police. I wonder if that's possibly the axis they're seeing themselves on as pro or anti-police, just thinking, for example, of Braverman not fully accepting the Casey Report on the Met. The police say this is an essential tool for stopping crime if, unfortunately, used in a racist way and her and Patel just accepts that - it would be anti-police to push back. While May was willing to challenge the police more, including her excellent Police Federation (basically their union) speech.

I think there is something institutionally broken in the Home Office and it needs re-building from the ground up. I could be wrong but I feel like it's basically been captured by the forces it's supposed to be running. There is an in-built authoritarianism and nastiness (and routine failure) in the department that makes me think it institutionally doesn't work and resists any reform.

On stop and search, as I say, it was three times more used under New Labour and more racially biased. I often think of this thread, especially when I listen to Alastair Campbell talk about migration, because it is striking how many of the examples come from the Home Office and how many are about targeting asylum seekers (it's depressing as hell - from a government I generally like):
https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1231543272943898626

Good news on Oxbridge? Maybe? Though I have been hearing ever more mutterings of Durham students being shit - they really need to put in more effort to recruit locals.

Yeah I think Durham has that reputation of private school, Oxbridge rejects and I suspect they're embracing it rather than trying to improve their intake of state school educated, disadvantaged or minority students.

I think on Oxbridge it is good in general. It helps explain the rise of articles in the Times and Telegraph about poor private school kids (friends and family of the columnist) not getting into Oxbridge. I often think about that paragraph from a Times piece on the trauma of upper middle class teens having to go to a state sixth form to improve their Oxbridge chance:

These experiments can also go badly wrong. One friend has seen a capable but pony-loving teenage girl be yanked from her all-girl day school to a highly selective mixed-sex state school in a tough neighbourhood (same postcode). "How on earth will she cope?" she says "How far are we willing to push social engineering, and at what mental cost?"

It's one of the things I always wonder about with a lot of commentators though is Kuper is comparing now with his experience in the 80s - and especially with education there's so much people in the media say that sounds nothing like my experience in state schools in England and Scotland. I always wonder how much is just because actually a lot has changed since the 80s and 90s and if there's a bit of a generation gap.

Or how much is just because the media is full of people who've been privately educated (more than, say, banking or city law firms) and often send their kids to private schools so actually have no experience of actual state schools. I think you get it from the right in the Times and Telegraph with their "capable but pony-loving" teenagers, and also from the left in the Guardian with a sort of patronising concern for sink schools that often sound like someone who's just watched a particularly gritty episode of Grange Hill.

It really annoys me about education in the media generally - that I think everyone uses the NHS and the coverage reflects the fact that even hacks in the most conservative media have skin in the game with the NHS. But there is a divide on schools.