It's interesting that it's the possibility of losing school places which is getting the headlines with this. I find the whole policy wrong - and has the potential to destroy state services as well as being hugely unjust - but the school part should be the least contentious.
All children are entitled to a state school place - but not a specific school since sll schools are considered equally valid. They'd probably still need to allow for logistics such as sibling priority and reasonable travel distances.
But we all know that in reality there is huge inequality within the state education system - despite it being paid for by taxpayers and supposedly equally available to all - so of course it will hugely upset those who currently benefit from the inequality.
(I'm in no way supporting the policy, btw - just think it's an extension to the drive for comprehensive education which many here seem to believe in)
I find the proposal to give NHS priority - and possibly University and state employment opportunities - according to social class much more dangerous and problematic.
Why would we accept £292 billion per year - 11% of GDP - to be spent on state healthcare if we are given so little access that private health becomes obligatory? This would definitely destroy the NHS.
If Universities prioritise social engineering over ability, their quality will quickly drop (as Cambridge found with it's private school quotas). If it's extended to social class - maybe 30% of the population rather than 6% that will fairly quickly destroy our world-leading University sector.
If state sector jobs prioritise social engineering over ability then the downward spiral of state services will accelerate. I'm minded of the ATC guidelines in the US whose DEI initiative meant they scored candidates who selected 'I found maths difficult at school' in the DEI questionaire more highly... what could possibly go wrong?
It truly is the kind of through-the-looking-glass policy which everyone - surely even Labour - can see will end in disaster.