Keir Starmer's definition of working class

I think you misunderstand the meaning of "equality of opportunity". The idea is that those with fewer resources are given a helping hand, so that they do start from the same starting point.

You seem to contradict yourself. Scandinavian countries do support people by (as you write) social legislation.

Defining equality as equality of opportunity is the definition of a very unequal society.

In fact it is what we have very imperfectly at the moment - and that is a meritocracy, where the clever and bright rise to the top and because, nowadays couples tend to match in intellectual ability, they produce the clever and bright children who rise to the top and so on and so on.

We can never have equality of opportunity because we can never have equality at the starting line with every child born equally intelligent, equally talented etc etc. There will always be those in society who through no fault of their own are unable to make their way in life and, even though they take every opportunity available to them will never rise very fra.

There will also always be those in society who will oppress those who are not as successful as others. Why do we have a minimum wage, not because we do not have equality of opportunity, but because those who are more successful can impose their own terms on other people and pay low wages, unless stopped by the imposition of a minimum wage.

If you look at those countries that come closest to social and educational equality , and I would say those inlcude most of the Scandinavian countries. They have got there far more by social legislation tha support the least successful in society as they have by offering equality of opportunity to people who are not born with equality of capacity.

LarryN

Hi, I'm here about the 'cheque' thing, which you've addressed. Couldn't agree more. I'm surprised more people don't known the expression, or sad that so many were confused!
Of course people have often said this, if they were used to normal conversation. It's a bit like saying, 'get out of jail free card'; 'writing a cheque' to get out of trouble, I see as shorthand. One might see it as slipping notes to a traffic cop, for instance (never done this...)

That's what I've always understood the expression to mean too. In other words, people can pay bills without having to worry whether there's anything left in the kitty. All they have to do is put their signature on a piece of paper.

Caleo

Monica, "can write a cheque" simply means "can pay your bills".
Everyone knows that many people who work nevertheless can't pay their bills.

The huge differential between the haves and the have nots must be remedied.
I do not know what sort of school your grandchildren go to but you should know that kids at state schools often have no playing fields or green spaces to play in.

Yes, but being 'unable' to pay your bills' applies to all sorts of people from all kinds of backgrounds for all kind of reasons.

To define 'working people' as as only including people who cannot write a cheque in an emergency is fatuous and inaccurate, as my OP makes clear. Rishi Sunak is a working person, so is Keir Starmer, whose Parliamentary salary will be supplemented by a huge judicial pension.

Both my grandchildren are at excellent state schools. Their primary school was an old early 20th century city school, which never had much in the way of playing fields, just a tarmac playground. Their secondary school was a brand new school on a site with playing fields.

I do not understand this obsession with schools having their own playing fields. Most playing fields are empty and unused for 90% of the time. I went to a school with limited area for games and the school used local public playing fields, which otherwise would have been standing unused during school hours.

Hi, I'm here about the 'cheque' thing, which you've addressed. Couldn't agree more. I'm surprised more people don't known the expression, or sad that so many were confused!
Of course people have often said this, if they were used to normal conversation. It's a bit like saying, 'get out of jail free card'; 'writing a cheque' to get out of trouble, I see as shorthand. One might see it as slipping notes to a traffic cop, for instance (never done this...)

Doodledog 👏👏👏

I’m fully behind your ideas for a more equal society👍

* GrannyGravy13*
I’m glad it’s not just me who knows about outdoor spaces. My first teaching post had the playground on the roof, hence no ball games. I don’t like heights, so my duty sessions were a nightmare. My children’s infant school had a playground, no room for a field and the juniors had to walk about a quarter of a mile to the nearest park.
Where I am now, we have a playing field, but many other local primaries do not.
This is one area of “equal opportunity” I’d like to see available for all children, but I don’t see it happening.

Macadia

*Doodledog*, may I add to your extensive list of remedies? Could we add #12) an expansion of company-sponsored government subsidized apprenticeship programs for those who have no interest in academics but are ready to work outside of school?

Yes, good plan.

Germanshepherdsmum

As I am not in favour of your view of equality, Doodledog, save to say that I am glad you are unlikely to be PM, I will refrain from commenting.

I'm glad, too . Far too mach hassle at my time of life. I don't know why people always ask others to come up with the ideas that are the job of governments, though. It's the same on a lot of threads - anyone saying they don't like something is expected to work out the alternative, so the person asking can poke holes in whatever they say.

'I don't like the fact that burglaries are on the rise'. 'How are you going to stop it?'

I don't think children should be hungry.' 'What are you going to do about it?'

I've had my career, and I'm not a politician. What I can do is vote for people who are more likely to work towards the sort of world (or country) I want to live in than the other lot, and hope for the best.

Doodledog, may I add to your extensive list of remedies? Could we add #12) an expansion of company-sponsored government subsidized apprenticeship programs for those who have no interest in academics but are ready to work outside of school?

As I am not in favour of your view of equality, Doodledog, save to say that I am glad you are unlikely to be PM, I will refrain from commenting.

MayBee70

Mollygo

MayBee70

To me equality is about giving everyone the right from birth to fulfil their potential regardless of their social standing or Wherabouts in the country they’re born.

Sounds good MayBee70.
How would you advise any government to achieve that?

Education Education Education…

A good start would be the funding for the implementation of the recommendations of the First 1000 Days Improvement programmes.

I'm not sure why those in favour of equality should have to have 'oven ready' plans (unless they are politicians, that is), but I'll have a go.

In no particular order, I would go back to the days of free access to museums, galleries, sports centres etc, and forge links between these facilities and schools, so that everyone feels part of and represented by culture.

I would subsidise nightclasses and FE, so that people could more easily retrain, or catch up with lost education. I would ensure than no child went to school hungry or went without a meal at lunchtime, and that if homework relied on technology that every child had access to that, too. This would help everyone to benefit from the educational opportunities that are currently more readily available to those who can afford them.

I would carry out a review of the actual cost of scrapping tuition fees, taking into account the money universities bring to local economies and the taxation on staff salaries, and keep them as low as possible if the result was that they absolutely had to be kept (which I doubt). I would remove interest on the repayments, regardless, for the reasons given above.

I would introduce free nursery education for all children of working parents (regardless of parental income) on the same basis as free higher education - ie that there are benefits as well as costs if parents can more easily go to work. I would scrap child benefit and NI payments to SAHPs to help pay for this.

As I have previously said on other threads, I would introduce a tax on the profit on housing (taking into account refurbishment costs and inflation) and ring fence it to pay for more council housing, which I would build as a priority with no right to buy. I would look at schemes that allowed people to buy into shared ownership with LAs (separate from council houses) so that those who couldn't afford to buy outright could still benefit from rents that reduced as they got older and could afford to buy bigger shares, so they wouldn't face retirement at the mercy of landlords. I would also tax second homes and BTL, so that it became far less profitable, and would restrict the number of holiday homes and Air B&Bs in areas that have too many. All Air B&B owners would be expected to pay full council tax, whether or not they use the house as a full-time business (if this is not the case already), so that residents are the priority in all areas and don't live in facility deserts out of the tourist season.

I would work towards scrapping private medicine other than for cosmetic and optional procedures, and in the meantime would add a tax to the cost that would be ring fenced to be spent on reducing waiting lists for the NHS. This would reduce the massive health inequalities between rich and poor.

As university fees would be much lower or scrapped altogether, I would bring in a rule that students on essential professional courses longer than the standard three years would have to either work in the relevant profession for a set period or pay a fee, much as those sponsored by the armed forces do on 3 year courses. This would largely cover those working in Health and Education, and would be compensated for by better starting salaries.

More radically, I would look at a scheme where people who don't pay tax and are neither carers nor disabled themselves should be expected to contribute to society in one of a range of voluntary roles, so that workers are not subsidising those who choose not to work. This would have to be carefully considered so that nobody was put out of work as a result, but the principle would be that everyone who benefits from living in a civil society contributes to it and has a stake in it.

I would give large subsidies to companies who relocated to areas of deprivation, and where practicable would encourage more links than already exist between these companies and universities to encourage local employment.

Now can someone who is not in favour of equality please give some of their own ideas and explain their reasoning?

Mollygo

MayBee70

To me equality is about giving everyone the right from birth to fulfil their potential regardless of their social standing or Wherabouts in the country they’re born.

Sounds good MayBee70.
How would you advise any government to achieve that?

Education Education Education…

MayBee70

To me equality is about giving everyone the right from birth to fulfil their potential regardless of their social standing or Wherabouts in the country they’re born.

Sounds good MayBee70.
How would you advise any government to achieve that?

We have free state education for all. Parents often are the cause of their children not fulfilling their potential. As are the children. You can take a horse to water …

You know the saying:

“When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression”.

Germanshepherdsmum

Society has never been equal and it never will be unless we become communists.

To me equality is about giving everyone the right from birth to fulfil their potential regardless of their social standing or Wherabouts in the country they’re born.

Yes, Dickens/Doodledog Equality of opportunity is what the L Party aims for, and it will be a tough road: I believe a lot of hostility directed against it is a result of endless fear mongering

Whitewavemark2

Germanshepherdsmum

Society has never been equal and it never will be unless we become communists.

Society will never be equal full stop.

But societies, where the gap between the rich and poor is narrow are generally more successful with a happier population.

But societies, where the gap between the rich and poor is narrow are generally more successful with a happier population.

GSM is right to suggest that all being equal = communism, but I don't think that is what anyone actually wants.

But as Doodledog says - it's about equality of opportunity and therefore social and economic mobility, which is a completely different system to communism.

I don't think the ever-growing gap between (in simplistic terms) rich and poor is good for any nation. For obvious reasons, and it breeds discontent, societal break-down, and political unrest. Investors do not like political turbulence and uncertainty when they are looking to invest.

I think we can ensure that people get equality of opportunity, and stop the cards being stacked against some instead of others.

I don’t see that happening here. You are probably talking about societies which have been thus for very many years, so that nobody knows anything different.

Germanshepherdsmum

Society has never been equal and it never will be unless we become communists.

Society will never be equal full stop.

But societies, where the gap between the rich and poor is narrow are generally more successful with a happier population.

That's a point of view. It's not one I share, though.

Much depends on what you see as equality. If it's all about material things, then no, we won't all be equal. But if it's about opportunity, respect and dignity then I do think we can be a lot more equal than we are at present.

Society has never been equal and it never will be unless we become communists.