Keir Starmer's definition of working class

Mollygo

^Didn’t the Conservatives sell off a lot of school playing fields?^
I’m sure someone will come up with an answer, but some schools in my experience as a child, a parent, a teacher and a Governor, primary and secondary, were built with no room on the site for fields and the children either play on the playground or troop along to the local park.

I went to 3 different grammar schools - Dorchester, Ealing and Grays. The first and third had extensive grounds which have now gone whilst Ealing had just a playground and we went elsewhere for sports. this was back in the late 50s early 60s.

Between 1979 and 1997 the Tories sold off around 10,000 playing fields. Between 1997 and 2010 Labour sold off 226.

I suppose some of you would no doubt suggest that Labour would have sold more, had they not already disappeared.

Sorry, that was in reply to Dickens. I lost track of time when writing the post

I agree that it's not easy, as there's a thin line between compelling people to work and slavery . That's why I said that in the unlikely event that I led the next government I would look into it, as opposed to enforcing something straight away.

There are various possible ways it could work. I don't mean that benefit claimants should have to do 'Workfare', as that would lower wages, and I think that people who can't find work should be supported until they can, as should the sick or disabled and those caring for them. Obviously there has to be a retirement age beyond which nobody is expected to work and by 'work' I'm not suggesting chain gangs or physical labour.
I agree that people wanting to take time out should be able to do so, too. From the sound of things you were working during your 'sabbatical' anyway, Dickens, not that you are remotely answerable to me.

What I don't agree with is people having the right to opt out of making a contribution to society beyond their homes for years on end, whilst freely using all the things that a civil society provides. It's not about the money so much as the unfairness of the assumption that it's ok for others to do the work, pay the tax and basically provide the sort of society that lifts us all out of a subsistence lifestyle, while they don't contribute.

Every time a politician talks about how things will be paid for it comes down to increasing tax and NI (basically charging people to work) and cutting benefits and pensions (taking from those who have already paid into the system or who are looking for work). In many ways it doesn't matter whether income tax pays for spending or not - it is still only levied on those who work, and not on those who don't. The recent discussions about bringing pensioners into paying NI are a case in point. I don't disagree in principle with the idea that everyone should be treated equally when it comes to deductions from earnings, but I do disagree that it should only be earners who pay in. Someone with only a state pension (for which they've contributed for years) might get a job in B&Q to eke it out, which pushes their income into paying tax, then has to cough up more for NI, too, to pay for someone else who doesn't work and pays nothing. How is that fair?

VAT etc is a further tax if you have earned the money you're spending, but not if you haven't - you are just spending more of someone else's money to get whatever you're buying.

I know it's not a popular viewpoint, and it doesn't matter anyway, as it will never be put into place, but I think it's a fair way to think, particularly given the way we are encouraged to look down on benefit claimants - I find it particularly galling when people who don't work assume that it's ok so long as they don't need benefits, and don't look beyond that.

Yes, I do. That is when we get into the education system. What we do with the opportunity our education gives is down to choice and ability.

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

GSM surely you don’t really believe this!

Would you deprive a large puppy of adequate everyday and accessible facilities for play? No, you would not, as an experienced dog keeper, you know large puppies learn to socialise through play.

Young humans need space to play and have adventures even more so than puppies , as young humans are preparing for adult roles.

Doodledog

When you talk about those who choose not to work - do you mean, benefit claimants, or individuals who are supported by another family member, or the very wealthy who rely on inherited wealth?

I include benefit claimants because it's a popular belief that many / a lot / some have chosen to live on benefits as a lifestyle choice. How true this is, and the numbers involved, is something I have little idea about. Quite a few people seem to know lots of people doing this though. I thought it was actually quite difficult to claim benefits that allowed you to remove yourself from the labour market without a huge amount of supporting evidence that proved you should be. But I only know personally of a couple of people who are in receipt of benefits - but they are in fact working.

Back in the 80s I took a sabbatical from work for almost a year after my late OH took voluntary redundancy with a substantial redundancy package and decided to use it to set up his own business. I couldn't help him with the actual logistics of the work because it was an area in which I had no expertise, but I could do all the donkey work, admin, and ferrying around. Time was of the essence, so he asked me if I'd stop work (as a 'temp') and support his endeavour. Which I did, and he supported me financially. He 'kept' me.

So, we could afford for me to stay at home. I would not though have taken kindly to being compelled to do voluntary work during this period - the whole point of it was so that I could be available to help him which turned out in the event to be a time-consuming effort. I wasn't directly employed by him, so in effect, I wasn't working at a job. But he did establish a business which eventually employed other people (though not many, and only those with specific qualifications), and although he died a few years ago, the business is still running, though now scaled-down because of Covid, Brexit and the economic woes everyone's suffered.

Where would I have fitted into this system of voluntary work - is my question. Because, if I'd been obliged to do it - I would have carried on working instead as it would've defeated the object of not working. But, I wasn't working in the accepted sense, and neither was I employed, and if I'd needed to avail myself of the benefits and services of a working society, I would've done so.

I get your point - I'm just concerned about how it would work in practical terms.

Doodledog Follow the link, please, and read it - and possibly follow uo further articles on the subject.

They all say the same thing, Meritocacies are often more entrenched than class systems, because meritocrats give birth to meritocrats, and while though the opportunities may be available to all, home, culture and genetic reasons stop people taking the opportunties that are there.

As I said, and will continue to say, equality of opportunity is a necessary part of a free, open and equal society, but not sufficient in itself. Mstly what is needed is a socially legislated framework that guarantees everyone a basic standard of life and a democratic society that places everyone onthe same level in governing themsleves.

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.

I'd like to respond , Dd, but I might not have time today.

At the root of this I do think that economic beliefs and ideas about the purpose of life and how society should work are important but it's a vast and complex area to explore.

I do agree with much you proposed in your suggestions for 'what would you do about inequality?' and admire you for taking the time to consider the question and present thoughtful ideas.

Good grief. As an only child with no friends, how did I survive?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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