Best Of

Rather sadly, the job you achieve in life (barring things like ill-health, accidents and wrongful imprisonment) is largely down to your own efforts and character: character is destiny and a' that. So the public school debate is a non-sequitur.

What is the problem, and it's going to get much worse when the boomers die, is the money and inheritance that wealthy parents gift their children. You can be very, very stupid but if you had wealthy parents you are not going to die in a council house, even if you deserve it.

So if Labour really wanted to increase class mobility, they'd tax houses not public schools.

No, as May discovered that is political suicide as far more voters own houses or have parents who own houses than attend public schools.

The biggest increases in social mobility in the last 100 years (bar the expansion of white collar office jobs after WW2) arguably came from Thatcher's sale of council homes so more could own their own homes and grammar schools, Labour of course opposed both

Parents could own their own grammar schools?

Impressive.

Grammar schools were and still are where they exist the only state schools which really tend to challenge the top private schools on Oxbridge entry and admission to the top professions like law and medicine

That is unsurprising as they are selective. If you only let in the most academically gifted students then you will tend to have a lot going on to top universities and academically challenging courses. It doesn't necessarily tell you anything about the quality of the school.

Yes and I have no problem with selective schools at all, they are the best way for bright children from working class or lower middle class backgrounds to get to a top university and top professional or managerial career

They are the best way of letting pushy middle class parents game the system while leaving most kids to rot in under-resourced secondary moderns.

You are more likely to get into Oxbridge or a Russell Group university or law and medicine from a grammar than most comps and academies if you are from a working class or lower middle class background. Comprehensives/academies are largely secondary moderns anyway unless from the leafiest middle class suburb or prosperous town and plenty of high schools in selective areas do OK

You are more likely to go to a top university from grammar school regardless of your background because grammar schools only let in people who are likely to go to a top university. A system that divides children into academic successes and failures at 11 will always favour children whose parents understand the system, ie the pushy middle classes. Not that I am criticizing the pushy middle classes, they are the people this country's prosperity largely rests on!

One of the reasons that grammar schools went out of fashion was because pushy middle class parents (who were bedrock Conservatives until the party became a trade union for pensioners in the 2010s) hated having their children allocated places at Secondary Moderns.

You see the same dynamic playing out in Kent now, where the pressure is to expand grammar school provision, making selective schools less selective.

The other aspect to any hypothetical Battle of the Isle of Wight is that the UK would never dare decide to sink a Russian warship without checking in with Fox News Male Grooming correspondent Hegseth. Whose sanction for the action may or may not be forthcoming.

I also suspect, on the basis of zero evidence, that the Russians were more than slightly concerned that the yacht might have been loaded to the gunwales with explosives and Ukronazis. USS Cole, etc.

If we want to really put the willies up Ivan the sailor, we should get the Ukranians to do some sea trials of their sea drones off the Wight. The Ukranian Navy does have two (ex-RN) ships based in the Solent.

Yes, nothing could possibly go wrong with testing hastily cobbled together semi-autonomous weapons systems in one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world.

Rather sadly, the job you achieve in life (barring things like ill-health, accidents and wrongful imprisonment) is largely down to your own efforts and character: character is destiny and a' that. So the public school debate is a non-sequitur.

What is the problem, and it's going to get much worse when the boomers die, is the money and inheritance that wealthy parents gift their children. You can be very, very stupid but if you had wealthy parents you are not going to die in a council house, even if you deserve it.

So if Labour really wanted to increase class mobility, they'd tax houses not public schools.

Have you read any of Bourdieu's work? You might find it interesting. Some is a little dated such as the tastes of the French middle class in the 70's and 80's but the underlying concepts remain sound.

It is why so many of the top tier of our society come from private education. They are not smarter or harder working than their state school rivals but they do have more Social and Cultural Capital.

It's also about geography. It's much easier to accumulate cultural capital and make connections if you start out in or near a great city than if the nearest town with a bank branch is an hour away by bus. It's possible to overcome that disadvantage, but it's not as easy as not having to. The social capital private schools undobtedly provide is of a similar nature- nether essential to suceed, nor a guarantee of success, but it surely helps a lot.

And whilst effort, character and ability are important in achieving life aims, I prefered it when John Major acknowledged the role of luck- even if it's just being in the right place at the right time. And whilst all of us are (to an extent) lucky to be in Britain in 2026, some of us are luckier than others.

I agree. Indeed your point on geography is very pertinent to places like Makerfield. Opportunity in Britain is based around London and a few few other cosmopolitan metro areas. This causes a lot of resentment when those living in the cities get the opportunities while they feel excluded, particularly when those getting the breaks are of immigrant heritage.

Not just people of immigrant heritage but foreign nationals. Part of the story of London's demographic transformation has been the suppression of domestic migration away from left-behind areas.

Suppression? What are you talking about? London is full of chippy northerners and Scots etc. The only thing stopping people moving to London is the scary made up stories about crime they see on Facebook.

What are the chances of someone from the north of England getting social housing in London?

The chances of anyone turning up and getting social housing is quite low. There is a long waiting list. If they're moving to London to work, like I did from Fife (home to many left behind areas although to be fair I wasn't fae those bits) they can rent privately and then buy once they've saved for a deposit. It's called getting on your bike.
BTW I love the idea that the north of England is full of folks dreaming of living on a council estate in Croydon. Something tells me you are unfamiliar with those parts of the country...

I am sure the Duke of Northumberland dreams of a council estate in Croydon as he gazes out of his Alnwick Castle window

At least he has some experience of living on an estate.

Rather sadly, the job you achieve in life (barring things like ill-health, accidents and wrongful imprisonment) is largely down to your own efforts and character: character is destiny and a' that. So the public school debate is a non-sequitur.

What is the problem, and it's going to get much worse when the boomers die, is the money and inheritance that wealthy parents gift their children. You can be very, very stupid but if you had wealthy parents you are not going to die in a council house, even if you deserve it.

So if Labour really wanted to increase class mobility, they'd tax houses not public schools.

Have you read any of Bourdieu's work? You might find it interesting. Some is a little dated such as the tastes of the French middle class in the 70's and 80's but the underlying concepts remain sound.

It is why so many of the top tier of our society come from private education. They are not smarter or harder working than their state school rivals but they do have more Social and Cultural Capital.

It's also about geography. It's much easier to accumulate cultural capital and make connections if you start out in or near a great city than if the nearest town with a bank branch is an hour away by bus. It's possible to overcome that disadvantage, but it's not as easy as not having to. The social capital private schools undobtedly provide is of a similar nature- nether essential to suceed, nor a guarantee of success, but it surely helps a lot.

And whilst effort, character and ability are important in achieving life aims, I prefered it when John Major acknowledged the role of luck- even if it's just being in the right place at the right time. And whilst all of us are (to an extent) lucky to be in Britain in 2026, some of us are luckier than others.

I agree. Indeed your point on geography is very pertinent to places like Makerfield. Opportunity in Britain is based around London and a few few other cosmopolitan metro areas. This causes a lot of resentment when those living in the cities get the opportunities while they feel excluded, particularly when those getting the breaks are of immigrant heritage.

Not just people of immigrant heritage but foreign nationals. Part of the story of London's demographic transformation has been the suppression of domestic migration away from left-behind areas.

Suppression? What are you talking about? London is full of chippy northerners and Scots etc. The only thing stopping people moving to London is the scary made up stories about crime they see on Facebook.

And astronomical rental and house prices. Astronomical rental and house prices do not discriminate against skin colour, religion or regional accents from North of Watford or South of Dover.

I didn't want to be rude which is why I didn't respond directly to @williamglenn

Immigrants are more willing to live multiple people to a room, not just multiple people to a house.

Not skin colour, of course, but capacity for discomfort which comes from growing up dirt poor, not British poor.

British poor can always sleep in their Motability VW T6 Campers.

Hey, if we agree to pay housing benefit on these very mobile homes...

Rather sadly, the job you achieve in life (barring things like ill-health, accidents and wrongful imprisonment) is largely down to your own efforts and character: character is destiny and a' that. So the public school debate is a non-sequitur.

What is the problem, and it's going to get much worse when the boomers die, is the money and inheritance that wealthy parents gift their children. You can be very, very stupid but if you had wealthy parents you are not going to die in a council house, even if you deserve it.

So if Labour really wanted to increase class mobility, they'd tax houses not public schools.

Have you read any of Bourdieu's work? You might find it interesting. Some is a little dated such as the tastes of the French middle class in the 70's and 80's but the underlying concepts remain sound.

It is why so many of the top tier of our society come from private education. They are not smarter or harder working than their state school rivals but they do have more Social and Cultural Capital.

It's also about geography. It's much easier to accumulate cultural capital and make connections if you start out in or near a great city than if the nearest town with a bank branch is an hour away by bus. It's possible to overcome that disadvantage, but it's not as easy as not having to. The social capital private schools undobtedly provide is of a similar nature- nether essential to suceed, nor a guarantee of success, but it surely helps a lot.

And whilst effort, character and ability are important in achieving life aims, I prefered it when John Major acknowledged the role of luck- even if it's just being in the right place at the right time. And whilst all of us are (to an extent) lucky to be in Britain in 2026, some of us are luckier than others.

I agree. Indeed your point on geography is very pertinent to places like Makerfield. Opportunity in Britain is based around London and a few few other cosmopolitan metro areas. This causes a lot of resentment when those living in the cities get the opportunities while they feel excluded, particularly when those getting the breaks are of immigrant heritage.

Not just people of immigrant heritage but foreign nationals. Part of the story of London's demographic transformation has been the suppression of domestic migration away from left-behind areas.

Suppression? What are you talking about? London is full of chippy northerners and Scots etc. The only thing stopping people moving to London is the scary made up stories about crime they see on Facebook.

What are the chances of someone from the north of England getting social housing in London?

The chances of anyone turning up and getting social housing is quite low. There is a long waiting list. If they're moving to London to work, like I did from Fife (home to many left behind areas although to be fair I wasn't fae those bits) they can rent privately and then buy once they've saved for a deposit. It's called getting on your bike.
BTW I love the idea that the north of England is full of folks dreaming of living on a council estate in Croydon. Something tells me you are unfamiliar with those parts of the country...

I am sure the Duke of Northumberland dreams of a council estate in Croydon as he gazes out of his Alnwick Castle window

Rather sadly, the job you achieve in life (barring things like ill-health, accidents and wrongful imprisonment) is largely down to your own efforts and character: character is destiny and a' that. So the public school debate is a non-sequitur.

What is the problem, and it's going to get much worse when the boomers die, is the money and inheritance that wealthy parents gift their children. You can be very, very stupid but if you had wealthy parents you are not going to die in a council house, even if you deserve it.

So if Labour really wanted to increase class mobility, they'd tax houses not public schools.

No, as May discovered that is political suicide as far more voters own houses or have parents who own houses than attend public schools.

The biggest increases in social mobility in the last 100 years (bar the expansion of white collar office jobs after WW2) arguably came from Thatcher's sale of council homes so more could own their own homes and grammar schools, Labour of course opposed both

Parents could own their own grammar schools?

Impressive.

Grammar schools were and still are where they exist the only state schools which really tend to challenge the top private schools on Oxbridge entry and admission to the top professions like law and medicine

That is unsurprising as they are selective. If you only let in the most academically gifted students then you will tend to have a lot going on to top universities and academically challenging courses. It doesn't necessarily tell you anything about the quality of the school.

Yes and I have no problem with selective schools at all, they are the best way for bright children from working class or lower middle class backgrounds to get to a top university and top professional or managerial career

They are the best way of letting pushy middle class parents game the system while leaving most kids to rot in under-resourced secondary moderns.

Rather sadly, the job you achieve in life (barring things like ill-health, accidents and wrongful imprisonment) is largely down to your own efforts and character: character is destiny and a' that. So the public school debate is a non-sequitur.

What is the problem, and it's going to get much worse when the boomers die, is the money and inheritance that wealthy parents gift their children. You can be very, very stupid but if you had wealthy parents you are not going to die in a council house, even if you deserve it.

So if Labour really wanted to increase class mobility, they'd tax houses not public schools.

Have you read any of Bourdieu's work? You might find it interesting. Some is a little dated such as the tastes of the French middle class in the 70's and 80's but the underlying concepts remain sound.

It is why so many of the top tier of our society come from private education. They are not smarter or harder working than their state school rivals but they do have more Social and Cultural Capital.

It's also about geography. It's much easier to accumulate cultural capital and make connections if you start out in or near a great city than if the nearest town with a bank branch is an hour away by bus. It's possible to overcome that disadvantage, but it's not as easy as not having to. The social capital private schools undobtedly provide is of a similar nature- nether essential to suceed, nor a guarantee of success, but it surely helps a lot.

And whilst effort, character and ability are important in achieving life aims, I prefered it when John Major acknowledged the role of luck- even if it's just being in the right place at the right time. And whilst all of us are (to an extent) lucky to be in Britain in 2026, some of us are luckier than others.

I agree. Indeed your point on geography is very pertinent to places like Makerfield. Opportunity in Britain is based around London and a few few other cosmopolitan metro areas. This causes a lot of resentment when those living in the cities get the opportunities while they feel excluded, particularly when those getting the breaks are of immigrant heritage.

Not just people of immigrant heritage but foreign nationals. Part of the story of London's demographic transformation has been the suppression of domestic migration away from left-behind areas.

Suppression? What are you talking about? London is full of chippy northerners and Scots etc. The only thing stopping people moving to London is the scary made up stories about crime they see on Facebook.

What are the chances of someone from the north of England getting social housing in London?

The chances of anyone turning up and getting social housing is quite low. There is a long waiting list. If they're moving to London to work, like I did from Fife (home to many left behind areas although to be fair I wasn't fae those bits) they can rent privately and then buy once they've saved for a deposit. It's called getting on your bike.
BTW I love the idea that the north of England is full of folks dreaming of living on a council estate in Croydon. Something tells me you are unfamiliar with those parts of the country...