So many people owe the Duke and Duchess of Sussex an apology.
This was not a member of the royal family but a very elderly lady in waiting who made an error but said a question many of her generation would have asked.
The Palace correctly asked her to retire
Recollections may vary.
"a question" is seemingly a bit of an understatement.
Yes, but they've realised that the country is no longer aspirational so this is a vote winner.
Or perhaps that defending tax breaks for the top 6% of the population is a vote loser?
Tony Blair wisely pointed out that there's many times more voters who aspire to be part of the 6% than are in it. That was true in 1997 when the UK was still an aspiration nation, now it isn't.
Worth pausing to think why that's so.
In large part, it's the fatalism that comes from the observation that, unless you are in the elite of the elite, some of the trappings of a middle class life (you know, like buying a decent home by your own efforts) are probably beyond you.
Many of the kind of people who used to educate their children independently- the doctor, the provincial solicitor, the bank manager, the headmaster (perhaps guiltily) wouldn't dream of doing so now, because they wouldn't have the spare cash to do so.
Such schools don't help themselves by being so expensive, especially when a lot of that expense is gloss and facilities. There's a suburban independent primary a short walk from me charging £11k a year. That's a lot of aspiration.
My theory is that the rot set in with Big Bang (not that Big Bang, although there is a case to say it was all downhill from there).
Previously, bankers had been like doctors, lawyers, headmasters, etc - earning a decent salary sure but nothing outrageous. Big Bang and the arrival of the American investment banks changed all that. They imported global (often US and expensive) talent, and elevated banking salaries for them and previous British stockbrokers to the stratosphere. With that came a huge effect on house prices in prime London and thereby all of London for one; and competition for many other goods and services of which education was a primary one.
Not sure how trickle down any of it was but it marked the divide between Wall Street and Main Street that continues to cause problems today.
That makes a lot of sense. Those professional people are still doing pretty well, but a salary of £75,000 pa or so doesn't allow you to pay £20,000 a year on school fees, out of after-tax income, without cutting back on everything else.
Where are these 20k a year bargains to be had?
Quite easily - within day school range I believe. Just means you have to provide accommodation 100% of the year, nanny, governess, etc. ditto.
So many people owe the Duke and Duchess of Sussex an apology.
This was not a member of the royal family but a very elderly lady in waiting who made an error but said a question many of her generation would have asked.
The Palace correctly asked her to retire
Recollections may vary.
"a question" is seemingly a bit of an understatement.
So many people owe the Duke and Duchess of Sussex an apology.
This was not a member of the royal family but a very elderly lady in waiting who made an error but said a question many of her generation would have asked.
The Palace correctly asked her to retire
Recollections may vary.
"a question" is seemingly a bit of an understatement.
I think most people think of Eton or Winchester when they think of private school. A very handful of public schools at the top, which are already phenomenally expensive.
They forget the far larger number of independent educational charities who exist on a shoestring, and don't make a penny - charging just enough to cover their costs whilst offering as many bursaries and scholarships as they can.
Dozens and dozens of those will close, reducing the diversity and depth of educational provision in the sector as a whole. Those displaced and forced to go state will use house prices and private tutoring to maintain their advantage.
An artist did a picture of me for a "where are they now" story in the Commons House magazine, and offered me the original if I'd give £10 to a food bank - when I agreed, she donated her fee to Trussell as well.
So many people owe the Duke and Duchess of Sussex an apology.
This was not a member of the royal family but a very elderly lady in waiting who made an error but said a question many of her generation would have asked.
The Palace correctly asked her to retire
Recollections may vary.
"a question" is seemingly a bit of an understatement.
It’s a bit shit, but she’s 83 ffs. Some old people are not fully up to speed with modern Britain. Cut her some slack.
i didnae realise she is 83. That's RIDIC
Some old biddy has a somewhat outdated view of the world. OMFG BURN HER
Ngozi Fulani is a thick trouble maker. I am mildly drunk, in St Andrews, on St Andrews Day, wearing a kilt. Several people have asked me in the course of the day where I am "really from." I have not felt offended by this. I read this story in reverse, as entitled Guardian black aristocracy picking on the white and elderly.
So many people owe the Duke and Duchess of Sussex an apology.
This was not a member of the royal family but a very elderly lady in waiting who made an error but said a question many of her generation would have asked.
The Palace correctly asked her to retire
Recollections may vary.
"a question" is seemingly a bit of an understatement.
It’s a bit shit, but she’s 83 ffs. Some old people are not fully up to speed with modern Britain. Cut her some slack.
i didnae realise she is 83. That's RIDIC
Some old biddy has a somewhat outdated view of the world. OMFG BURN HER
I am shocked to see you condoning racism.
My late Auntie Iris sometimes used the N word
A kinder, sweeter lady you cannot imagine. Loving and warm. When I was upset by my fractured family she would feed me freshly made saffron buns in her house in the Cornish wilds, or hand me some coins to go down to the Carnkie sweet shop for a Curly Wurly
She kept me sane. I loved her dearly. As did everyone else. Yet she used the N word simply because she grew up in a very very different time. I do not judge her by the mores of 2022 (some of which are utterly farcical)
If you disagree I am afraid I will have to slay you in a duel
So many people owe the Duke and Duchess of Sussex an apology.
This was not a member of the royal family but a very elderly lady in waiting who made an error but said a question many of her generation would have asked.
The Palace correctly asked her to retire
Recollections may vary.
"a question" is seemingly a bit of an understatement.
It’s a bit shit, but she’s 83 ffs. Some old people are not fully up to speed with modern Britain. Cut her some slack.
i didnae realise she is 83. That's RIDIC
Some old biddy has a somewhat outdated view of the world. OMFG BURN HER
She's been Woman of the Bedchamber since she was 21
Ironically, she was probably trying to make some sort of connection - wanting the opportunity to yarn on about her own time in Africa or Jamaica etc. I don't know many aristocrats, but I feel predigree and background is very important to them. I think some aristocrats would be more approving of someone saying that they come from a Zulu tribe than saying that they came from Hackney. The former is exotic; the latter is merely coarse and pedestrian. That's probably why she pressed on despite it being a mounting disaster.
Frankly I think the Tories would take that result for Scotland right now. Theresa May was a real highpoint for them (not necessarily on her personal merit).
The % figures are
Scottish National Party 41% (-4) Labour 31% (+12) Conservative 16% (-9) Liberal Democrat 8% (-2) Other 5% (+4)
It's a Scotland-only poll (Redfield), not a subsample.
EDIT: sorry, I see the figures already quoted downthread.
I had no idea that private schools were VAT exempt. Seems ridiculous. I suspect many are similarly in the dark.
Let them pay VAT.
But, it’s not something I’m going lose sleep over either way, there are bigger issues out there.
Yup. It's not first order for me but it doesn't seem a sensible use of resources providing this tax break for the rich when the public finances are under such pressure.
How many more state school places will need to be funded and will that cost more than is raised in VAT? The answer is probably yes so this policy will mean higher taxes elsewhere, spending cuts, or (the mostly likely option) reduced funding per pupil in state schooling.
It's one of those sugar rush policies for the left, it feels good while you hammer the rich but the end result is everyone ends up worse off.
I would be surprised if this led to a significant drop in the numbers privately educated. I think much more likely that a) private schools will partly eat the cost change b) parents will spend more c) parents will shift down to cheaper private schools.
Difficult to eat costs when you are a non-profit. There's Eton and perhaps two other schools that could do it out of endowments.
MGS, Westminster and Winchester all have decent endowments, and St Paul's (both of them) are probably OK too.
FA confirm in a statement that Ben White has “left England’s training base in Al Wakrah and returned home for personal reasons. He is not expected to return to the squad for the remainder of the tournament.
We ask that the player’s privacy is respected at this moment in time.”
Just compiling a list of PBers likely to make a half arsed defence of Lady brazen old racist Hussey. Petronellas I'll call them.
Put me on the list. I think we should cut old people some slack. When she was born there were hardly any people of colour native to the U.K. (despite much revisionist history). Yes she has been unintentionally rude, but I’m sure that was not her intention. Once again we have intolerance of people not conforming to the current social mores, without any consideration of peoples age and experiences. This reminds me of an older person being castigated for calling someone coloured rather than off colour. An older term that is now frowned on. But I don’t recall the government edict on usage. We see this with the drift in terminology. We are now onto the global south. What next?
The last thread was bad enough, dominated by this issue. My own view on the politics of it is that Rishi's a bit posh but so was Boris and so was Cameron and everyone knew it, so I'm not convinced this is the election winner Labour thinks it is.
I'm not sure that the perception of Sunak as a privileged oik had really sunk in yet, but I don't think that that is Starmer's main motivation for the policy.
The main electoral benefit to Labour is fiscal. It basically allows Labour to invest £1.7bn to turn around state education, without anyone being able to easily question where the money is coming from. And if the Conservatives do try to challenge the fiscal arithmetic, it'll just be another opportunity for Labour to dismiss their claims and bang on about what they think is going to be a highly popular policy.
There's also an internal niche benefit to Starmer. In any world of rational behaviour, it would totally silence his far left critics, those who seem obsessed with discrediting Starmer and who seem much less concerned to win the next GE. Well it won't silence them, but they'll just end up looking like the utter factional marginalised numpties that they are.
I doubt it will raise any money for the exchequer.
Each private school parent is effectively donating their place - and the funding that goes with it - to someone else, and paying private on top.
The state makes a net loss on each parent who decides to quit. And a 20% increase in costs, and closures of dozens of marginal independent schools, will certainly lead to a lot moving - as well as less employment for teachers as well.
It will make private education more elite, not less.
So many people owe the Duke and Duchess of Sussex an apology.
This was not a member of the royal family but a very elderly lady in waiting who made an error but said a question many of her generation would have asked.
The Palace correctly asked her to retire
Recollections may vary.
"a question" is seemingly a bit of an understatement.
It’s a bit shit, but she’s 83 ffs. Some old people are not fully up to speed with modern Britain. Cut her some slack.
i didnae realise she is 83. That's RIDIC
Some old biddy has a somewhat outdated view of the world. OMFG BURN HER
Ngozi Fulani is a thick trouble maker. I am mildly drunk, in St Andrews, on St Andrews Day, wearing a kilt. Several people have asked me in the course of the day where I am "really from." I have not felt offended by this. I read this story in reverse, as entitled Guardian black aristocracy picking on the white and elderly.
Why "entitled"? I believe the correct terminology in this context is "uppity". Wonder what my home town has done to deserve your presence.
Just compiling a list of PBers likely to make a half arsed defence of Lady brazen old racist Hussey. Petronellas I'll call them.
Put me on the list. I think we should cut old people some slack. When she was born there were hardly any people of colour native to the U.K. (despite much revisionist history). Yes she has been unintentionally rude, but I’m sure that was not her intention. Once again we have intolerance of people not conforming to the current social mores, without any consideration of peoples age and experiences. This reminds me of an older person being castigated for calling someone coloured rather than off colour. An older term that is now frowned on. But I don’t recall the government edict on usage. We see this with the drift in terminology. We are now onto the global south. What next?
I believe it is now Global Majority, as Global South is deemed geographist
FA confirm in a statement that Ben White has “left England’s training base in Al Wakrah and returned home for personal reasons. He is not expected to return to the squad for the remainder of the tournament.
We ask that the player’s privacy is respected at this moment in time.”
That’s quite odd. He was reported as having an illness/bug but it seems that there could be more to it. It sounds rather ominous and one hopes he is okay.
So many people owe the Duke and Duchess of Sussex an apology.
This was not a member of the royal family but a very elderly lady in waiting who made an error but said a question many of her generation would have asked.
The Palace correctly asked her to retire
Recollections may vary.
"a question" is seemingly a bit of an understatement.
It’s a bit shit, but she’s 83 ffs. Some old people are not fully up to speed with modern Britain. Cut her some slack.
i didnae realise she is 83. That's RIDIC
Some old biddy has a somewhat outdated view of the world. OMFG BURN HER
She's been Woman of the Bedchamber since she was 21
I don't think we should hound an old lady, but I also don't think that her behaviour would have passed as good manners even 50 years ago (regardless of the racism issue). It's never been appropriate to cross-question people at a social occasion when they don't seem to want to respond, least of all in the Palace.
That said, I'm not sure the fuss is helpful to anyone.
Just compiling a list of PBers likely to make a half arsed defence of Lady brazen old racist Hussey. Petronellas I'll call them.
Yeur name vill alzo go on ze list!!
I wonder if @Theuniondivvie is actually and literally COMPILING A LIST
I see weird tiny crabbed handwriting, a well-thumbed John Menzies school notebook, and this elderly pink Scottish face furiously hunched over his "list" as the electricity meter runs out. Again
Just compiling a list of PBers likely to make a half arsed defence of Lady brazen old racist Hussey. Petronellas I'll call them.
Put me on the list. I think we should cut old people some slack. When she was born there were hardly any people of colour native to the U.K. (despite much revisionist history). Yes she has been unintentionally rude, but I’m sure that was not her intention. Once again we have intolerance of people not conforming to the current social mores, without any consideration of peoples age and experiences. This reminds me of an older person being castigated for calling someone coloured rather than off colour. An older term that is now frowned on. But I don’t recall the government edict on usage. We see this with the drift in terminology. We are now onto the global south. What next?
So many people owe the Duke and Duchess of Sussex an apology.
This was not a member of the royal family but a very elderly lady in waiting who made an error but said a question many of her generation would have asked.
The Palace correctly asked her to retire
Recollections may vary.
"a question" is seemingly a bit of an understatement.
It’s a bit shit, but she’s 83 ffs. Some old people are not fully up to speed with modern Britain. Cut her some slack.
i didnae realise she is 83. That's RIDIC
Some old biddy has a somewhat outdated view of the world. OMFG BURN HER
Ngozi Fulani is a thick trouble maker. I am mildly drunk, in St Andrews, on St Andrews Day, wearing a kilt. Several people have asked me in the course of the day where I am "really from." I have not felt offended by this. I read this story in reverse, as entitled Guardian black aristocracy picking on the white and elderly.
Why "entitled"? I believe the correct terminology in this context is "uppity". Wonder what my home town has done to deserve your presence.
Having privileged access to a mouthpiece through which she can advertise her own importance to the world. 83 year olds are 83, why not just tell the confused old dear the answer to her question, first go?
Just compiling a list of PBers likely to make a half arsed defence of Lady brazen old racist Hussey. Petronellas I'll call them.
Not excusing Lady Hussey's behaviour but she is over 83 so would have remembered when Windrush first arrived. That may have been a question typical of her generation then even if unacceptable now.
My late grandmother was Sir Marmaduke Hussey's secretary for a time
The last thread was bad enough, dominated by this issue. My own view on the politics of it is that Rishi's a bit posh but so was Boris and so was Cameron and everyone knew it, so I'm not convinced this is the election winner Labour thinks it is.
I'm not sure that the perception of Sunak as a privileged oik had really sunk in yet, but I don't think that that is Starmer's main motivation for the policy.
The main electoral benefit to Labour is fiscal. It basically allows Labour to invest £1.7bn to turn around state education, without anyone being able to easily question where the money is coming from. And if the Conservatives do try to challenge the fiscal arithmetic, it'll just be another opportunity for Labour to dismiss their claims and bang on about what they think is going to be a highly popular policy.
There's also an internal niche benefit to Starmer. In any world of rational behaviour, it would totally silence his far left critics, those who seem obsessed with discrediting Starmer and who seem much less concerned to win the next GE. Well it won't silence them, but they'll just end up looking like the utter factional marginalised numpties that they are.
I doubt it will raise any money for the exchequer.
Each private school parent is effectively donating their place - and the funding that goes with it - to someone else, and paying private on top.
The state makes a net loss on each parent who decides to quit. And a 20% increase in costs, and closures of dozens of marginal independent schools, will certainly lead to a lot moving - as well as less employment for teachers as well.
It will make private education more elite, not less.
It doesn't matter if kids suffer, Labour will have hit the "rich".
I had no idea that private schools were VAT exempt. Seems ridiculous. I suspect many are similarly in the dark.
Let them pay VAT.
But, it’s not something I’m going lose sleep over either way, there are bigger issues out there.
Yup. It's not first order for me but it doesn't seem a sensible use of resources providing this tax break for the rich when the public finances are under such pressure.
How many more state school places will need to be funded and will that cost more than is raised in VAT? The answer is probably yes so this policy will mean higher taxes elsewhere, spending cuts, or (the mostly likely option) reduced funding per pupil in state schooling.
It's one of those sugar rush policies for the left, it feels good while you hammer the rich but the end result is everyone ends up worse off.
I think it is highly implausible that the number of pupils displaced into public education will be large enough to make the net benefit negative. Back of the envelope: suppose there was a 10% reduction in private school pupils. With x private school pupils initially and fees of y that means VAT revenues of 0.18xy. Since state school spending is I think about half per pupil what is spent privately that means extra spending of 0.05xy. So 0.13xy net revenue. If there were a 20% switch from private to state then your revenue would be 0.16xy with extra spending of 0.1xy, so net revenue of 0.06xy. You would need almost 30% to switch for net revenue to be negative, I think. That seems implausible for a 20% cost increase. All back of the envelope of course (eg net VAT revenues would be lower because the school could claim for VAT spent on equipment, but on the other hand spending displaced from private school fees would also be taxed) but I think it suggests that you'd need an implausibly large displacement effect for this policy to be net negative for the public finances. Of course these calculations may be defective, in which case I will blame my comprehensive education!
But you aren't taking enough attrition into account, private schools will have to raise fees to make up for the revenue shortfalls so it won't be a simple 20% increase, it will be much higher.
That means even more VAT revenue. Do you honestly think that there will be a 30% drop in numbers at private school?
They can't afford the drop. Either they close down or increase the intake of rich Chinese students (who, insult to injury, presumably get the VAT back).
The VAT back thing was removed by Hunt in his mini budget.
Just compiling a list of PBers likely to make a half arsed defence of Lady brazen old racist Hussey. Petronellas I'll call them.
Colour me unsurprised that you, a member of the Scotnazi Hall Monitor Woke Gestapo, are "compiling a little list"
My first inclination was to cut the old dear some slack. My wife can give you a long list of clueless old people making these kind of dumb comments, I'm sure that any person of colour in this country can do the same. But the account of the conversation that I heard did rather point to a relentless, even hostile, line of questioning. It wasn't a single, poorly thought out, comment. It's just sad that someone should be born in this country and live here their whole life for decades and still have to face this kind of ignorant crap.
The last thread was bad enough, dominated by this issue. My own view on the politics of it is that Rishi's a bit posh but so was Boris and so was Cameron and everyone knew it, so I'm not convinced this is the election winner Labour thinks it is.
I'm not sure that the perception of Sunak as a privileged oik had really sunk in yet, but I don't think that that is Starmer's main motivation for the policy.
The main electoral benefit to Labour is fiscal. It basically allows Labour to invest £1.7bn to turn around state education, without anyone being able to easily question where the money is coming from. And if the Conservatives do try to challenge the fiscal arithmetic, it'll just be another opportunity for Labour to dismiss their claims and bang on about what they think is going to be a highly popular policy.
There's also an internal niche benefit to Starmer. In any world of rational behaviour, it would totally silence his far left critics, those who seem obsessed with discrediting Starmer and who seem much less concerned to win the next GE. Well it won't silence them, but they'll just end up looking like the utter factional marginalised numpties that they are.
I doubt it will raise any money for the exchequer.
Each private school parent is effectively donating their place - and the funding that goes with it - to someone else, and paying private on top.
The state makes a net loss on each parent who decides to quit. And a 20% increase in costs, and closures of dozens of marginal independent schools, will certainly lead to a lot moving - as well as less employment for teachers as well.
It will make private education more elite, not less.
It doesn't matter if kids suffer, Labour will have hit the "rich".
I expect a government u turn as they'll screw kids but protect pensioners.
Just compiling a list of PBers likely to make a half arsed defence of Lady brazen old racist Hussey. Petronellas I'll call them.
Not excusing Lady Hussey's behaviour but she is over 83 so would have remembered when Windrush first arrived. That may have been a question typical of her generation then even if unacceptable now.
My late grandmother was Sir Marmaduke Hussey's secretary for a time
It's actually quite an interesting question whether there is a widely acceptable form of words to ask someone from an ethnic minority what place their ancestors came from.
Just compiling a list of PBers likely to make a half arsed defence of Lady brazen old racist Hussey. Petronellas I'll call them.
Put me on the list. I think we should cut old people some slack. When she was born there were hardly any people of colour native to the U.K. (despite much revisionist history). Yes she has been unintentionally rude, but I’m sure that was not her intention. Once again we have intolerance of people not conforming to the current social mores, without any consideration of peoples age and experiences. This reminds me of an older person being castigated for calling someone coloured rather than off colour. An older term that is now frowned on. But I don’t recall the government edict on usage. We see this with the drift in terminology. We are now onto the global south. What next?
So many people owe the Duke and Duchess of Sussex an apology.
This was not a member of the royal family but a very elderly lady in waiting who made an error but said a question many of her generation would have asked.
The Palace correctly asked her to retire
Recollections may vary.
"a question" is seemingly a bit of an understatement.
It’s a bit shit, but she’s 83 ffs. Some old people are not fully up to speed with modern Britain. Cut her some slack.
i didnae realise she is 83. That's RIDIC
Some old biddy has a somewhat outdated view of the world. OMFG BURN HER
Ngozi Fulani is a thick trouble maker. I am mildly drunk, in St Andrews, on St Andrews Day, wearing a kilt. Several people have asked me in the course of the day where I am "really from." I have not felt offended by this. I read this story in reverse, as entitled Guardian black aristocracy picking on the white and elderly.
Why "entitled"? I believe the correct terminology in this context is "uppity". Wonder what my home town has done to deserve your presence.
Having privileged access to a mouthpiece through which she can advertise her own importance to the world. 83 year olds are 83, why not just tell the confused old dear the answer to her question, first go?
She did answer the question first go. The old lady didn't like the answer and wouldn't shut up about it.
Just compiling a list of PBers likely to make a half arsed defence of Lady brazen old racist Hussey. Petronellas I'll call them.
Not excusing Lady Hussey's behaviour but she is over 83 so would have remembered when Windrush first arrived. That may have been a question typical of her generation then even if unacceptable now.
My late grandmother was Sir Marmaduke Hussey's secretary for a time
It's actually quite an interesting question whether there is a widely acceptable form of words to ask someone from an ethnic minority what place their ancestors came from.
As a British woman of colour, where did your ancestors originate from?
So many people owe the Duke and Duchess of Sussex an apology.
This was not a member of the royal family but a very elderly lady in waiting who made an error but said a question many of her generation would have asked.
The Palace correctly asked her to retire
Recollections may vary.
"a question" is seemingly a bit of an understatement.
It’s a bit shit, but she’s 83 ffs. Some old people are not fully up to speed with modern Britain. Cut her some slack.
i didnae realise she is 83. That's RIDIC
Some old biddy has a somewhat outdated view of the world. OMFG BURN HER
She's been Woman of the Bedchamber since she was 21
I don't think we should hound an old lady, but I also don't think that her behaviour would have passed as good manners even 50 years ago (regardless of the racism issue). It's never been appropriate to cross-question people at a social occasion when they don't seem to want to respond, least of all in the Palace.
That said, I'm not sure the fuss is helpful to anyone.
I don't know, it's given us something to argue about.
A kinder, sweeter lady you cannot imagine. Loving and warm. When I was upset by my fractured family she would feed me freshly made saffron buns in her house in the Cornish wilds, or hand me some coins to go down to the Carnkie sweet shop for a Curly Wurly
She kept me sane. I loved her dearly. As did everyone else. Yet she used the N word simply because she grew up in a very very different time. I do not judge her by the mores of 2022 (some of which are utterly farcical)
If you disagree I am afraid I will have to slay you in a duel
I don't disagree - it's obviously not great, but unless accompanied by prejudice and nastiness it's not the end of the world. We had a local Tory councillor who used it too (the woodpile phrase) - the party suspended him for a while, then let him back in. It was clear that he was an old man confusedly using an outdated metaphor and none of us in the other parties tried to make anything of it. A local black friend says that frankly he feels it's not a big deal in itself - he worries about companies that discreetly discriminate, police who stop black people with no evidence of wrong-doing, etc. not about slips of the tongue.
Just compiling a list of PBers likely to make a half arsed defence of Lady brazen old racist Hussey. Petronellas I'll call them.
Not excusing Lady Hussey's behaviour but she is over 83 so would have remembered when Windrush first arrived. That may have been a question typical of her generation then even if unacceptable now.
My late grandmother was Sir Marmaduke Hussey's secretary for a time
It's actually quite an interesting question whether there is a widely acceptable form of words to ask someone from an ethnic minority what place their ancestors came from.
As a British woman of colour, where did your ancestors originate from?
You can't really throw that into an informal conversation; it reads like a census form.
Just compiling a list of PBers likely to make a half arsed defence of Lady brazen old racist Hussey. Petronellas I'll call them.
Not excusing Lady Hussey's behaviour but she is over 83 so would have remembered when Windrush first arrived. That may have been a question typical of her generation then even if unacceptable now.
My late grandmother was Sir Marmaduke Hussey's secretary for a time
It's actually quite an interesting question whether there is a widely acceptable form of words to ask someone from an ethnic minority what place their ancestors came from.
As a British woman of colour, where did your ancestors originate from?
You can't really throw that into an informal conversation; it reads like a census form.
Just compiling a list of PBers likely to make a half arsed defence of Lady brazen old racist Hussey. Petronellas I'll call them.
Not excusing Lady Hussey's behaviour but she is over 83 so would have remembered when Windrush first arrived. That may have been a question typical of her generation then even if unacceptable now.
My late grandmother was Sir Marmaduke Hussey's secretary for a time
It's actually quite an interesting question whether there is a widely acceptable form of words to ask someone from an ethnic minority what place their ancestors came from.
I think the usual posho form is 'where are your people from' which can cover anything from Dorset to Burundi. I might even give the silly old fool the benefit of the doubt if the conversation as reported didn't boil down to 'stop pretending to be British, where are you REALLY from?' over and over.
The last thread was bad enough, dominated by this issue. My own view on the politics of it is that Rishi's a bit posh but so was Boris and so was Cameron and everyone knew it, so I'm not convinced this is the election winner Labour thinks it is.
I'm not sure that the perception of Sunak as a privileged oik had really sunk in yet, but I don't think that that is Starmer's main motivation for the policy.
The main electoral benefit to Labour is fiscal. It basically allows Labour to invest £1.7bn to turn around state education, without anyone being able to easily question where the money is coming from. And if the Conservatives do try to challenge the fiscal arithmetic, it'll just be another opportunity for Labour to dismiss their claims and bang on about what they think is going to be a highly popular policy.
There's also an internal niche benefit to Starmer. In any world of rational behaviour, it would totally silence his far left critics, those who seem obsessed with discrediting Starmer and who seem much less concerned to win the next GE. Well it won't silence them, but they'll just end up looking like the utter factional marginalised numpties that they are.
That assumes zero price elasticity of demand for private education.
The reality is that raising the cost of private education by 20% is going to reduce demand for it. Now, we can argue about what the right elasticity is, but let's just assume that it's 1. So, a 20% increase in prices leads to a 20% decrease in demand.
This means that (a) the total tax take is going to be £1.4bn, not £1.7bn, and (b) the government will be picking up the tab for educating those kids where the parents can no longer afford private school fees.
Just compiling a list of PBers likely to make a half arsed defence of Lady brazen old racist Hussey. Petronellas I'll call them.
Not excusing Lady Hussey's behaviour but she is over 83 so would have remembered when Windrush first arrived. That may have been a question typical of her generation then even if unacceptable now.
My late grandmother was Sir Marmaduke Hussey's secretary for a time
It's actually quite an interesting question whether there is a widely acceptable form of words to ask someone from an ethnic minority what place their ancestors came from.
As a British woman of colour, where did your ancestors originate from?
You can't really throw that into an informal conversation; it reads like a census form.
I think PC enough though based on my EDI training
Serious (and I really mean serious) advice: do not try that one out in real life.
The last thread was bad enough, dominated by this issue. My own view on the politics of it is that Rishi's a bit posh but so was Boris and so was Cameron and everyone knew it, so I'm not convinced this is the election winner Labour thinks it is.
I'm not sure that the perception of Sunak as a privileged oik had really sunk in yet, but I don't think that that is Starmer's main motivation for the policy.
The main electoral benefit to Labour is fiscal. It basically allows Labour to invest £1.7bn to turn around state education, without anyone being able to easily question where the money is coming from. And if the Conservatives do try to challenge the fiscal arithmetic, it'll just be another opportunity for Labour to dismiss their claims and bang on about what they think is going to be a highly popular policy.
There's also an internal niche benefit to Starmer. In any world of rational behaviour, it would totally silence his far left critics, those who seem obsessed with discrediting Starmer and who seem much less concerned to win the next GE. Well it won't silence them, but they'll just end up looking like the utter factional marginalised numpties that they are.
I doubt it will raise any money for the exchequer.
Each private school parent is effectively donating their place - and the funding that goes with it - to someone else, and paying private on top.
The state makes a net loss on each parent who decides to quit. And a 20% increase in costs, and closures of dozens of marginal independent schools, will certainly lead to a lot moving - as well as less employment for teachers as well.
It will make private education more elite, not less.
It doesn't matter if kids suffer, Labour will have hit the "rich".
It's a good reminder that any party can pursue stupid policies, just for the optics.
Just compiling a list of PBers likely to make a half arsed defence of Lady brazen old racist Hussey. Petronellas I'll call them.
Not excusing Lady Hussey's behaviour but she is over 83 so would have remembered when Windrush first arrived. That may have been a question typical of her generation then even if unacceptable now.
My late grandmother was Sir Marmaduke Hussey's secretary for a time
It's actually quite an interesting question whether there is a widely acceptable form of words to ask someone from an ethnic minority what place their ancestors came from.
As a British woman of colour, where did your ancestors originate from?
You can't really throw that into an informal conversation; it reads like a census form.
Doesn't that just illustrate what a stupid question it is? Of all the things to ask, why that? Why not eg what are you here for? What does your organisation do? And take it from there. I wonder whether perhaps it does illustrate the thick posho mindset that the only thing that matters is who your family are not what you've done with your life.
Just compiling a list of PBers likely to make a half arsed defence of Lady brazen old racist Hussey. Petronellas I'll call them.
Not excusing Lady Hussey's behaviour but she is over 83 so would have remembered when Windrush first arrived. That may have been a question typical of her generation then even if unacceptable now.
My late grandmother was Sir Marmaduke Hussey's secretary for a time
It's actually quite an interesting question whether there is a widely acceptable form of words to ask someone from an ethnic minority what place their ancestors came from.
As a British woman of colour, where did your ancestors originate from?
You can't really throw that into an informal conversation; it reads like a census form.
I think PC enough though based on my EDI training
Serious (and I really mean serious) advice: do not try that one out in real life.
I'm majorly surprised that HYUFD is a British woman of colour tbh.
The last thread was bad enough, dominated by this issue. My own view on the politics of it is that Rishi's a bit posh but so was Boris and so was Cameron and everyone knew it, so I'm not convinced this is the election winner Labour thinks it is.
I'm not sure that the perception of Sunak as a privileged oik had really sunk in yet, but I don't think that that is Starmer's main motivation for the policy.
The main electoral benefit to Labour is fiscal. It basically allows Labour to invest £1.7bn to turn around state education, without anyone being able to easily question where the money is coming from. And if the Conservatives do try to challenge the fiscal arithmetic, it'll just be another opportunity for Labour to dismiss their claims and bang on about what they think is going to be a highly popular policy.
There's also an internal niche benefit to Starmer. In any world of rational behaviour, it would totally silence his far left critics, those who seem obsessed with discrediting Starmer and who seem much less concerned to win the next GE. Well it won't silence them, but they'll just end up looking like the utter factional marginalised numpties that they are.
I doubt it will raise any money for the exchequer.
Each private school parent is effectively donating their place - and the funding that goes with it - to someone else, and paying private on top.
The state makes a net loss on each parent who decides to quit. And a 20% increase in costs, and closures of dozens of marginal independent schools, will certainly lead to a lot moving - as well as less employment for teachers as well.
It will make private education more elite, not less.
It doesn't matter if kids suffer, Labour will have hit the "rich".
It's a good reminder that any party can pursue stupid policies, just for the optics.
I don't know if you saw my earlier analysis, which suggested that it was unlikely that the policy would be revenue negative. So it doesn't seem like a stupid policy. Also, going to a state school doesn't equate to suffering.
Just compiling a list of PBers likely to make a half arsed defence of Lady brazen old racist Hussey. Petronellas I'll call them.
Not excusing Lady Hussey's behaviour but she is over 83 so would have remembered when Windrush first arrived. That may have been a question typical of her generation then even if unacceptable now.
My late grandmother was Sir Marmaduke Hussey's secretary for a time
It's actually quite an interesting question whether there is a widely acceptable form of words to ask someone from an ethnic minority what place their ancestors came from.
As a British woman of colour, where did your ancestors originate from?
You can't really throw that into an informal conversation; it reads like a census form.
I think PC enough though based on my EDI training
I think I'd say 'Do you have African/Asian (delete as applicable) heritage?'. I think they would then say 'No, Caribbean' etc.
The fall of crypto billionaire Sam Bankman-Fried has been painted as a big blow to the Democratic party, whose candidates were major beneficiaries of his largesse. But in a new interview, Bankman-Fried has claimed he gave equally large amounts of money to Republicans.
“I donated to both parties. I donated about the same amount to both parties,” Bankman-Fried told the crypto commentator and citizen journalist Tiffany Fong.
Just compiling a list of PBers likely to make a half arsed defence of Lady brazen old racist Hussey. Petronellas I'll call them.
Not excusing Lady Hussey's behaviour but she is over 83 so would have remembered when Windrush first arrived. That may have been a question typical of her generation then even if unacceptable now.
My late grandmother was Sir Marmaduke Hussey's secretary for a time
It's actually quite an interesting question whether there is a widely acceptable form of words to ask someone from an ethnic minority what place their ancestors came from.
I think the usual posho form is 'where are your people from' which can cover anything from Dorset to Burundi. I might even give the silly old fool the benefit of the doubt if the conversation as reported didn't boil down to 'stop pretending to be British, where are you REALLY from?' over and over.
So many people owe the Duke and Duchess of Sussex an apology.
This was not a member of the royal family but a very elderly lady in waiting who made an error but said a question many of her generation would have asked.
The Palace correctly asked her to retire
Recollections may vary.
"a question" is seemingly a bit of an understatement.
Perhaps private schools could absorb the cost of VAT without raising fees. They could, for example, have slightly larger class sizes, or spend less on expensive refurbishments and extra-curricular activities, or use more TAs and fewer qualified teachers.
After all, that's what state schools have to do all the time.
The last thread was bad enough, dominated by this issue. My own view on the politics of it is that Rishi's a bit posh but so was Boris and so was Cameron and everyone knew it, so I'm not convinced this is the election winner Labour thinks it is.
I'm not sure that the perception of Sunak as a privileged oik had really sunk in yet, but I don't think that that is Starmer's main motivation for the policy.
The main electoral benefit to Labour is fiscal. It basically allows Labour to invest £1.7bn to turn around state education, without anyone being able to easily question where the money is coming from. And if the Conservatives do try to challenge the fiscal arithmetic, it'll just be another opportunity for Labour to dismiss their claims and bang on about what they think is going to be a highly popular policy.
There's also an internal niche benefit to Starmer. In any world of rational behaviour, it would totally silence his far left critics, those who seem obsessed with discrediting Starmer and who seem much less concerned to win the next GE. Well it won't silence them, but they'll just end up looking like the utter factional marginalised numpties that they are.
That assumes zero price elasticity of demand for private education.
The reality is that raising the cost of private education by 20% is going to reduce demand for it. Now, we can argue about what the right elasticity is, but let's just assume that it's 1. So, a 20% increase in prices leads to a 20% decrease in demand.
This means that (a) the total tax take is going to be £1.4bn, not £1.7bn, and (b) the government will be picking up the tab for educating those kids where the parents can no longer afford private school fees.
As noted earlier in the thread, even an implausibly large 20% reduction in the numbers of privately educated would still mean more money net of the additional costs to the state sector, back of the envelope.
The last thread was bad enough, dominated by this issue. My own view on the politics of it is that Rishi's a bit posh but so was Boris and so was Cameron and everyone knew it, so I'm not convinced this is the election winner Labour thinks it is.
I'm not sure that the perception of Sunak as a privileged oik had really sunk in yet, but I don't think that that is Starmer's main motivation for the policy.
The main electoral benefit to Labour is fiscal. It basically allows Labour to invest £1.7bn to turn around state education, without anyone being able to easily question where the money is coming from. And if the Conservatives do try to challenge the fiscal arithmetic, it'll just be another opportunity for Labour to dismiss their claims and bang on about what they think is going to be a highly popular policy.
There's also an internal niche benefit to Starmer. In any world of rational behaviour, it would totally silence his far left critics, those who seem obsessed with discrediting Starmer and who seem much less concerned to win the next GE. Well it won't silence them, but they'll just end up looking like the utter factional marginalised numpties that they are.
I doubt it will raise any money for the exchequer.
Each private school parent is effectively donating their place - and the funding that goes with it - to someone else, and paying private on top.
The state makes a net loss on each parent who decides to quit. And a 20% increase in costs, and closures of dozens of marginal independent schools, will certainly lead to a lot moving - as well as less employment for teachers as well.
It will make private education more elite, not less.
It doesn't matter if kids suffer, Labour will have hit the "rich".
It's a good reminder that any party can pursue stupid policies, just for the optics.
I don't know if you saw my earlier analysis, which suggested that it was unlikely that the policy
would be revenue negative. So it doesn't seem
like a stupid policy.
Also, going to a state school doesn't equate to
suffering.
I think I’ve read “forced” into state schooling at least twice this evening.
Just compiling a list of PBers likely to make a half arsed defence of Lady brazen old racist Hussey. Petronellas I'll call them.
Not excusing Lady Hussey's behaviour but she is over 83 so would have remembered when Windrush first arrived. That may have been a question typical of her generation then even if unacceptable now.
My late grandmother was Sir Marmaduke Hussey's secretary for a time
It's actually quite an interesting question whether there is a widely acceptable form of words to ask someone from an ethnic minority what place their ancestors came from.
As a British woman of colour, where did your ancestors originate from?
You can't really throw that into an informal conversation; it reads like a census form.
I think PC enough though based on my EDI training
I think I'd say 'Do you have African/Asian (delete as applicable) heritage?'. I think they would then say 'No, Caribbean' etc.
Depends how far you go back, ultimately we are all Africans. And then further back we lived in trees hiding from dinosaurs. And before that we were part of the Cambrian Explosion (no @ydoethur not that one) and didn’t yet have backbones. And before that we were flat diner plate sized blobs.
Just compiling a list of PBers likely to make a half arsed defence of Lady brazen old racist Hussey. Petronellas I'll call them.
Not excusing Lady Hussey's behaviour but she is over 83 so would have remembered when Windrush first arrived. That may have been a question typical of her generation then even if unacceptable now.
My late grandmother was Sir Marmaduke Hussey's secretary for a time
It's actually quite an interesting question whether there is a widely acceptable form of words to ask someone from an ethnic minority what place their ancestors came from.
As a British woman of colour, where did your ancestors originate from?
You can't really throw that into an informal conversation; it reads like a census form.
Doesn't that just illustrate what a stupid question it is? Of all the things to ask, why that? Why not eg what are you here for? What does your organisation do? And take it from there. I wonder whether perhaps it does illustrate the thick posho mindset that the only thing that matters is who your family are not what you've done with your life.
Not really, I wasn't suggesting that it should be the only question one asks a new acquaintance, or even in the top 10, but equally in a conversation I don't think any polite enquiry should be taboo.
Just compiling a list of PBers likely to make a half arsed defence of Lady brazen old racist Hussey. Petronellas I'll call them.
Not excusing Lady Hussey's behaviour but she is over 83 so would have remembered when Windrush first arrived. That may have been a question typical of her generation then even if unacceptable now.
My late grandmother was Sir Marmaduke Hussey's secretary for a time
It's actually quite an interesting question whether there is a widely acceptable form of words to ask someone from an ethnic minority what place their ancestors came from.
I think the usual posho form is 'where are your people from' which can cover anything from Dorset to Burundi. I might even give the silly old fool the benefit of the doubt if the conversation as reported didn't boil down to 'stop pretending to be British, where are you REALLY from?' over and over.
Interesting.
Back in the good old days, you’d meet someone, give them your name and they’d ask if you were from the Wiltshire Tubbs, or the Yorkshire branch.
MichaelWhite @michaelwhite Of course, she almost certainly thought she was sticking to small talk. Where are you from ? A kinder person might have helped her out and answered what she was obviously asking. But she played her instead
Just compiling a list of PBers likely to make a half arsed defence of Lady brazen old racist Hussey. Petronellas I'll call them.
Yeur name vill alzo go on ze list!!
List so far:
Petrodamus (+6 or 7 previous incompetently constructed personas) Petrotubbs Pillsonella (+1), given a partial pass for relentless contrarianism
From a brief and possibly incomplete understanding of the story, you can add me to the list of peole who think an 83 year old lady is not fair game for a pile-on for not being utterly 2022.
I like nothing more than to bore on at people about the scant details I know about the family history, and would only be too delighted for an opportunity to exchange such information, but then I've never had someone tell me to "go home" and I can see why it could be a different experience for those who have.
Which is a shame, because it means I daren't ask anyone if there's any risk of causing offence. Sometimes someone will volunteer some information so you have an opportunity to ask related questions with much less risk.
Just compiling a list of PBers likely to make a half arsed defence of Lady brazen old racist Hussey. Petronellas I'll call them.
Not excusing Lady Hussey's behaviour but she is over 83 so would have remembered when Windrush first arrived. That may have been a question typical of her generation then even if unacceptable now.
My late grandmother was Sir Marmaduke Hussey's secretary for a time
It's actually quite an interesting question whether there is a widely acceptable form of words to ask someone from an ethnic minority what place their ancestors came from.
As a British woman of colour, where did your ancestors originate from?
You can't really throw that into an informal conversation; it reads like a census form.
Doesn't that just illustrate what a stupid question it is? Of all the things to ask, why that? Why not eg what are you here for? What does your organisation do? And take it from there. I wonder whether perhaps it does illustrate the thick posho mindset that the only thing that matters is who your family are not what you've done with your life.
Not really, I wasn't suggesting that it should be the only question one asks a new acquaintance, or even in the top 10, but equally in a conversation I don't think any polite enquiry should be taboo.
It's not polite to ask someone where they're from and then refuse to believe the answer they give you.
Just compiling a list of PBers likely to make a half arsed defence of Lady brazen old racist Hussey. Petronellas I'll call them.
Put me on the list. I think we should cut old people some slack. When she was born there were hardly any people of colour native to the U.K. (despite much revisionist history). Yes she has been unintentionally rude, but I’m sure that was not her intention. Once again we have intolerance of people not conforming to the current social mores, without any consideration of peoples age and experiences. This reminds me of an older person being castigated for calling someone coloured rather than off colour. An older term that is now frowned on. But I don’t recall the government edict on usage. We see this with the drift in terminology. We are now onto the global south. What next?
I believe it is now Global Majority, as Global South is deemed geographist
A kinder, sweeter lady you cannot imagine. Loving and warm. When I was upset by my fractured family she would feed me freshly made saffron buns in her house in the Cornish wilds, or hand me some coins to go down to the Carnkie sweet shop for a Curly Wurly
She kept me sane. I loved her dearly. As did everyone else. Yet she used the N word simply because she grew up in a very very different time. I do not judge her by the mores of 2022 (some of which are utterly farcical)
If you disagree I am afraid I will have to slay you in a duel
I don't disagree - it's obviously not great, but unless accompanied by prejudice and nastiness it's not the end of the world. We had a local Tory councillor who used it too (the woodpile phrase) - the party suspended him for a while, then let him back in. It was clear that he was an old man confusedly using an outdated metaphor and none of us in the other parties tried to make anything of it. A local black friend says that frankly he feels it's not a big deal in itself - he worries about companies that discreetly discriminate, police who stop black people with no evidence of wrong-doing, etc. not about slips of the tongue.
Hostile intent does matter, as you say. Use of an offensive term may be wrong but excusable - coloured person/person of colour is an easy one for someone to get confused about innocently, whereas other terms it is and always was obvious and less forebearance should be given - since ignorance or carelessness deserves a different reaction to hostility, even if that hostility might be politely worded. Not all sins are equal.
Just compiling a list of PBers likely to make a half arsed defence of Lady brazen old racist Hussey. Petronellas I'll call them.
Not excusing Lady Hussey's behaviour but she is over 83 so would have remembered when Windrush first arrived. That may have been a question typical of her generation then even if unacceptable now.
My late grandmother was Sir Marmaduke Hussey's secretary for a time
It's actually quite an interesting question whether there is a widely acceptable form of words to ask someone from an ethnic minority what place their ancestors came from.
As a British woman of colour, where did your ancestors originate from?
You can't really throw that into an informal conversation; it reads like a census form.
Doesn't that just illustrate what a stupid question it is? Of all the things to ask, why that? Why not eg what are you here for? What does your organisation do? And take it from there. I wonder whether perhaps it does illustrate the thick posho mindset that the only thing that matters is who your family are not what you've done with your life.
Potentially it opens up a rich seam of family legend, anecdote and myth. A much more interesting set of topics than a simple family lineage.
Why else are the ancestry shows and websites so popular?
Just compiling a list of PBers likely to make a half arsed defence of Lady brazen old racist Hussey. Petronellas I'll call them.
Not excusing Lady Hussey's behaviour but she is over 83 so would have remembered when Windrush first arrived. That may have been a question typical of her generation then even if unacceptable now.
My late grandmother was Sir Marmaduke Hussey's secretary for a time
It's actually quite an interesting question whether there is a widely acceptable form of words to ask someone from an ethnic minority what place their ancestors came from.
As a British woman of colour, where did your ancestors originate from?
You can't really throw that into an informal conversation; it reads like a census form.
I think PC enough though based on my EDI training
I think I'd say 'Do you have African/Asian (delete as applicable) heritage?'. I think they would then say 'No, Caribbean' etc.
Depends how far you go back, ultimately we are all Africans. And then further back we lived in trees hiding from dinosaurs. And before that we were part of the Cambrian Explosion (no @ydoethur not that one) and didn’t yet have backbones. And before that we were flat diner plate sized blobs.
My blobs were more refined and dignified than other people's, of that I am sure.
The last thread was bad enough, dominated by this issue. My own view on the politics of it is that Rishi's a bit posh but so was Boris and so was Cameron and everyone knew it, so I'm not convinced this is the election winner Labour thinks it is.
I'm not sure that the perception of Sunak as a privileged oik had really sunk in yet, but I don't think that that is Starmer's main motivation for the policy.
The main electoral benefit to Labour is fiscal. It basically allows Labour to invest £1.7bn to turn around state education, without anyone being able to easily question where the money is coming from. And if the Conservatives do try to challenge the fiscal arithmetic, it'll just be another opportunity for Labour to dismiss their claims and bang on about what they think is going to be a highly popular policy.
There's also an internal niche benefit to Starmer. In any world of rational behaviour, it would totally silence his far left critics, those who seem obsessed with discrediting Starmer and who seem much less concerned to win the next GE. Well it won't silence them, but they'll just end up looking like the utter factional marginalised numpties that they are.
That assumes zero price elasticity of demand for private education.
The reality is that raising the cost of private education by 20% is going to reduce demand for it. Now, we can argue about what the right elasticity is, but let's just assume that it's 1. So, a 20% increase in prices leads to a 20% decrease in demand.
This means that (a) the total tax take is going to be £1.4bn, not £1.7bn, and (b) the government will be picking up the tab for educating those kids where the parents can no longer afford private school fees.
As noted earlier in the thread, even an implausibly large 20% reduction in the numbers of privately educated would still mean more money net of the additional costs to the state sector, back of the envelope.
I agree it is almost certainly revenue positive for the government.
With that said...
It is worth noting that Central Government (which receives VAT) benefits, while local government (which funds schools) does not.
For some people their heritage is very important and they will volunteer it, but there's not much point in enquiring if they do not. I have asked people about their names, which might count as a micro aggression, but names of a less than common type don't guarantee someone is of a particular heritage, so I think it is fair game. If you've never seen the names Ruaridh or Prydderch you might well be curious at their provenance.
Just compiling a list of PBers likely to make a half arsed defence of Lady brazen old racist Hussey. Petronellas I'll call them.
Not excusing Lady Hussey's behaviour but she is over 83 so would have remembered when Windrush first arrived. That may have been a question typical of her generation then even if unacceptable now.
My late grandmother was Sir Marmaduke Hussey's secretary for a time
It's actually quite an interesting question whether there is a widely acceptable form of words to ask someone from an ethnic minority what place their ancestors came from.
As a British woman of colour, where did your ancestors originate from?
You can't really throw that into an informal conversation; it reads like a census form.
I think PC enough though based on my EDI training
Serious (and I really mean serious) advice: do not try that one out in real life.
Just compiling a list of PBers likely to make a half arsed defence of Lady brazen old racist Hussey. Petronellas I'll call them.
Not excusing Lady Hussey's behaviour but she is over 83 so would have remembered when Windrush first arrived. That may have been a question typical of her generation then even if unacceptable now.
My late grandmother was Sir Marmaduke Hussey's secretary for a time
It's actually quite an interesting question whether there is a widely acceptable form of words to ask someone from an ethnic minority what place their ancestors came from.
As a British woman of colour, where did your ancestors originate from?
You can't really throw that into an informal conversation; it reads like a census form.
Doesn't that just illustrate what a stupid question it is? Of all the things to ask, why that? Why not eg what are you here for? What does your organisation do? And take it from there. I wonder whether perhaps it does illustrate the thick posho mindset that the only thing that matters is who your family are not what you've done with your life.
Not really, I wasn't suggesting that it should be the only question one asks a new acquaintance, or even in the top 10, but equally in a conversation I don't think any polite enquiry should be taboo.
It's not polite to ask someone where they're from and then refuse to believe the answer they give you.
I agree - I think it's quite clear from my post that I was using this incident as a jumping off point to a general question about language, rather than obliquely defending Lady Sarah.
I've been asked "Where are you from?" when I was in a pub in Liverpool, "Rainhill," I said, an L35 postcode.
"No," he said (I'd never seen him before). "Where are you really from?"
It was curiosity only - Scousers are like that.
I had a similar experience in a club in Liverpool: a cheerfully drunk scouse girl in front of me in the cloakroom queue overheard my accent and asked where I was from. "Stockport". I said. "Oh my God, there's no way you're from Stockport. Where are you realy from." Baffling.
A girlfriend of mine faced a similar line of conversation once. She was born in Newcastle, parents from South Shields, had lived in Durham most of her life. Not a strong northeastern accent, but recognisable as such to an outsider. In her local pub in Durham, she ordered a bottle of Newcastle Brown at the bar, to be regaled by the adjacent customer with "I bet they don't have that where you're from." Doubly baffling, since not only was where she was from "here", but Newcastle Brown was, in those days, available in almosr every pub in the country (and maybe still is for al I know).
Just compiling a list of PBers likely to make a half arsed defence of Lady brazen old racist Hussey. Petronellas I'll call them.
Not excusing Lady Hussey's behaviour but she is over 83 so would have remembered when Windrush first arrived. That may have been a question typical of her generation then even if unacceptable now.
My late grandmother was Sir Marmaduke Hussey's secretary for a time
It's actually quite an interesting question whether there is a widely acceptable form of words to ask someone from an ethnic minority what place their ancestors came from.
As a British woman of colour, where did your ancestors originate from?
You can't really throw that into an informal conversation; it reads like a census form.
I think PC enough though based on my EDI training
I think I'd say 'Do you have African/Asian (delete as applicable) heritage?'. I think they would then say 'No, Caribbean' etc.
The last thread was bad enough, dominated by this issue. My own view on the politics of it is that Rishi's a bit posh but so was Boris and so was Cameron and everyone knew it, so I'm not convinced this is the election winner Labour thinks it is.
I'm not sure that the perception of Sunak as a privileged oik had really sunk in yet, but I don't think that that is Starmer's main motivation for the policy.
The main electoral benefit to Labour is fiscal. It basically allows Labour to invest £1.7bn to turn around state education, without anyone being able to easily question where the money is coming from. And if the Conservatives do try to challenge the fiscal arithmetic, it'll just be another opportunity for Labour to dismiss their claims and bang on about what they think is going to be a highly popular policy.
There's also an internal niche benefit to Starmer. In any world of rational behaviour, it would totally silence his far left critics, those who seem obsessed with discrediting Starmer and who seem much less concerned to win the next GE. Well it won't silence them, but they'll just end up looking like the utter factional marginalised numpties that they are.
That assumes zero price elasticity of demand for private education.
The reality is that raising the cost of private education by 20% is going to reduce demand for it. Now, we can argue about what the right elasticity is, but let's just assume that it's 1. So, a 20% increase in prices leads to a 20% decrease in demand.
This means that (a) the total tax take is going to be £1.4bn, not £1.7bn, and (b) the government will be picking up the tab for educating those kids where the parents can no longer afford private school fees.
As noted earlier in the thread, even an implausibly large 20% reduction in the numbers of privately educated would still mean more money net of the additional costs to the state sector, back of the envelope.
I agree it is almost certainly revenue positive for the government.
With that said...
It is worth noting that Central Government (which receives VAT) benefits, while local government (which funds schools) does not.
Local government is funded directly for schools by central government according to pupil numbers. And central government funds academies and free schools directly.
Just compiling a list of PBers likely to make a half arsed defence of Lady brazen old racist Hussey. Petronellas I'll call them.
Not excusing Lady Hussey's behaviour but she is over 83 so would have remembered when Windrush first arrived. That may have been a question typical of her generation then even if unacceptable now.
My late grandmother was Sir Marmaduke Hussey's secretary for a time
It's actually quite an interesting question whether there is a widely acceptable form of words to ask someone from an ethnic minority what place their ancestors came from.
At a social event at the Palace, why would anyone need to ask? There are many other things to talk about including the supposed theme of the reception.
Just compiling a list of PBers likely to make a half arsed defence of Lady brazen old racist Hussey. Petronellas I'll call them.
Not excusing Lady Hussey's behaviour but she is over 83 so would have remembered when Windrush first arrived. That may have been a question typical of her generation then even if unacceptable now.
My late grandmother was Sir Marmaduke Hussey's secretary for a time
It's actually quite an interesting question whether there is a widely acceptable form of words to ask someone from an ethnic minority what place their ancestors came from.
At a social event at the Palace, why would anyone need to ask? There are many other things to talk about including the supposed theme of the reception.
People at the Palace might be interested in Commonwealth connections
Just compiling a list of PBers likely to make a half arsed defence of Lady brazen old racist Hussey. Petronellas I'll call them.
Not excusing Lady Hussey's behaviour but she is over 83 so would have remembered when Windrush first arrived. That may have been a question typical of her generation then even if unacceptable now.
My late grandmother was Sir Marmaduke Hussey's secretary for a time
It's actually quite an interesting question whether there is a widely acceptable form of words to ask someone from an ethnic minority what place their ancestors came from.
At a social event at the Palace, why would anyone need to ask? There are many other things to talk about including the supposed theme of the reception.
People at the Palace might be interested in Commonwealth connections
Then they should accept her first answer, from Lambeth or whatever, if they feel the need to ask at all.
Just compiling a list of PBers likely to make a half arsed defence of Lady brazen old racist Hussey. Petronellas I'll call them.
Not excusing Lady Hussey's behaviour but she is over 83 so would have remembered when Windrush first arrived. That may have been a question typical of her generation then even if unacceptable now.
My late grandmother was Sir Marmaduke Hussey's secretary for a time
It's actually quite an interesting question whether there is a widely acceptable form of words to ask someone from an ethnic minority what place their ancestors came from.
At a social event at the Palace, why would anyone need to ask? There are many other things to talk about including the supposed theme of the reception.
The poor old dear is well out of it. I'd rather die than spend five minutes at a creepfest like that. If the guests weren't so besotted with their own importance they'd come to the same conclusion.
The last thread was bad enough, dominated by this issue. My own view on the politics of it is that Rishi's a bit posh but so was Boris and so was Cameron and everyone knew it, so I'm not convinced this is the election winner Labour thinks it is.
I'm not sure that the perception of Sunak as a privileged oik had really sunk in yet, but I don't think that that is Starmer's main motivation for the policy.
The main electoral benefit to Labour is fiscal. It basically allows Labour to invest £1.7bn to turn around state education, without anyone being able to easily question where the money is coming from. And if the Conservatives do try to challenge the fiscal arithmetic, it'll just be another opportunity for Labour to dismiss their claims and bang on about what they think is going to be a highly popular policy.
There's also an internal niche benefit to Starmer. In any world of rational behaviour, it would totally silence his far left critics, those who seem obsessed with discrediting Starmer and who seem much less concerned to win the next GE. Well it won't silence them, but they'll just end up looking like the utter factional marginalised numpties that they are.
I doubt it will raise any money for the exchequer.
Each private school parent is effectively donating their place - and the funding that goes with it - to someone else, and paying private on top.
The state makes a net loss on each parent who decides to quit. And a 20% increase in costs, and closures of dozens of marginal independent schools, will certainly lead to a lot moving - as well as less employment for teachers as well.
It will make private education more elite, not less.
It doesn't matter if kids suffer, Labour will have hit the "rich".
It's a good reminder that any party can pursue stupid policies, just for the optics.
I don't know if you saw my earlier analysis, which suggested that it was unlikely that the policy would be revenue negative. So it doesn't seem like a stupid policy. Also, going to a state school doesn't equate to suffering.
That 10% attrition rate is too low because some smaller private schools will just close.
Comments
Some old biddy has a somewhat outdated view of the world. OMFG BURN HER
It's 7% of overall numbers at any one time.
Petronellas I'll call them.
They forget the far larger number of independent educational charities who exist on a shoestring, and don't make a penny - charging just enough to cover their costs whilst offering as many bursaries and scholarships as they can.
Dozens and dozens of those will close, reducing the diversity and depth of educational provision in the sector as a whole. Those displaced and forced to go state will use house prices and private tutoring to maintain their advantage.
IMHO the policy is indefensible.
An artist did a picture of me for a "where are they now" story in the Commons House magazine, and offered me the original if I'd give £10 to a food bank - when I agreed, she donated her fee to Trussell as well.
A kinder, sweeter lady you cannot imagine. Loving and warm. When I was upset by my fractured family she would feed me freshly made saffron buns in her house in the Cornish wilds, or hand me some coins to go down to the Carnkie sweet shop for a Curly Wurly
She kept me sane. I loved her dearly. As did everyone else. Yet she used the N word simply because she grew up in a very very different time. I do not judge her by the mores of 2022 (some of which are utterly farcical)
If you disagree I am afraid I will have to slay you in a duel
Scottish National Party 41% (-4)
Labour 31% (+12)
Conservative 16% (-9)
Liberal Democrat 8% (-2)
Other 5% (+4)
It's a Scotland-only poll (Redfield), not a subsample.
EDIT: sorry, I see the figures already quoted downthread.
But you are right that it is a short list indeed.
We ask that the player’s privacy is respected at this moment in time.”
https://twitter.com/JamesOlley/status/1598024440327340032
Once again we have intolerance of people not conforming to the current social
mores, without any consideration of peoples age and experiences.
This reminds me of an older person being castigated for calling someone coloured rather than off colour. An older term that is now frowned on. But I don’t recall the government edict on usage.
We see this with the drift in terminology. We are now onto the global south. What next?
Each private school parent is effectively donating their place - and the funding that goes with it - to someone else, and paying private on top.
The state makes a net loss on each parent who decides to quit. And a 20% increase in costs, and closures of dozens of marginal independent schools, will certainly lead to a lot moving - as well as less employment for teachers as well.
It will make private education more elite, not less.
Wonder what my home town has done to deserve your presence.
I do like "People Off Colour" tho
That said, I'm not sure the fuss is helpful to anyone.
I see weird tiny crabbed handwriting, a well-thumbed John Menzies school notebook, and this elderly pink Scottish face furiously hunched over his "list" as the electricity meter runs out. Again
My late grandmother was Sir Marmaduke Hussey's secretary for a time
Petrodamus (+6 or 7 previous incompetently constructed personas)
Petrotubbs
Pillsonella (+1), given a partial pass for relentless contrarianism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raffles_Institution
The reality is that raising the cost of private education by 20% is going to reduce demand for it. Now, we can argue about what the right elasticity is, but let's just assume that it's 1. So, a 20% increase in prices leads to a 20% decrease in demand.
This means that (a) the total tax take is going to be £1.4bn, not £1.7bn, and (b) the government will be picking up the tab for educating those kids where the parents can no longer afford private school fees.
I love that spoiler thing.
I wonder whether perhaps it does illustrate the thick posho mindset that the only thing that matters is who your family are not what you've done with your life.
She answers: “Barnet”.
Her questioner then asks: “no, I mean where are you from originally?”
She answers: “I’m originally from Barnet.”
Also, going to a state school doesn't equate to suffering.
After all, that's what state schools have to do all the time.
Lolz etc
MichaelWhite
@michaelwhite
Of course, she almost certainly thought she was sticking to small talk. Where are you from ? A kinder person might have helped her out and answered what she was obviously asking. But she played her instead
https://twitter.com/michaelwhite/status/1598033595708633089
Which is a shame, because it means I daren't ask anyone if there's any risk of causing offence. Sometimes someone will volunteer some information so you have an opportunity to ask related questions with much less risk.
"No," he said (I'd never seen him before). "Where are you really from?"
It was curiosity only - Scousers are like that.
Why else are the ancestry shows and websites so popular?
"South" is now a pejorative term?!
It can be in parts of the North of England.
With that said...
It is worth noting that Central Government (which receives VAT) benefits, while local government (which funds schools) does not.
"And which school did you go to?"
Is that polite?
A girlfriend of mine faced a similar line of conversation once. She was born in Newcastle, parents from South Shields, had lived in Durham most of her life. Not a strong northeastern accent, but recognisable as such to an outsider. In her local pub in Durham, she ordered a bottle of Newcastle Brown at the bar, to be regaled by the adjacent customer with "I bet they don't have that where you're from." Doubly baffling, since not only was where she was from "here", but Newcastle Brown was, in those days, available in almosr every pub in the country (and maybe still is for al I know).
Did not deserve to score. Maybe God had a hand in it.....