Young adults in England have scored among the lowest results in the industrialised world in international literacy and numeracy tests.
A major study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shows how England's 16 to 24-year-olds are falling behind their Asian and European counterparts. England is 22nd for literacy and 21st for numeracy out of 24 countries.
Unlike other developed countries, the study also showed that young people in England are no better at these tests than older people, in the 55 to 65 age range. When this is weighted with other factors, such as the socio-economic background of people taking the test, it shows that England is the only country in the survey where results are going backwards - with the older cohort better than the younger.
Appealing to the grey vote has always been a winning strategy for the Tories. It's safe for them to piss off the young constantly and consistently, because they were already going to vote for a lefty party, and demographically speaking they are clustered in urban areas with unis, which were already likely Labour safe seats. Meanwhile, we have an ever increasing number of pensioners every day, and the grumpy racist old bastards are just living longer and longer, so we can't even rely on them dying to balance out the scales.
Coincidentally this is why I'm getting tired of hearing Labour lefties bleating about Starmer and the direction he's pursuing. While I can completely understand, it makes my skin crawl to admit the Blairites might have had a point about Corbyn, but by this point we just need to win, by any means. It's clearly apparent that under the current system, Labour has to be a bit cynical to even stand a chance.
>>90318 If we say their goal is the overthrow of the capitalist order and the end of class society, it doesn't really achieve anything of note.
If we are less charitable and assume they're more interested securing a sufficient intake of new dues-paying activists to replace the ones getting burnt out and disillusioned, ensuring they have a steady stream of income and a big enough membership base to wield some degree of influence over the far left, then it's not a bad strategy at all.
>>90324 >Appealing to the grey vote has always been a winning strategy for the Tories. It's safe for them to piss off the young constantly and consistently, because they were already going to vote for a lefty party
That's long been the stereotype, but it hasn't actually been true until recently. Thatcher's landslide in 1983 was delivered in part by a 9 point lead over Labour amongst 18-24 year olds. Johnson's was delivered despite Labour leading with 18-24 year olds by 35 points.
Lads, I'm confused on what the current issue has been. The kids couldn't take their exams this year so scores were estimated based on predicted grades using an algorithm? And this policy was different across the respective Labour, SNP and Vacuum governments?
I get why estimating grades would hurt people who pulled their finger out in the final year but barring resitting the entire countries kids I don't see how else you can do it fairly. The U-Turn on teacher estimates seems a bit suspect.
Fair, but when I say "always" I pretty much mean "in my lifetime". I don't think the Tories have been popular amongst young people at any point in the last 30 years.
>>90327 The Labour position, at least as at the general election, was that teacher assessed grades should be scrapped and students should apply for university after they had actually received their results. It'd make sense to do this in the long run, but it could have made the current scenario a lot worse.
The algorithm was flawed and the government have handled it very poorly, but with Johnny Foreigner staying away and universities desperate to get students into boost their coffers most students are in a strong bargaining position so the long-term harmful effects of this should be minimal.
Listen you bellend, it's this very imageboard I'm parroting my opinions off in the first place, so if anything it's your fault. Perhaps I'll change my position subtly so that my overall point still isn't wrong: The Tories can benefit from winning young people's votes, but pissing them off doesn't cost a lot because it doesn't strongly benefit the opposition parties.
Go dig up some figures on which swing seats the young vote actually mattered in, for any of the examples you cited. I'm putting a cornetto on "none of them."
>>90501 Did you read any further than copying and pasting the top response? It's some half-baked virtual Freshers thing.
Learning by and large has been virtualised through video lectures on Zoom with some in-class learning with distancing measures sprinkled in. Don't be a mug.
>>90506 >Learning by and large has been virtualised through video lectures on Zoom with some in-class learning with distancing measures sprinkled in
I read something today that kids are realising they will never have a snow day again and similarly most of us won't ever get a day off work for it either. I feel like we've lost some of the magic from life if we can't have an unexpected day off for snow - they were always the best days for the pub.
The only way we'd ever get such a day off now is if the internet goes down and, god willing, that will never occur.
>MPs investigating underachievement among disadvantaged white pupils in England have been told that the communities they come from are suffering “a status deficit” and the use of terms like “white privilege” could create further problems.
>Prof Matthew Goodwin, who has written on populism, immigration and Euroscepticism, was giving evidence to a virtual hearing of the Commons cross-party education Committee. He told MPs the national conversation in the last 10 years had become “much more consumed with other groups” and disadvantaged white families felt they were not afforded the same recognition, respect and esteem as others.
>White pupils from poor communities – in particular boys – perform worse on average at school than their peers from most other ethnic backgrounds. The Department for Education’s 2018 GCSE performance statistics show that while the national average attainment score across eight subjects was 46.5, white boys who are eligible for free school meals score an average of just 28.5.
>Goodwin, who is professor of politics and international relations at the University of Kent, said terms like “white privilege” and “toxic masculinity” signalled to poorer white communities that they were the problem.
>“If we are now going to start teaching them in school that not only do they have to overcome the various economic and social barriers within their communities, but they also need to start apologising for belonging to a wider group which also strips away their individual agency, then I think we are going to compound many of these problems. My fear now is with the onset of new terms – toxic masculinity, white privilege – this is even actually going to become more of a problem as we send yet another signal to these communities that they are the problem.”
>Prof Diane Reay, emeritus professor of education at the University of Cambridge, said white working class communities did not have any sense of being powerful, or having any power in wider society. “I think there’s growing levels of social resentment and a sense of being left behind among white working classes.”
>>90748 For a start, terms like “white privilege” and “toxic masculinity” have absolutely nothing to do with "apologising for belonging to a wider group".
I've just googled this guy and I'm completely unsurprised to find two hundred academics signed an open letter criticising his work for "encouraging the normalisation of far right ideas".
>>90749 Isn't the issue with terms like toxic masculinity and white privilege that they are widely misused because they mean lots of different things to lots of different people? A bit like the whole snowflake thing.
>>90746 I do wonder how this problem will manifest in 10-20 years time if nothing is done. It was already blamed for Brexit but I guess that wasn't as important as some initially claimed, one would think Labour would care seeing as how they're losing the North but maybe they have other plans.
>>90751 Couldn't that just be because of his interpretation of the terms? I'd wager that the government have a similar interpretation to him, based on all the "war on woke" rhetoric? He isn't arguing that they're being misused, just the way he sees them being used is harmful.
Much like you are appealing to an argument that relies on people knowing what those terms "really mean", he's relying on the audience understanding the implication that such subjects are often misunderstood and that in practical terms the message that gets through isn't always the intended one.
Regardless, he's got the facts and figures to back it up. Far from being privileged as the reductionist race narrative implies, white working class people face some of the most serious disadvantage this country is capable of. Which shouldn't be at all surprising- If white people are the majority of the population they will feel the majority of the bad things as well as the good.
>>90754 No, and we can tell that isn't what he means because he is referring to us literally "teaching [our children] in school" that they "need to start apologising for belonging to a wider group". He's not simply talking about misuse of terminology - he's spreading a far-right conspiracy theory about loony lefty teachers indoctrinating kids.
And you're being taken in by the far-right lies - "far from being privileged as the reductionist race narrative implies"? Again, that's not what white privilege means. Racial privilege theory does not deny the poverty amongst the white working class and I would challenge you to find me a source where you claim it does.
What I'm saying is that he isn't arguing that the terms are being misused. He's saying that [his interpretation of] the terms, which will be influenced by others misusing them even if he isn't aware they're misusing them because he believes that's what they evidently mean, are harmful.
They most likely are harmful, but it does feel a more like tinkering around the edges.
I think it's perfectly understandable to see the 'white' and the 'masculinity' and assume that they apply to yourself. Why would you bother to read up on it and find out that it doesn't actually apply to you or single you out specifically?
Your first encounters of these terms would also likely be in a negative context via tabloids, social media, or conversation in the pub.
They quite often are aimed at you, though. Any time they try the "you just don't understand what it means" or "it doesn't apply to you, don't be so defensive" argument, it's just a crap motte and bailey.
I know this because I'm black. Any time someone's going on about knife crime or whatever, they will inevitably wheel out that classic "Obviously we don't mean ALL blacks!" defense. "If you're one of the well behaved ones who doesn't steal anything or stab anyone it's obviously not YOU we're talking about!" and anyone with an ounce of sense knows that's bullshit, and would quite rightly say as much.
>>90760 >"it doesn't apply to you, don't be so defensive"
But white privilege does apply to white people, all white people, all the time. If people say this then they are the ones who don't understand what it means, so I agree that that argument is crap. The point is that people who are learning about what it means to be white and male should also learn how all privileges intersect, and the fact they are getting shit on by society in a specific fashion may have nothing to do with the white male privilege that they do indeed possess.
So anyway, who are these people you meet that support the ideas of white privilege and black criminality at the same time? They seem very confused about whether they are supposed to be racist or not, how on earth do they function?
>The point is that people who are learning about what it means to be white and male should also learn how all privileges intersect, and the fact they are getting shit on by society in a specific fashion may have nothing to do with the white male privilege that they do indeed possess.
The thing is, while you can talk all day about exactly how those different privileges intersect, I think to the vast majority of people it's absolutely meaningless. It comes off as an entirely academic exercise in hair splitting, while they're dealing with the realities of job prospects and housing. I'm quite a bit more successful than some of the white kids I was at school with in the 80s and I doubt it means much to them that I'm more likely to be stopped by the coppers or get sideways glances in a fancy restaurant; and the fact a job might be more likely to hire a white person than me is again meaningless because that job was out of their reach to begin with. I think it's more fair to say these privileges are distinct than that they intersect.
I work for a marketing firm, and if we have a campaign that's not resonating with the target audience, we drop it like a hot coal. We wouldn't start telling people they just don't understand the message we were trying to send, that's just mad. If you just changed it from "white privilege" to "BAME disadvantage" you would instantly have a much more relatable message that's essentially the same underneath. But for some reason people are completely committed to defending a controversial and confrontational framework. We actually do a lot of leaning into the progressive stuff nowadays, and the primary reason for that is that middle class white people like it. They're not putting black people in adverts for the sake of black people.
But to bring this round to the actual subject matter again, I think you're right to point out that he might be misusing these terms, and he may be blaming them in bad faith. That doesn't change the fact there's empirical evidence that working class white people are very much disadvantaged, systemically so. There was none of this when I was a school, but I distinctly remember a lot of lads in particular falling into bad behaviour because teachers would more readily label boys as being troublemakers than girls. We also have empirical evidence that boys have been underachieving compared to girls for a long time now. So I don't think it's a stretch to say that something similar is going om- Our assumption that one group is privileged over the other is causing us to in fact neglect them. When he talks about things like white privilege and toxic masculinity that's what he really means, and many people would understand that intuitively.
Overall I don't want to sound dramatic but I genuinely worry that if we continue to dismiss all this stuff it will only further division and cause more harm overall. If we're going to talk about addressing inequality I want it to be a genuine and fair effort, not just some bizarre historical role reversal. I don't mean to imply you are dismissing it, even, but when your only contribution is to be pedantic about terminology that is what it looks like.
>>90765 >the fact a job might be more likely to hire a white person than me is again meaningless because that job was out of their reach to begin with
I had a bit of a flippant conversation with my friends recently about the gender pay gap as I was trying to convince once of them to demand a higher pay rise for a more senior position she has been offered.
When one of them mentioned the lack of female directors of FTSE firms I pointed out that nobody we went to school with is in danger of becoming one either regardless of gender because there's much bigger factors at play; they didn't seem aware of that, which I found a bit surprising.
>>90765 >I think you're right to point out that he might be misusing these terms, and he may be blaming them in bad faith. That doesn't change the fact there's empirical evidence that working class white people are very much disadvantaged, systemically so.
Well we're in agreement, then? My point is not "white privilege is a concept obvious to and well understood by everybody", and needless to say neither is it "white working class people are not disadvantaged to those of other racial backgrounds" - my overarching point is "this professor is an arse and using disingenuous right-wing rhetoric". As I said earlier he's talking about teaching white privilege in schools - first I've heard of that being on the National Curriculum, and if it was either the teachers do a shit job, which means the problem is with the teaching, or they do a good job, which means the pupils understand the nuances of the theory anyway. So if we want to tackle this problem we'd be better off listening to people other than him.
There are indeed counterpoints from other academics in this article, some of which appear to directly refute the entire premise:
>Dr Sam Baars, director of research and operations at the Centre for Education and Youth, told the committee he did not see whiteness as a marker of disadvantage, and that at other stages in education those gaps were flipped on their head.
>Prof Kalwant Bhopal, director of the Centre for Research in Race and Education at the University of Birmingham, commenting after the hearing, added: “This argument presents a discourse that you cannot discuss race and class together.
>“It suggests a hierarchy of oppression which ignores the evidence that Black, Indian and laplanderstani/Bangladeshi poor working class pupils are disadvantaged in their educational experiences due to the structural and institutional racism they experience.
>“Furthermore, it is not white working class groups who are the most disadvantaged, it is Gypsy, Roma and Traveller groups who have the worst outcomes at all stages of their educational experiences.”
Not him but intersectionalism is utterly fucking daft, both white privilege and toxic masculinity are disingenuous concepts touted by middle class tossers who only want to deflect from the realities of economic disadvantage, and you're a wee daftie arguing in bad faith.
Black people have problems unique to being black but the problems relating to being poor are the same problems experienced by poor white people, it does nobody any good pretending it's a complex tangled web of injustice because it isn't- The poor people problems are a result of dogshit liberal capitalism and the black people problems are a result of racism.
Some people have both at once, some people only have one or the other, some people have neither. Some people have vaginas. That is all.
>>90769 >both white privilege and toxic masculinity are disingenuous concepts touted by middle class tossers
Yeah it's well known there are no fisherpersons or anti-racists from working class backgrounds are there. Fuck off to bed Piers, you've got to be up early for GMB.
You might think it's a clever sleight of hand to imply being a fisherperson or anti-racist means buying into those concepts, but it's not. Most of the working class lefties I know are very skeptical of it all because it doesn't achieve meaningful material change. Like otherlad hinted at:
>We actually do a lot of leaning into the progressive stuff nowadays, and the primary reason for that is that middle class white people like it. They're not putting black people in adverts for the sake of black people.
The primary thing it achieves is making middle class people pat themselves on the back for a job well done when in reality they've done absolutely nothing. Remember how Black Lives Matter was really achieving something this time around? Really really, like for real this time?
Next time, though. Next time will be the actual revolution won't it.
That's definitely something that happened but something else that happened was lots of people responding to it with the cynicism it deserved. It seems a bit of a stretch to call it "largely led" by that. Almost as though you're just lashing out with the same impotent bitterness as always.
>>90773 I think the huge, pan-American protests happened before some marketing department (not the CEOs, you're very good at being very wrong about everything btw) got that bright idea, and few people invested and involved with BLM gave a shit or they were actively irritated by what they viewed as the appeasement of liberal indifference.
The point that none of it achieved anything still stands though. Unless you're the sort that thinks getting Biden elected instead of Trump will count as an achievement.
Of course, I am bitter, you're right about that. The prevalence of meaningless gesture politics nowadays, combined with smart-arses on the internet who like to stick up for it all just to be a holier than thou prick, deeply angers me.
So you're upset that the BLM protests didn't... what, exactly? Overthrow the US government? Bring down capitalism? Immanentise the eschaton? I know it's a shame on all fronts there but what can you expect to happen if a strategic genius like you doesn't get involved? Obviously we'd be living in a utopia by now if only everyone had listened to you from the start.
>>90778 Better them than the smart-arses who endlessly whine about other people's efforts, just to be some holier-than-holier-than-thou prick. It's just another form of the same thing but thinks it's somehow more "authentic" simply because grumpy sods always think they are.
That's not it, though, is it lad. Their grievance is not that you're not making unsatisfactory efforts, it's that you're actively standing in the way of genuine progress with disingenuous bullshit.
Just like you immediately derailed any discussion of the subject matter of that study, by focussing instead on whether or not the language was used right. All you do is distract, misdirect, and divide.
>>90780 Okay, so they're still smart-arses on the internet who like to stick up for it all just to be a holier than thou prick then. To be honest, I thought as much.
"I'm complaining about people complaining but god forbid if anyone complains about me complaining about people complaining, they're hypocrites and their motives are obviously suspect. I'm going to do the right thing by complaining about them."
