Which was in 1982, not 1983. I think even some of the reviewers who raved about it have picked up on that.

I’m not in the sunniest of moods as I type (just had a career-saving grant application turned down) but this review gladdened my black heart. In particular, this…

TiE goes a long way to showing that, just so long as you make a film with a certain kind of subject matter, critics will give you a good write-up

…rang a bell (labelled Vera Drake).

much of the script was improvised, demonstrating that people don’t really talk in polished Tarantino-esqe dialogue

It seems to me that you can go one of two ways with improvised drama. You can allow the actors to create tics, mannerisms and catchphrases that feed off one another, building up to create a weird stylised parallel universe (Mike Leigh at his best). Or you can keep telling them to act like real people reacting in real ways to a real situation… in which case you generally end up with a weird stylised parallel universe, only a dull one without any catchphrases.

and

Almost certainly a result of lower labour force participation due to more 16 and 17 year olds being in full time education.

One can check that sort of thing you know. From:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/tsdtables1.asp?vlnk=lms

second quarter 1997, economic activity rate among 16-17 yr olds: 60.5

sept 2006 (one corresponding to the 25.3 statistic above) economic activity rate among 16-17 yt olds: 47.3

So dsquared is right, almost all the increase in the unemployment rate in this age group (more than 80% of it) has been due to the decrease in labor force particpation rate (which is what I assume “economic activity” refers to).

It’s also interesting to note that most of this change takes place after 2005.

Of course increases in education enrollment could signal a crappy economy (no jobs so might as well go to school for a few years) but I doubt that very much applies to this age group.

That reality is often dull and boring is no reason to praise dullness and boredom as desirable qualities in a work of art . . .

“THE death rate among young drivers has doubled in the past five years”

Which still leaves british young drivers far less likely to die on the road than their european counterparts.

“consume 6.3 units of alcohol”

Gasp , a whole 0.4 pints more than the european average……, truly sodom and gomorrah writ large.

And anyone who regards 2.2 pints on a night out as a ‘binge’ deserves a good slap.

“A growing army of young people in Britain is being left behind. That’s the conclusion of a recent report by the Prince’s Trust, which exposed the crisis of ‘neets’ – young people aged 16 to 24 not in education, employment or training.

“Relatively low unemployment masks almost 1.3 million ‘neets’, a lost generation that has grown by 15% since 1997. The failure to tap their potential undermines social cohesion, damages the economy, and puts a growing strain on the exchequer. The report estimates the cost at £3.65bn a year.”
http://education.guardian.co.uk/further/opinion/story/0,,2063687,00.html

The fact is that the youth in Britain now are different from their peers elsewhere:

“THE death rate among young drivers has doubled in the past five years, prompting demands for greater restrictions on those who have recently passed their tests. The steady improvement in road safety across the general population is masking a sharp increase in the number of drivers aged under 20 having fatal crashes, despite a tougher driving test.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3223-2116254,00.html

“The British are Western Europe’s biggest binge drinkers, a new study has revealed. According to market analysts Datamonitor, drinkers in Britain consume 6.3 units of alcohol – equivalent of 2.2 pints of lager – each time they visit the pub.”
http://www.999today.com/health/news/story/3014.html

“The teenage pregnancy rate in Britain is the highest in Western Europe and dealing with the consequences costs taxpayers an estimated £63million a year.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=416077&in_page_id=1879&in_a_source=

Both 18th and 19th actually, but didn’t get published until the 19th.

100 teenagers. Of whom

75 are in education

20 in work

5 unemployed.

= 5/25 = 20% youth unemployment.

After a new programme is introduced:

84 are in education

12 in work

4 unemployed.

Youth unemployment is now 4/16 = 25%.

Almost certainly a result of lower labour force participation due to more 16 and 17 year olds being in full time education.