Families' back to school purchases ‘could end up in lost property within weeks'
Some 43% of parents surveyed said their child tends to lose an item within six weeks of a new school year, according to cashback and rewards website Rakuten.
Tech items (average cost £47.68), school shoes (£43.44), and school blazers (£38.50) topped the list of items that parents said are the most costly to replace.
Opinium">
PE kits, dresses, skirts, trousers, jumpers, shirts, shorts and ties were also among the list of items that parents said had vanished.
Lunchboxes, pencil cases, stationary and water bottles were also among the items to disappear.
On average, parents estimated they spend £131 per child on back-to-school shopping at the start of the academic year.
Lost items are not the only reason for additional spending, as nearly two-thirds (63%) of parents have faced replacing ruined or damaged items.
More than half (53%) of parents have replaced school shoes within the school year because their child outgrew them.
More than a third (37%) of parents have even had to replace school shoes more than once within a single school year.
Nearly two-fifths (39%) of parents said they have felt frustrated at replacing school items.
Nearly half (48%) of parents label school essentials and the same percentage (48%) said they remind their child almost daily to look after their belongings.
Rakuten commissioned Opinium to survey 2,000 people across the UK in July for the research.
Bola Sol, a savings expert at Rakuten said: 'Back to school season can feel like deja vu for parents, buying new shoes, jumpers or water bottles only for them to vanish in the first few weeks of the new term. It adds up fast.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
19 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on Britain's AI strategy: the risk is that it is dependency dressed up in digital hype
There was a time when Britain aspired to be a leader in technology. These days, it seems content to be a willing supplicant – handing over its data, infrastructure and public services to US tech giants in exchange for the promise of a few percentage points of efficiency gains. Worryingly, the artificial intelligence strategy of Sir Keir Starmer's government appears long on rhetoric, short on sovereignty and built on techno-utopian assumptions. Last week Peter Kyle, the technology secretary, was promoting the use of AI-generated discharge letters in the NHS. The tech, he said, will process complex conversations between doctors and patients, slashing paperwork and streamlining services. Ministers say that by applying AI across the public sector, the government can save £45bn. But step back and a more familiar pattern emerges. As Cecilia Rikap, a researcher at University College London, told the Politics Theory Other podcast, Britain risks becoming a satellite of the US tech industry – a nation whose public infrastructure serves primarily as a testing ground and data source for American AI models hosted on US-owned cloud computing networks. She warned that the UK should not become a site of 'extractivism', in which value – whether in the form of knowledge, labour or electricity – is supplied by Britain but monetised in the US. It's not just that the UK lacks a domestic cloud ecosystem. It's that the government's strategy does nothing to build one. The concern is that public data, much of it drawn from the NHS and local authorities, will be shovelled into models built and trained abroad. The value captured from that data – whether in the form of model refinement or product development – will accrue not to the British public, but to US shareholders. Even the promise of job creation appears shaky. Datacentres, the physical backbone of AI, are capital-intensive, energy-hungry, and each one employs only about 50 people. Meanwhile, Daron Acemoglu, the MIT economist and Nobel laureate, offers a still more sobering view: far from ushering in a golden age of labour augmentation, today's AI rollout is geared almost entirely toward labour displacement. Prof Acemoglu sees a fork: AI can empower workers – or replace them. Right now, it is doing the latter. Ministerial pledges of productivity gains may just mean fewer jobs – not better services. The deeper problem is one of imagination. A government serious about digital sovereignty might build a public cloud, fund open-source AI models and create institutions capable of steering technological development toward social ends. Instead, we are offered efficiency-by-outsourcing – an AI strategy where Britain provides the inputs and America reaps the returns. In a 2024 paper, Prof Acemoglu challenged Goldman Sachs' 10-year forecast that AI would lead to global growth of 7% – about $7tn – and estimated instead under $1tn in gains. Much of this would be captured by US big tech. There's nothing wrong with harnessing new technologies. But their deployment must not be structured in a way that entrenches dependency and hollows out public capacity. The Online Safety Act shows digital sovereignty can enforce national rules on global platforms, notably on porn sites. But current turmoil at the Alan Turing Institute suggests a deeper truth: the UK government is dazzled by American AI and has no clear plan of its own. Britain risks becoming not a tech pioneer, but a well-governed client state in someone else's digital empire. Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
Finextra
20 minutes ago
- Finextra
Archax and Stellar collaborate on tokenised RWAs
Archax, the UK regulated digital asset exchange, broker and custodian, today announced a strategic partnership with the Stellar Development Foundation (SDF), that supports the layer-one blockchain network Stellar. 0 This content is provided by an external author without editing by Finextra. It expresses the views and opinions of the author. Under the terms of this partnership, SDF has made a direct investment into Archax Group to support Archax's mission to bridge traditional finance and blockchain. Archax has recently completed a series of milestones on the Stellar network; including tokenising an Aberdeen Money Market Fund and integrating Stellar into Archax's tokenisation engine and platform. Archax's extensive network of financial institutions will be able to bring more tokenised real-world assets (RWAs) to the Stellar network. The strategic rationale is the rapid scaling of the tokenisation market, as TradFi organisations see the benefits of adopting blockchain technology, tokenisation and moving assets 'onchain.' RWA tokenisation growth has been little short of explosive; expanding from $15.2 billion in December 2024 to over $24 billion by June 2025, representing an 85% year-on-year increase**. Archax is at the forefront of this growth, with its unique and expanding international regulatory moat, as well as its focus on bridging traditional markets into the digital/crypto/DeFi space. Graham Rodford, CEO and co-founder of Archax, comments: 'The Archax vison has always been that all financial instruments will move onchain, and we find ourselves at a pivotal point right now, because institutional adoption of digital assets is vastly accelerating. 86%* of institutions now have digital assets allocations or are planning to by the end of 2025. That's huge. Having established, credible partners and investors from the crypto world is a fundamental part of our strategy, and we are excited to welcome Stellar into that family. We look forward to bringing even more institutions and real-world assets onto the platform too.' Raja Chakravorti, Chief Business Officer at the Stellar Development Foundation comments: "Real-world assets are moving onchain because costs are lower and transactions can move anywhere around the globe in seconds. The Stellar network was purpose built to enable fast settlement times, low costs, and the tokenisation of real-world assets that is the future of finance. The Stellar Development Foundation is proud to have invested in Archax and excited about where this collaboration can go from here." Archax also recently announced working with Lloyds Bank and Aberdeen Asset Management to use tokenised money-market funds as an acceptable form of collateral, to post as margin across the Archax Nest collateral transfer network, for FX trades. 'The project with Lloyds Bank and Aberdeen is the perfect example of the innovation and benefits that can come from tokenising RWAs - as a result of this new partnership, this could now be done using the Stellar blockchain', adds Rodford. 'We have over 100 funds now available in token form from many leading asset managers. These are all available on Stellar now too.'
The Independent
20 minutes ago
- The Independent
Why bats and newts are being blamed for Britain's sluggish economy
Bad news for bats: the government is considering further changes to planning regulations in order to boost economic growth. Specifically, Rachel Reeves – desperate for the UK economy to grow and provide more jobs, homes and tax revenues – wants to relax the rules on wildlife and the environment, hence some headlines about bats, newts and snails. What does the chancellor want? To keep her job. That means getting Britain's wayward public finances under control, which means making the economic pie bigger so that tax receipts start rising without having to hammer workers and businesses every year with tax rises. She's not prepared to allow any flying mammals, rare amphibious creatures, fish or a few wildflowers to get in the way. Retained EU rules designed on the precautionary principle that a developer must prove there will be no net harm will go, and there'll be a cull in the list of 'protected species'. She wouldn't admit as much, but this is very much what Leavers would call a 'Brexit freedom'. Not much of a bonus for bats, though. Aren't they doing this already? No. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill before parliament proposes to restrict grounds for objection to a scheme, strengthen the powers of mayors and development corporations to impose decisions, and give developers more flexibility regarding nature migration schemes. Another law would be required to wage war on wildlife. Perhaps. He singled them out in an infamous speech last year that derided the '£100m bat tunnel holding up the country's single biggest infrastructure project', ie HS2. He is the Ozzy Osbourne of politics. What do we get in return? Growth. Specifically, 1.5 million new homes, 150 major infrastructure projects and, in the words of the prime minister: 'a very clear message …To the nimbys, the regulators, the blockers and bureaucrats … The alliance of naysayers … The people who say, no, 'Britain can't do this. We can't get things done in our country'. We say to them – you no longer have the upper hand … Britain says yes.' The country will almost certainly be better off, materially, from the additional investment, but it is equally apparent that all the new runways, power lines, roads and greenfield housebuilding will have an unfortunate impact on the environment and visual amenity. There's always a trade-off. Why didn't the Tories do this? They are, or were, the party of the countryside, hence their determined opposition to onshore windfarms, rural solar panel installations, housing developments in 'nice' areas and pylons marching across green and pleasant lands. What will happen? Labour will bulldoze both bits of legislation through, albeit with some grumbles from the new generation of Labour MPs who represent historically rural Conservative constituencies. Most opposition parties, including Reform, who don't think we need any green energy or housing projects at all, will make their objections clear. At the next general election, Labour will probably find its country seats much the hardest battleground.
