Keir Starmer's definition of working class

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?

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.

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.

* 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.

Doodledog 👏👏👏

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

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...)

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.

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.

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.

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.

In terms of opportunity do we not all start from the same starting point - our first day at primary school?

Gsm nursery schools, early years learning centres, day care centres??

Germanshepherdsmum

In terms of opportunity do we not all start from the same starting point - our first day at primary school?

Absolutely not, that is why the First 1000 Days initiative is vitally important.

Germanshepherdsmum

In terms of opportunity do we not all start from the same starting point - our first day at primary school?

Most definitely not! Those first five years are possibly the most important of any child's life.

I can only speak of my own experience. I was an only child, no friends before I went to primary school, no playgroup or the like.

You should read up on 1000 Days Germanshepherdsmum, from the very earliest stages of a child’s development the interaction and stimulation they receive shapes their brains for life. Parental skills are not natural to all, and support to develop them when the child is very young makes a huge difference to the child’s life chances.

Sorry, but the idea that we live in a meritocracy has no basis in reality. Here is a video that shows some ways in which some children have the advantage from the start. There is a better one that shows two equally motivated students from different backgrounds- one has a room to study in, no need to work for money, access to IT and books etc and the other doesn’t. I have to go to a meeting soon and I can’t find it. I’ll look again later, but if anyone else knows the one I mean, please post it.

youtu.be/PJAgPF5FNTQ?feature=shared

Dodledog What you describe is exactly the way a meritocracy works. One generation of successful meritocrats can give their children the soft opportunities to ensure that they too can make the best of the equal opportunities they have and hold their place in the higher ranks of the meritocracy. This is why a meritocracy is an even more closed society than a class based society

A meritocracy only works if all babies are born as little clones all identical in genetic make-up, skills and talents. All then go to identikit schools, grow up in identikit families. And of course this is not what happens.

Look around any family anywhere in society and it can be seen how some siblings can be clearly much more academically gifted than others, despite the same family background and support.

What is more those succcessful in a meritocracy tend to congratulate themselves ontheir own success and look down on the less successful, in the same way that, once the lord in his castle looked at the beggar at his gate, - less able, lazy, in fact completely deservingly poor.

Google 'meritocracy' and you are deluge with literature showing just how unfair and loaded against the losers meritocracy is.

Here is one of these articles for starters www.noemamag.com/the-dark-side-of-meritocracy/

We can never achieve equality in Society by equality of opportunity, all it does is sift people by ability. What is needed is social equality that ensures that, as far as possible, everyone can lie a decent life: with a safe roof over their heads and enough money to meet all thei basic needs, including mental and physical and that they are all equally respected and valued and while there may be inequality in income across society, no one with a large income can oppress less successful people.

This form of equality is achieved by legislation not equality of opportunity, which is only a necessary, but not a sufficient step to achieving social justice.

Germanshepherdsmum

In terms of opportunity do we not all start from the same starting point - our first day at primary school?

No, it starts from the moment we're born and the prevailing environment and resources around us.

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.

Everyone pays tax, Dd unless they live completely self sufficient lives, never buying anything at all. Income tax is not the only tax.

This is what I dislike so much about the belief that taxation funds spending. It creates division and resentment.

I'm not sure I follow, M0nica. A meritocracy is a system under which people rise or fall on merit, rather than privilege. I am saying that this is not what happens here, and that the lack of opportunity for many people is deeply divisive and unfair.

We are told that the UK operates a meritocracy (even moreso in the US, when 'The American Dream' is sold as achievable), and encouraged to think that because we work for money it must be true that those with the most money are the ones who work hardest. This is manifestly untrue.

There are all sorts of things that hold people back from achieving their potential - from being born to parents who smoked and drank in pregnancy and spend money on drugs, to living in insecure housing so the landlord's mortgage gets paid, or having parents who work so hard for so little that they can't be there at parent's evening and can't afford uniforms or ICT to help their children's learning. That's all without things like disability or illness that is very patchily provided for, or cuts in funding for everything from leisure centres to FE colleges.

Some children come from families where despite having no money there is a culture that values education and is supportive of schools, but others go home to noisy houses with no books and parents who may have been let down themselves and be semi literate, or just have no trust in teachers based on bad experiences of their own.

Meanwhile, others have their own room to study in, have a good diet, have computers and books, private tutors and memberships to gyms or other leisure activities, go on holidays every year, have parents who read to them and take them to galleries and theatres, and despite earning much more than the first lot have time to supervise homework etc etc.

Of course they are going to do better at school. Not only that, but the chances are their friends will be similar - many parents won't encourage friendships with the first set of children, particularly if their mums have gel nails and tattoos, or large TV sets and 'the latest phone' .

Then there are the obstacles of exams, getting to (or even knowing about) university, dealing with the prejudices of those who think university shouldn't be for them anyway, having contacts in the world of work and knowing how to behave in interviews and so on. And that's before they even get a job.

Success is not based on merit or hard work in the UK. I'm not saying that people who earn well don't work hard, but it's far from being the only variable that gets them to the top.

MaizieD

^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.^

Everyone pays tax, Dd unless they live completely self sufficient lives, never buying anything at all. Income tax is not the only tax.

This is what I dislike so much about the belief that taxation funds spending. It creates division and resentment.

I know we disagree on this (contributions, not necessarily economics - I don't comment on that), but I was answering the 'what would you do about it' question, and I do feel that it's wrong that the main tax is income tax, so those who don't work for an income don't pay it. Tax on spending by those who don't work is coming from someone else's earned income, so IMO it doesn't count.

Workers contribute tax (whatever it funds) as well as goods or services, and I see no reason why they should be the ones who subsidise those who choose not to do so but still access the benefits of a civil society. Often it is those who can't afford not to work who do so (only the fortunate work only because they enjoy it), and it is those who can afford to stay at home who do so. Why should they be subsidised by people who are poorer?

Benefit claimants get a lot of flak, but many of them are contributing via the work they do (which should be better paid), and if not they are looking for work. Those who can afford to stay at home are doing neither, yet are somehow seen as different. Why?

The lack of playing fields is one symptom among many of badly -planned and unfriendly human habitats.

There is also a severe lack of public access to wildernesses or even green play areas beside most people's houses. Many children are now not mentally and socially as developed as they could be and are often dangerously fat.

PS young children learn through play and only through play. Play is what young children do and they love playing and learning. To deprive them of decent play facilities is societally engendered child abuse.

My grammar school didn’t have playing fields. We had to get on a bus for our weekly games. Didn’t bother me at all and we all just accepted it as part of inner London life. The primary schools were the same - no grass, just concrete but I really don’t think we suffered. Different attitudes I suppose. We thought we were there to learn stuff.