Sadly, his speech to a youth parliament earlier this week was far too heavy on the maths. “Financial literacy must become a comprehensive part of the maths curriculum,” he said.

He’s simply wrong. Maths lessons are the wrong place for financial literacy for a heap of reasons:

• They won’t reach everyone—arguably missing those who need help most.
• It confuses confidence with arithmetic with skills of managing money. They are quite different.
• Maths teachers want to teach maths, not personal finance. The curriculum is full.
• The idea that maths teachers are well placed to help young people with, say, the psychology of money, is illogical in theory and ludicrous in reality.

But don’t take my word for it, Mr Clegg. Here’s what Ofsted said earlier this year.

There were shortcomings in developing personal finance education through mathematics lessons. The focus was mainly on using personal finance education as a context for applying mathematical skills, rather than on developing students’ financial skills and understanding. The mathematics required rarely extended beyond basic skills, and teachers missed opportunities for students to develop and apply more sophisticated mathematics. Teachers often lacked the skills needed to hold class discussions about aspects of personal finance education where there were no right answers.

From Developing financially capable young people.

Quite.

Fine. Who among us would argue against more sums?

But there is something selective & simplistic, even naïve, about her analysis. And it is not just the way she acknowledges, then sweeps away, her own financial mistakes. “I never saw Equitable Life coming, nor the red-light endowment”. Presumably, her wealth means that she can be blasé about such annoyances.

Then there’s this:

Just check out some of those firms that, in poor areas, put leather sofas and plasma TVs in the window with signs saying “Only £3.99 a week!”, but charge interest at 30 per cent on a debt that will long outlast the kit. They flourish on the new mathematical illiteracy, as do many credit firms.

It is more accurate to say they flourish on poverty. It is absurd to suggest that significant sections of the population have little access to affordable credit because their maths are ropey.

For many families, there may be no better option. Given the circumstances, it may be not a bad choice. Yes, the poor pay more for goods and services than the rich do. All power to Purves for highlighting that.

But zero marks to her for implying that mastering the mysteries of percentages and interest rates instantly makes better rates available. It’s all a bit more complicated than that.

Opposition leaders don’t seem to have quite got the root of the problem. Michael Gove thinks the best thing is “to get basic numeracy right”. David Laws for the Lib Dems is bothered about tuition fee debts, skyrocketing house prices and pensions.  

Well, yes-ish. These are not irrelevant. But, as with all education, the trio of “skills, knowledge and attitude” all need attention. Skills and knowledge are admittedly in a ropey state. That’s true of adults, including teachers, as well as the young.

Yet there’s a powerful argument that attitude is just as acutely important at the moment. What, fundamentally, do young people think money is for? What relationship do they want with the stuff?

Young people need to be helped to a mature, balanced attitude to money. They need self-knowledge as well as market knowledge. They need a vocabulary and understanding to discuss it calmly with each other, especially future partners. Without it, even advanced arithmetic skills or financial product knowledge won’t add up to a bag of beans.