Stop voting for fucking Tories

[JM2K6]

Always good to see the "Labour" party sticking up for their base.

Let's see how this corresponds with the pledges

7. Strengthen workers’ rights and trade unions
Work shoulder to shoulder with trade unions to stand up for working people, tackle insecure work and low pay. Repeal the Trade Union Act. Oppose Tory attacks on the right to take industrial action and the weakening of workplace rights.

Ah.

Bit of a disingenuous piece by the FT there. Unite gave it the thumbs down! Yes, they did. A bunch of others trade unions are on board with it. And you can tell it's not actually an abandoning of the pledge by how much the Tories fucking hate it.

Here's what they're actually saying they'll do (some policy! at last!) - https://labour.org.uk/page/a-new-deal-f ... ng-people/

and the full PDF is well worth reading. It's quite comprehensive and puts them in near complete opposition to the Tories. And as far as I can see, every single part of that quoted pledge is being adhered to.

Working with trade unions? Yup. Unite might dislike the changes but most of the trade unions are on board with it, and the document talks extensively about easing the restrictions on trade unions, encouraging their membership, and making it easier to form and join them in the first place.

Standing up for working people? Sure, that's what this is about.

Tackling insecure work? Yup, extensive stuff in there about giving much-needed protections to those who aren't full time employees, including the single status of "worker" for everyone except the genuinely self-employed, to end the abuse of things like zero hours contracts and everything else that employers pull to avoid giving employees proper rights. Lots more about rights and protections including for self employed people.

Low pay? Yup, Fair Pay Agreements, better social security systems, better SSP, increase in minimum wage, etc.

Repeal the Trade Union Act? Yup, explicitly mentioned

Oppose Tory attacks? Plenty of stuff about making it easier to take industrial action and removing some of the obstacles the Tories have implemented, plus a ton of extra things about workers rights.


I'm sure it's possible to pick holes in this but it's a great start and looks to be completely in line with the pledges. I know you're super keen to portray Labour under Starmer as "The Tories but more popular" - and they've certainly taken positions recently that I completely disagree with - but it would appear that the criticisms here are wildly wrong.

[I like neeps]

Always good to see the "Labour" party sticking up for their base.

Let's see how this corresponds with the pledges

7. Strengthen workers’ rights and trade unions
Work shoulder to shoulder with trade unions to stand up for working people, tackle insecure work and low pay. Repeal the Trade Union Act. Oppose Tory attacks on the right to take industrial action and the weakening of workplace rights.

Ah.

Bit of a disingenuous piece by the FT there. Unite gave it the thumbs down! Yes, they did. A bunch of others trade unions are on board with it. And you can tell it's not actually an abandoning of the pledge by how much the Tories fucking hate it.

Here's what they're actually saying they'll do (some policy! at last!) - https://labour.org.uk/page/a-new-deal-f ... ng-people/

and the full PDF is well worth reading. It's quite comprehensive and puts them in near complete opposition to the Tories. And as far as I can see, every single part of that quoted pledge is being adhered to.

Working with trade unions? Yup. Unite might dislike the changes but most of the trade unions are on board with it, and the document talks extensively about easing the restrictions on trade unions, encouraging their membership, and making it easier to form and join them in the first place.

Standing up for working people? Sure, that's what this is about.

Tackling insecure work? Yup, extensive stuff in there about giving much-needed protections to those who aren't full time employees, including the single status of "worker" for everyone except the genuinely self-employed, to end the abuse of things like zero hours contracts and everything else that employers pull to avoid giving employees proper rights. Lots more about rights and protections including for self employed people.

Low pay? Yup, Fair Pay Agreements, better social security systems, better SSP, increase in minimum wage, etc.

Repeal the Trade Union Act? Yup, explicitly mentioned

Oppose Tory attacks? Plenty of stuff about making it easier to take industrial action and removing some of the obstacles the Tories have implemented, plus a ton of extra things about workers rights.


I'm sure it's possible to pick holes in this but it's a great start and looks to be completely in line with the pledges. I know you're super keen to portray Labour under Starmer as "The Tories but more popular" - and they've certainly taken positions recently that I completely disagree with - but it would appear that the criticisms here are wildly wrong.

Seems to be this policy is from 2021, so the one they're rowing back on for that big business support.

[Insane_Homer]

Starmer is a Tory in everything but name.
Nothing he's said or done since ousting the hermit millionaire suggests otherwise.

[JM2K6]

Seems to be this policy is from 2021, so the one they're rowing back on for that big business support.

That'll be why the Labour party leadership and assorted allies are doing the full court press actively promoting this exact set of policies this morning, then?

However. I'm not really sure why we're suddenly putting all our faith in the right wing press writing an article based on a couple of anonymous Momentum comments but can I suggest until there's some actual evidence that they've changed policy - which, I'm sure you'll agree, they apparently have no problem with doing so in public - that we hold fire? Because these policies as written are pretty good, and the anonymous complaints listed in the FT article boil down to "they might consult to work out the best way to define 'genuinely self-employed' before implementing it" and "probationary periods will still be a thing" and "businesses will still be able to fairly dismiss workers", none of which seem to be at odds with the pledges?

so it does, unfortunately, seem like a bizarre hatchet job of an article and I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone has read this, taken it at face value, and then somehow translated it to mean they've abandonded their pledges. It's a little bonkers.

[I like neeps]

Seems to be this policy is from 2021, so the one they're rowing back on for that big business support.

That'll be why the Labour party leadership and assorted allies are doing the full court press actively promoting this exact set of policies this morning, then?

However. I'm not really sure why we're suddenly putting all our faith in the right wing press writing an article based on a couple of anonymous Momentum comments but can I suggest until there's some actual evidence that they've changed policy - which, I'm sure you'll agree, they apparently have no problem with doing so in public - that we hold fire? Because these policies as written are pretty good, and the anonymous complaints listed in the FT article boil down to "they might consult to work out the best way to define 'genuinely self-employed' before implementing it" and "probationary periods will still be a thing" and "businesses will still be able to fairly dismiss workers", none of which seem to be at odds with the pledges?

so it does, unfortunately, seem like a bizarre hatchet job of an article and I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone has read this, taken it at face value, and then somehow translated it to mean they've abandonded their pledges. It's a little bonkers.

The FT, of course, are favourites of Momentum and obviously the paper the group will go to with anonymous complaints. We can say what we want of the right wing press but the FT aren't in the business of making stuff up. If anything, it would make sense for a labour insider to leak this to them as the FT is the paper of big business who this alleged change is aimed at wooing.

Yes we will see as the FT says it'll be announced there's a change before the conference next month. Let's circle back then.

[dpedin]

What's even worse is that ........people still won't vote Labour into power with any kind of working majority so go figure.

I see you didn't mention the pandemic in there but hey-ho.

The evidence that the Tories have sunk the economy and ruined many of our public services is pretty irrefutable now and I am glad you aren't willing or don't feel able to debate that point. In terms of who succeeds in the next election then I am pretty sure that Labour have a fairly large majority over the Tories in all the recent polling? Whether it will be enough to translate into a majority in HoC we will just have to wait and see. At the current rate of self destruction, the small boats week went swimmingly well, the Tories seem to be doing a good job themselves of handing a majority over to Labour.

There is another thread on this board for the pandemic if you want to discuss that there. Lets not confuse the issues, not that I would accuse you of trying to deflect from the issues in hand!

[JM2K6]

Seems to be this policy is from 2021, so the one they're rowing back on for that big business support.

That'll be why the Labour party leadership and assorted allies are doing the full court press actively promoting this exact set of policies this morning, then?

However. I'm not really sure why we're suddenly putting all our faith in the right wing press writing an article based on a couple of anonymous Momentum comments but can I suggest until there's some actual evidence that they've changed policy - which, I'm sure you'll agree, they apparently have no problem with doing so in public - that we hold fire? Because these policies as written are pretty good, and the anonymous complaints listed in the FT article boil down to "they might consult to work out the best way to define 'genuinely self-employed' before implementing it" and "probationary periods will still be a thing" and "businesses will still be able to fairly dismiss workers", none of which seem to be at odds with the pledges?

so it does, unfortunately, seem like a bizarre hatchet job of an article and I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone has read this, taken it at face value, and then somehow translated it to mean they've abandonded their pledges. It's a little bonkers.

The FT, of course, are favourites of Momentum and obviously the paper the group will go to with anonymous complaints. We can say what we want of the right wing press but the FT aren't in the business of making stuff up. If anything, it would make sense for a labour insider to leak this to them as the FT is the paper of big business who this alleged change is aimed at wooing.

Yes we will see as the FT says it'll be announced there's a change before the conference next month. Let's circle back then.

The FT are absolutely going to be in dialogue with disaffected people on the left if it's to be benefit of the Tories, don't be naive.

If Starmer's group was going to leak this then you'd expect some sort of quotes from that perspective in the article, no? As it is, the only non Tories in there are unnamed momentum.

As for the meat of the complaints - genuinely if Labour did do exactly what the quoted changes are, is that the end of the world? It's minor implementation shit taken in the context of the full list of policies, and still in line with the pledges.

I understand the total lack of faith but you're going to have to explain what exactly the problem actually is here beyond some muchr raking.

[Biffer]

I wouldn't be so sure. The FT is all about market stability and growth. Given the complete fucking chaos the tories have been inflicting they'd be happy with competence. They turned against Major after black Wednesday etc.

And it's not exactly the right wing media line to make About look less left wing

[David in Gwent]

What's even worse is that ........people still won't vote Labour into power with any kind of working majority so go figure.

I see you didn't mention the pandemic in there but hey-ho.

The evidence that the Tories have sunk the economy and ruined many of our public services is pretty irrefutable now and I am glad you aren't willing or don't feel able to debate that point. In terms of who succeeds in the next election then I am pretty sure that Labour have a fairly large majority over the Tories in all the recent polling? Whether it will be enough to translate into a majority in HoC we will just have to wait and see. At the current rate of self destruction, the small boats week went swimmingly well, the Tories seem to be doing a good job themselves of handing a majority over to Labour.

There is another thread on this board for the pandemic if you want to discuss that there. Lets not confuse the issues, not that I would accuse you of trying to deflect from the issues in hand!

Slightly disingenuous, the economy is always going to be fucked when you've pissed billions upon billions up the wall in the greatest transfer of wealth in human history.

[dpedin]

What's even worse is that ........people still won't vote Labour into power with any kind of working majority so go figure.

I see you didn't mention the pandemic in there but hey-ho.

The evidence that the Tories have sunk the economy and ruined many of our public services is pretty irrefutable now and I am glad you aren't willing or don't feel able to debate that point. In terms of who succeeds in the next election then I am pretty sure that Labour have a fairly large majority over the Tories in all the recent polling? Whether it will be enough to translate into a majority in HoC we will just have to wait and see. At the current rate of self destruction, the small boats week went swimmingly well, the Tories seem to be doing a good job themselves of handing a majority over to Labour.

There is another thread on this board for the pandemic if you want to discuss that there. Lets not confuse the issues, not that I would accuse you of trying to deflect from the issues in hand!

Slightly disingenuous, the economy is always going to be fucked when you've pissed billions upon billions up the wall in the greatest transfer of wealth in human history.

You have in effect described the Tory economic policy in a single sentence. Well done!

[Random1]

People like me?

Working class, grew up on a council estate, always did semi-skilled labour for a living, is that what you mean?

Are you a progressive liberal?

Dunno mate, I believe in equality if that is what you mean.

Equality or equity?

[Tichtheid]

Are you a progressive liberal?

Dunno mate, I believe in equality if that is what you mean.

Equality or equity?

The former is a goal, the latter is a means of getting there

[Random1]

Dunno mate, I believe in equality if that is what you mean.

Equality or equity?

The former is a goal, the latter is a means of getting there

That doesn’t make sense. And it’s also one of the reasons the Torys still get votes.

Equity based upon protected characteristics has the unpleasant impact on reducing the opportunities provided to the white working class. I suspect the culture war will remain a fight for as long as equity is enacted.

[Tichtheid]

Equality or equity?

The former is a goal, the latter is a means of getting there

That doesn’t make sense. And it’s also one of the reasons the Torys still get votes.

Equity based upon protected characteristics has the unpleasant impact on reducing the opportunities provided to the white working class. I suspect the culture war will remain a fight for as long as equity is enacted.

You’ve just said that disabled parking spaces at the supermarket should be abolished

[Random1]

The former is a goal, the latter is a means of getting there

That doesn’t make sense. And it’s also one of the reasons the Torys still get votes.

Equity based upon protected characteristics has the unpleasant impact on reducing the opportunities provided to the white working class. I suspect the culture war will remain a fight for as long as equity is enacted.

You’ve just said that disabled parking spaces at the supermarket should be abolished

No I haven’t.

Disabled parking spaces are an issue of equality, not equity. They really began gaining traction following the Equality Act.

Reasonable adjustments to allow equal opportunity to access a service as previously there was a physical, objective barrier to a certain section of society.

[Biffer]

Reasonable - weasel word that’s open to interpretation and means nothing is set.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

'tis an interesting take that disabled parking spaces are a matter of equality not equity. had I been asked I would have plumped for it being a matter of equity, given the idea that you're providing varying degrees of support/service to attain a more equal outcome

not that I've ever looked into this, if it is thought of as a matter of equality fair enough. maybe process Vs outcome thinking

[Random1]

Reasonable - weasel word that’s open to interpretation and means nothing is set.

Think weasel word is a bit harsh. It’s just a legal term to recognise that expectations can change with context.

[Random1]

'tis an interesting take that disabled parking spaces are a matter of equality not equity. had I been asked I would have plumped for it being a matter of equity, given the idea that you're providing varying degrees of support/service to attain a more equal outcome

not that I've ever looked into this, if it is thought of as a matter of equality fair enough. maybe process Vs outcome thinking

The difference between equality and equity is such a hot topic and really interesting. As ever with the activists, there’s a blurring of language, which will lead to us normal people talking at crossed purposes sometimes.

In terms of the Equality Act, there are objective categories which allow society to identify where one cohort is at a clear and demonstrable disadvantage in terms of opportunity to others, then it’s a matter of equality to try and give that cohort as equal an opportunity as possible.

[Tichtheid]

That doesn’t make sense. And it’s also one of the reasons the Torys still get votes.

Equity based upon protected characteristics has the unpleasant impact on reducing the opportunities provided to the white working class. I suspect the culture war will remain a fight for as long as equity is enacted.

You’ve just said that disabled parking spaces at the supermarket should be abolished

No I haven’t.

Disabled parking spaces are an issue of equality, not equity. They really began gaining traction following the Equality Act.

Badged parking and allocated spaces have been around for 50 years in the UK, the Equality Act came into being in 2010

Disability is one of several protected characteristics

Chapter 1 Protected characteristics
4.The protected characteristics
5.Age
6.Disability
7.Gender reassignment
8.Marriage and civil partnership
9.Race
10.Religion or belief
11.Sex
12.Sexual orientation

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents

before the above the Act mentions Socio-economic conditions

As ever with the activists, there’s a blurring of language, which will lead to us normal people talking at crossed purposes sometimes.

It's often the case that people advocating against progress and change paint themselves as "normal" or say "it's just common sense" when what they really mean is "the way things have been for a long time"

In terms of the Equality Act, there are objective categories which allow society to identify where one cohort is at a clear and demonstrable disadvantage in terms of opportunity to others, then it’s a matter of equality to try and give that cohort as equal an opportunity as possible.

What you are talking about there is pretty much the definition of equity in this context.

[Insane_Homer]

Sample of the fake propaganda "newspapers" flooding local communities...

IMG_20230820_114737_444.jpg (385.13 KiB) Viewed 1492 times

[Random1]

You’ve just said that disabled parking spaces at the supermarket should be abolished

No I haven’t.

Disabled parking spaces are an issue of equality, not equity. They really began gaining traction following the Equality Act.

Badged parking and allocated spaces have been around for 50 years in the UK, the Equality Act came into being in 2010

Disability is one of several protected characteristics

Chapter 1 Protected characteristics
4.The protected characteristics
5.Age
6.Disability
7.Gender reassignment
8.Marriage and civil partnership
9.Race
10.Religion or belief
11.Sex
12.Sexual orientation

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents

before the above the Act mentions Socio-economic conditions

As ever with the activists, there’s a blurring of language, which will lead to us normal people talking at crossed purposes sometimes.

It's often the case that people advocating against progress and change paint themselves as "normal" or say "it's just common sense" when what they really mean is "the way things have been for a long time"

In terms of the Equality Act, there are objective categories which allow society to identify where one cohort is at a clear and demonstrable disadvantage in terms of opportunity to others, then it’s a matter of equality to try and give that cohort as equal an opportunity as possible.

What you are talking about there is pretty much the definition of equity in this context.

You’re sort of making my point for me on parking spaces being an equality issue rather than an equity one. I wasn’t saying parking badges were invented by the equality act. Your point that parking badges pre-existing the equality act implies that making reasonable adjustments for disabled people are acts of equality rather than equity doesn’t it? Otherwise it’d be the equity act.

On your second point about language: are you really of the view that language isn’t being forcefully manipulated in this equity movement? Definitions of everything from ‘racism’ through to ‘woman’ have been redefined to be intentionally obtuse to accommodate the logical fallacies the activists are trying to avoid.

On your view that the equity regime is progressive; I’d disagree. Progressivism moves things forward. Moving to a world where we have things like segregation due to skin colour and the loss of women’s spaces, is regressive, not progressive.

On your final point; no, what I’ve described equality to be, is distinct from equity. Equality is the wish to create equal opportunities. Equity is seeking ‘fair’ outcomes. The latter sounds good on paper, but in practice, it has some very regressive consequences.

[Tichtheid]

I'll give an anecdotal example. My daughter was given lower entrance requirements from a Russell Group university because the school she went to has a large majority of socio-economically disadvantaged students compared to other applicants (we are really talking about fee-paying schools as the competition for places, as she discovered when she went to uni).

She in fact didn't need the reduced offer, but she was given it anyway, she went on to gain first class degree and then a Masters from another RG uni.

The help she was offered in terms of entrance was equity, it gave her an equal opportunity, equal to those who have large resources at their disposal up through their school years.

[Hal Jordan]

Sample of the fake propaganda "newspapers" flooding local communities...

IMG_20230820_114737_444.jpg

It's interesting how the Tory Party's election literature and similar have almost completely removed the colour blue (for green FFS) and the word "Conservative".

[Paddington Bear]

Equity cannot work without giving everyone a racial/societal bracket and the evidence that this is a good thing for society is very thin on the ground

[Tichtheid]

Equity cannot work without giving everyone a racial/societal bracket and the evidence that this is a good thing for society is very thin on the ground

Well, despite what yer man there says, the act of providing parking spaces for blue badge holders and allowing parking on yellow lines etc is an act of equity, it produces a more equal outcome in terms of access by means of an unequal provision.

Offering less-privileged children access to the top universities is similar in equality of opportunity by means of an unequal offer but it's also sensible in terms of looking at the potential of students as well as headline results of kids aged 17-18.

The provisions in the Equality Act are varying degrees of the above.

[Paddington Bear]

Equity cannot work without giving everyone a racial/societal bracket and the evidence that this is a good thing for society is very thin on the ground

Well, despite what yer man there says, the act of providing parking spaces for blue badge holders and allowing parking on yellow lines etc is an act of equity, it produces a more equal outcome in terms of access by means of an unequal provision.

Offering less-privileged children access to the top universities is similar in equality of opportunity by means of an unequal offer but it's also sensible in terms of looking at the potential of students as well as headline results of kids aged 17-18.

The provisions in the Equality Act are varying degrees of the above.

Almost no one has an issue with disabled parking.
But as you say there are varying degrees to this. Plenty disagree with reduced offers to less privileged children, and hard majorities oppose the prioritisation of certain racial groups, however it is allowable based on the equality act and increasingly a feature rather than a bug in British society. It will take a while to work its way through, but we’ll regret it and the political forces it will unleash are deeply unpredictable

[Tichtheid]

Equity cannot work without giving everyone a racial/societal bracket and the evidence that this is a good thing for society is very thin on the ground

Well, despite what yer man there says, the act of providing parking spaces for blue badge holders and allowing parking on yellow lines etc is an act of equity, it produces a more equal outcome in terms of access by means of an unequal provision.

Offering less-privileged children access to the top universities is similar in equality of opportunity by means of an unequal offer but it's also sensible in terms of looking at the potential of students as well as headline results of kids aged 17-18.

The provisions in the Equality Act are varying degrees of the above.

Almost no one has an issue with disabled parking.
But as you say there are varying degrees to this. Plenty disagree with reduced offers to less privileged children, and hard majorities oppose the prioritisation of certain racial groups, however it is allowable based on the equality act and increasingly a feature rather than a bug in British society. It will take a while to work its way through, but we’ll regret it and the political forces it will unleash are deeply unpredictable

I'm quoting you but please don't feel it's incumbent on you to answer; I'd like to hear the arguments against reduced Uni entrance offers for less privileged kids.

[Tichtheid]

Months ago I went looking for this cartoon strip regarding another topic, I didn't find it then but I did whilst looking for something else just now - typical!

It's relevant to this discussion, I think


https://digitalsynopsis.com/inspiration ... e_vignette

[_Os_]

Sample of the fake propaganda "newspapers" flooding local communities...

IMG_20230820_114737_444.jpg

It's interesting how the Tory Party's election literature and similar have almost completely removed the colour blue (for green FFS) and the word "Conservative".

A cynic would say these fake newspapers are no different to the Sun/Mail/Express/Telegraph.

I have received one of these fake newspapers. I have also received a number of letters from the Tory MP (five or so), addressed to me personally on parliamentary headed paper, but clearly machine generated junk mail "xyv has happened in your area". In both instances they're now resorting to taking credit for what random private companies are doing on a hyper local level, there's never any mention of national issues or being Tories. They've got to the stage of sending a personalised letter out for the opening of a small Tesco.

I haven't received any regular Tory leaflets in years, but they definitely still leaflet in a regular fashion (in blue using their name). Their strategy seems to be: if the area is poor they get a regular leaflet, if the area is poor and mostly not white they get a leaflet in baby level English (you have to see these to believe it they're mostly pictures with heavily spaced simple English, not the sort of thing journos on Twitter with a lot of followers would get, or anyone with something to lose would risk pointing out) and at council level the candidate is never white in these areas even if that means they're rubbish, if the area is better off they get a personalised message that doesn't mention the Tories and must be expensive to produce/distribute.

[petej]

Well, despite what yer man there says, the act of providing parking spaces for blue badge holders and allowing parking on yellow lines etc is an act of equity, it produces a more equal outcome in terms of access by means of an unequal provision.

Offering less-privileged children access to the top universities is similar in equality of opportunity by means of an unequal offer but it's also sensible in terms of looking at the potential of students as well as headline results of kids aged 17-18.

The provisions in the Equality Act are varying degrees of the above.

Almost no one has an issue with disabled parking.
But as you say there are varying degrees to this. Plenty disagree with reduced offers to less privileged children, and hard majorities oppose the prioritisation of certain racial groups, however it is allowable based on the equality act and increasingly a feature rather than a bug in British society. It will take a while to work its way through, but we’ll regret it and the political forces it will unleash are deeply unpredictable

I'm quoting you but please don't feel it's incumbent on you to answer; I'd like to hear the arguments against reduced Uni entrance offers for less privileged kids.

Because simply it is very obviously not equal. I would be looking at where it is less about grades as everyone's grades are good with regard to university entry.

[Paddington Bear]

Well, despite what yer man there says, the act of providing parking spaces for blue badge holders and allowing parking on yellow lines etc is an act of equity, it produces a more equal outcome in terms of access by means of an unequal provision.

Offering less-privileged children access to the top universities is similar in equality of opportunity by means of an unequal offer but it's also sensible in terms of looking at the potential of students as well as headline results of kids aged 17-18.

The provisions in the Equality Act are varying degrees of the above.

Almost no one has an issue with disabled parking.
But as you say there are varying degrees to this. Plenty disagree with reduced offers to less privileged children, and hard majorities oppose the prioritisation of certain racial groups, however it is allowable based on the equality act and increasingly a feature rather than a bug in British society. It will take a while to work its way through, but we’ll regret it and the political forces it will unleash are deeply unpredictable

I'm quoting you but please don't feel it's incumbent on you to answer; I'd like to hear the arguments against reduced Uni entrance offers for less privileged kids.

My short take would be that there’s little point in standardised tests if we don’t use them in a standardised way.
Fwiw I believe Universities should return to setting their own entrance exams and major employers most notably the civil service should do the same. Coursework, personal statements etc are much easier to game

[Tichtheid]

A first google tells me that private school costs around £20k per year, their business is getting their students into the top universities, they do this by smaller class sizes, tutor groups and a hell of a lot of exam prep. The public sector can't compete with that due to funding - average spending in England per comprehensive student is almost £7.5k pa.

My daughter went to Bristol, from Bristol's site;

"Once here, data shows that our contextual offer students achieve above average academically."

They see the value of potential in kids who wouldn't normally get in to their establishment.

[sockwithaticket]

Well, despite what yer man there says, the act of providing parking spaces for blue badge holders and allowing parking on yellow lines etc is an act of equity, it produces a more equal outcome in terms of access by means of an unequal provision.

Offering less-privileged children access to the top universities is similar in equality of opportunity by means of an unequal offer but it's also sensible in terms of looking at the potential of students as well as headline results of kids aged 17-18.

The provisions in the Equality Act are varying degrees of the above.

Almost no one has an issue with disabled parking.
But as you say there are varying degrees to this. Plenty disagree with reduced offers to less privileged children, and hard majorities oppose the prioritisation of certain racial groups, however it is allowable based on the equality act and increasingly a feature rather than a bug in British society. It will take a while to work its way through, but we’ll regret it and the political forces it will unleash are deeply unpredictable

I'm quoting you but please don't feel it's incumbent on you to answer; I'd like to hear the arguments against reduced Uni entrance offers for less privileged kids.

I'm against it in principle because it's a sticking plaster solution to fundamental issues with the education system*. Lowering entry offers is a tacit admission that we're failing kids while they're at school, but it's cheaper to do than making the required investment in schools to ensure:
- that teaching is a profession sufficient numbers of people want to do. The more teachers we have the better we're able to ensure manageable class sizes
- more support staff and alternate learning pathways for problem learners (that covers kids with everything from behavioural to literacy issues. As a teacher, nothing was more frustrating than spending a solid chunk of lessons dealing with kids who misbehave until you chuck them out, it compromises the learning of every other pupil in the room. It also does nothing for the problem kid, they just get further and further behind which often encourages a vicious cycle of acting out because they're unable to engage with the material and thus feel bored and/or frustrated then being thrown out because the lesson isn't supposed to be about managing one child, but teaching 30.
- also more support staff to take on the pastoral work many teachers often have insufficient training to deal with even if they have the time and inclination on top of all their actual teaching associated responsibilities. This would also feed back into the point on making teaching a profession people actually want to do. Some teachers love the pastoral stuff, but I was among a number at my school who didn't feel particular equipped to be good at it either due training, temperament or a combination thereof and resented that it would extend my days by eating up time I was hoping to use for marking or filling out some of the unending paperwork the job generates.

I also don't think it does much for social cohesion if university students know some among their number didn't have to meet the same attainment criteria as them to get a place, while also being too young and lacking in life experience to necessarily appreciate why that was the case.

That said, I understand why it's done in the absence of adequate education funding.

[Paddington Bear]

A first google tells me that private school costs around £20k per year, their business is getting their students into the top universities, they do this by smaller class sizes, tutor groups and a hell of a lot of exam prep. The public sector can't compete with that due to funding - average spending in England per comprehensive student is almost £7.5k pa.

My daughter went to Bristol, from Bristol's site;

"Once here, data shows that our contextual offer students achieve above average academically."

They see the value of potential in kids who wouldn't normally get in to their establishment.

There’s a lot to discuss here, one anecdotal data point that others may well have also noticed from their time at uni:
Those of us from middle class/upper middle families had a clear idea from day 1 that 1) first year doesn’t count and 2) a 2:1 is your passport to a decent job, nobody cares beyond that. Getting a 2:1 if you’re clever enough really isn’t that hard, and if you know that in advance you can spend most of uni on clubs/societies/nights out.

Those from less privileged backgrounds generally seemed to have a point to prove and tended to really really want a 1st, and put the hours in to do that, tended to do less ‘extra curricular’ stuff and generally seem to have less fun.
Not sure how relevant or not it is

[Biffer]

Equity cannot work without giving everyone a racial/societal bracket and the evidence that this is a good thing for society is very thin on the ground

Well, despite what yer man there says, the act of providing parking spaces for blue badge holders and allowing parking on yellow lines etc is an act of equity, it produces a more equal outcome in terms of access by means of an unequal provision.

Offering less-privileged children access to the top universities is similar in equality of opportunity by means of an unequal offer but it's also sensible in terms of looking at the potential of students as well as headline results of kids aged 17-18.

The provisions in the Equality Act are varying degrees of the above.

Almost no one has an issue with disabled parking.
But as you say there are varying degrees to this. Plenty disagree with reduced offers to less privileged children, and hard majorities oppose the prioritisation of certain racial groups, however it is allowable based on the equality act and increasingly a feature rather than a bug in British society. It will take a while to work its way through, but we’ll regret it and the political forces it will unleash are deeply unpredictable

So the point of disagreement isn’t the principle in itself, it’s where you start it, which groups should benefit from it etc.

[Biffer]

Almost no one has an issue with disabled parking.
But as you say there are varying degrees to this. Plenty disagree with reduced offers to less privileged children, and hard majorities oppose the prioritisation of certain racial groups, however it is allowable based on the equality act and increasingly a feature rather than a bug in British society. It will take a while to work its way through, but we’ll regret it and the political forces it will unleash are deeply unpredictable

I'm quoting you but please don't feel it's incumbent on you to answer; I'd like to hear the arguments against reduced Uni entrance offers for less privileged kids.

Because simply it is very obviously not equal. I would be looking at where it is less about grades as everyone's grades are good with regard to university entry.

But if you haven’t had an equal opportunity to flourish at school, due to poorer teaching / larger class sizes / different school priorities / whatever, then that’s not equal either.

You can hypothesise about how you’d like the system to be, and that’s dandy. But the approach of offering places to students with poorer grades from less advantageous backgrounds deals with the world as it is now. If you don’t have something that works for 17 year old kids applying for university now, then you’re saying to them ‘tough shit’ and throwing them aside.

[Paddington Bear]

Well, despite what yer man there says, the act of providing parking spaces for blue badge holders and allowing parking on yellow lines etc is an act of equity, it produces a more equal outcome in terms of access by means of an unequal provision.

Offering less-privileged children access to the top universities is similar in equality of opportunity by means of an unequal offer but it's also sensible in terms of looking at the potential of students as well as headline results of kids aged 17-18.

The provisions in the Equality Act are varying degrees of the above.

Almost no one has an issue with disabled parking.
But as you say there are varying degrees to this. Plenty disagree with reduced offers to less privileged children, and hard majorities oppose the prioritisation of certain racial groups, however it is allowable based on the equality act and increasingly a feature rather than a bug in British society. It will take a while to work its way through, but we’ll regret it and the political forces it will unleash are deeply unpredictable

So the point of disagreement isn’t the principle in itself, it’s where you start it, which groups should benefit from it etc.

No I’ve explained my disagreement with the principle - allocation of resources/jobs etc based on race or other characteristics rather than attempting to do so on more objective criteria is going to end very poorly.

[Random1]

I'll give an anecdotal example. My daughter was given lower entrance requirements from a Russell Group university because the school she went to has a large majority of socio-economically disadvantaged students compared to other applicants (we are really talking about fee-paying schools as the competition for places, as she discovered when she went to uni).

She in fact didn't need the reduced offer, but she was given it anyway, she went on to gain first class degree and then a Masters from another RG uni.

The help she was offered in terms of entrance was equity, it gave her an equal opportunity, equal to those who have large resources at their disposal up through their school years.

Couple of things here;

Congrats on the daughter’s success - love it when people succeed.

I’m not a fan of that system.

Moving away from a meritocratic system leads to a slippery slope oppression olympics. Should black poor kids get an even lower admission level? How about disabled black people?

Should asian people have to get a higher admission grade? Like they did to get into Harvard?

Opening that door leads to all sorts of slippery slope issues.

Plus, there’s a fundamental issue here about what universities are for; they’re for the smartest people to maximise benefits to society and to drive excellence. Facilitating access on quotas undermines the entire enterprise.

Fixing the school system is harder work, but it needs to be grappled with, rather than sticking plasters at the back end.

[Random1]

Almost no one has an issue with disabled parking.
But as you say there are varying degrees to this. Plenty disagree with reduced offers to less privileged children, and hard majorities oppose the prioritisation of certain racial groups, however it is allowable based on the equality act and increasingly a feature rather than a bug in British society. It will take a while to work its way through, but we’ll regret it and the political forces it will unleash are deeply unpredictable

I'm quoting you but please don't feel it's incumbent on you to answer; I'd like to hear the arguments against reduced Uni entrance offers for less privileged kids.

Because simply it is very obviously not equal. I would be looking at where it is less about grades as everyone's grades are good with regard to university entry.

Completely agree - it is objectively measurable. Equity is based upon trying to account for subjective unfairness based upon how people perceive their oppression. It is just not objectively measurable.