And both of these things are evidence for the PROSECUTION.
(1) Because that is the purchasing of educational advantage. (2) Because that provides a false benchmark for the state sector.
Your last para, I'm afraid, is a cop out - unless we are prepared to fund state schools to the same level as the private sector.
Part of the issue here is whether success in life is a zero-sum game, in which if X uses the skills learned and connections made at a private school to get a good job, then Y who hypothetically didn't get those skills and connections but is otherwise equally good misses out. For specific jobs, this is clearly the case (see the Cabinet for a start) - for the country as a whole, less so, since the better educated people are the more we'll all prosper...other things being equal. I'd address inequalities in other ways, starting with a wealth tax.
I think that removing charitable status is simply obvious, and expecting private schools to let state schools use facilities when not otherwise in use is reasonable. I wouldn't go further and ban them altogether, which feels too to-down intrusive - the underlying problem is entrenched elitism, and that will just appear in another form if it's not based on schooling - Cameron and Osborne would recognise each other as kindred spirits even if they both went to Barnsley Comp.
Of course all you do in that case is increase the costs and make them genuinely only for the very richest. Meanwhile all the other kids who are not from super rich families end up back in the state sector so increasing class sizes and reducing outcomes even more.
It is a policy driven by envy and ideology rather than by a genuine concern for improving educational outcomes.
How far do you go in chasing 'equality of opportunity', given that good parenting - whether in rich or poor families - is perhaps the biggest 'opportunity' a child can have?
This is a very important question.
For me, a serious attempt to decouple the quality of education (at school) from parental financial position falls on the right side of the line.
Going further, e.g. have the state rearing the child rather than the parents, is best left to dystopian fiction.
It will always be the case that where and when and to whom you are born is the single biggest determinant of material life outcomes.
I accept this but would like it to be mitigated as far as possible, consistent with basic freedoms.
It does sound as if it's on the right side of the line because you want to abolish private schools...
Could you please answer my question about private tutoring? What would you do about that?
How far do you go in chasing 'equality of opportunity', given that good parenting - whether in rich or poor families - is perhaps the biggest 'opportunity' a child can have?
This is a very important question.
For me, a serious attempt to decouple the quality of education (at school) from parental financial position falls on the right side of the line.
Going further, e.g. have the state rearing the child rather than the parents, is best left to dystopian fiction.
It will always be the case that where and when and to whom you are born is the single biggest determinant of material life outcomes.
I accept this but would like it to be mitigated as far as possible, consistent with basic freedoms.
Yeah, exactly. We can't create perfect equality of opportunity but we can do a hello of a lot better than now
My first thought - rather than leaping into conspiracy theories - is that it is some sort of exchange scheme. These are common the world over so police forces can learn from their counterparts.
China is the world's up and coming superpower. It has increasing interests in countries all over the world. Why does the USA have military bases all over the UK? We think that it's normal but that's only because we're used to it.
That's a rather 'interesting' comment. It might have escaped your notice from Russia, but there was a little war seventy-odd years ago that the Yanks helped us win. Many of the bases are somewhat throwbacks to that - and many have closed in recent decades (e.g. Alconbury).
If the Labour and Tory leaders are both unfit to be Prime Minister, what should one do?
My own answer to that question as a lifelong Labour voter living in a similar constituency, Ealing Central and Acton. The MP, Rupa Huq has impeccable Remain credentials and I like her personally. But I'm voting Lib Dem in the GE, because Jo Swinson would be an acceptable PM, whereas Johnson and Corbyn are not.
Incidentally, I'll be voting for Sadiq Khan, and not Siobhan Benita, in the mayoral election
You could elect the Tory in Ealing and Acton. Rupa Huq is not a Corbynista.
As long as they take the whip and vote as he tells them they're Corbynistas.
Jo Swinson is behaving like a perfect Tories little helper.
In what way?
By insisting that voters vote Lib Dem in seats where they have effectively zero chance of winning and helping a Tory Leaver win instead. My Chipping Barnet question: Why should a #Remainer vote #LibDem in a Tory-Labour marginal where the #Labour candidate is #Remain and the Tory candidate is strong #Brexiter.
I think you might be surprised how many remainers in particular aren't going to be "blackmailed" into tactically voting Labour this time. I was a Labour member and was considering still voting for my Labour MP in a Lab-Con marginal because I like the guy.
However, he is a Unite sponsored MP and I know that when push comes to shove he will be forced to equivocate on Brexit under pressure from McCluskey and the Corbynistas. Therefore I have switched back to voting LD even if it is a wasted vote.
It is quite clear by now where Corbyn's heart lies on Brexit and he will slither and slide and obfuscate on the issue when the time comes. He hasn't the guts to be honest about where he really stands because the membership are so pro-Remain.
I'd guess it could probably be used as a temporary solution if you had everything (power of attorney etc) in place. It was such a miserable period I've probably expunged most of the research I did at the time from my memory, but afaicr you could keep up to £20k in assets/savings but the rest would have to be available to go toward care home fees including a house unless it was also occupied by a close family member or partner. Even then I think councils would vigorously pursue the value of the cared for person's share.
I am really hoping that my two stay independent until the end. I am at the age now (or rather they are) where I am (despite my best efforts) starting to fret about these things.
The private nursing homes I looked at in Scotland require evidence of capital covering four years fees or around £300 000. If you have two parents you need to allow the same amount again for the second one. At that point they will commit to keeping the patient at local authority rates if necessary until they die. Presumably homes have some kind of life assurance to cover the difference. Homes that survive entirely on local authority rates are pretty grim places.
At the end of the day, nursing homes provide a service of care you don't get otherwise. That's why you do it.
If the Labour and Tory leaders are both unfit to be Prime Minister, what should one do?
My own answer to that question as a lifelong Labour voter living in a similar e Jo Swinson would be an acceptable PM, whereas Johnson and Corbyn are not.
Incidentally, I'll be voting for Sadiq Khan, and not Siobhan Benita, in the mayoral election
You could elect the Tory in Ealing and Acton. Rupa Huq is not a Corbynista.
As long as they take the whip and vote as he tells them they're Corbynistas.
Jo Swinson is behaving like a perfect Tories little helper.
In what way?
By insisting that voters vote Lib Dem in seats where they have effectively zero chance of winning and helping a Tory Leaver win instead. My Chipping Barnet question: Why should a #Remainer vote #LibDem in a Tory-Labour marginal where the #Labour candidate is #Remain and the Tory candidate is strong #Brexiter.
If said seat is Labour held then (depending on the character and record of the MP) you might have a point.
But the answer to your question in a Tory held seat is that, on current polls or anything like them, Labour is going to make ZERO gains from the Tories. Therefore voting Labour in such circumstances is always a Wasted Vote - it doesn’t matter whether they fall back in second or fall back to third. Anyone in a Tory held seat who wants some chance of defeating the MP needs to vote LibDem and hope enough others do the same. There’ll be some surprise Tory to LibDem losses and who is to say where they will be?
Now I can see why Brexit will win in the end. The Lib Dems will always be the Tories little helpers.
Simply recognising that people are (currently) moving away from Labour anyway, in significant numbers. As a potential tactical voter - which is the essence of your post - there is no point in going against the tide. If the chance of Labour winning a seat is 0% and of the LibDems winning 1%, you go with the 1% and hope for the best.
Prior to 2015 the LibDems and Liberals had a record of winning seats that no-one saw coming; as just one example, look at the 2010 to 2015 change in vote share in Redcar.
Assuming that national polls now, long before an election has even started, mean that it's literally impossible that any con held lab con marginal will go Lab is completely wrong.
Every little helps mind you, I have same for grandson and saves £1400 a year, so not to be sniffed at.
Very true. I guess my point is that it is unrealistic to expect a private school to offer a large number of genuinely free places, since this would compromise their financial viability. Therefore it can only ever (in most cases) be rather a token thing. Enough to justify charitable status? Hmmm.
Yes , I would not normally use them but my grandson did not enjoy primary school and was due to go to a reasonably good school but with 1200 pupils he would not have done well. He has flourished in his present school , class sizes are 7 - 9 and he has lots of one to one which is what he has needed. For majority of children private school would be little benefit. However that is life and dumbing down everyone to try and make unequal people equal is just stupid. You can guarantee all you do is limit clever people and really rich will still make it. State schools will get worse as people will not be able to afford the difference in fees and so they will have even less cash as people have to send their kids to state schools. It is a petty idea and just cutting off your nose to spite your face. I will however be glad when he is finished as I will have some money.
If we follow your argument to its logical conclusion, surely you favour taking children away from their parents at birth and raising them collectively in order to ensure equality of opportunity?
Or perhaps the very soul screams out at the horror of this idea, because nothing can be more instinctive than to raise one's own children?
Please see my last post to Josias Jessop. It was on this very point!
I favour equality of opportunity over parental freedom when it comes to the question of schooling.
But I would not pursue the notion of PERFECT equality of opportunity in anything and everything. This is impossible outside of a totalitarian state ruled by non humans.
My first thought - rather than leaping into conspiracy theories - is that it is some sort of exchange scheme. These are common the world over so police forces can learn from their counterparts.
Well their attitudes towards their Muslim minorities are not entirely dissimilar...
I have said before my youngest was a broken child, broken by the school system and its uncaring and rigid approach to dealing with a Dyslexic child who also has Aspergers and severe anxiety and (at the time) huge intolerance to noise.
After a huge fight we got him into a private school who understood and nurtured kids like him.
The state system couldn't care a toss about him or us, they said he would never be able to write and his reading would be very poor at best.
The transformation was amazing.
By coincidence I was on the edge of tears this morning looking at a video of him in a school play when he had been at the private school 2 years.
He was still fragile and nervous, but by god the progress he had made.
I look at him now, a reasonably confident young man and I could swing for arseholes who would deny others that chance.
By the way - before people start squealing about "privilege" - Let me remind you all of a principle we have in our education system called "parent choice" - no matter how much those ...... tried to deny us it.
That is great to hear. You were both unlucky and lucky there, by the sounds of it. Unlucky to be so ill served by the mainstream sector. And lucky to able to find (and fund) a brilliant private school that has transformed things. And not merely lucky - as you say it was a fight too.
However, it is not part of the case against private schools that they do not sometimes benefit the children who attend them in ways that go beyond just better grades.
As for your 'arseholes' comment, I think it's unfair. I could equally well use the word to describe people who utter platitudes about how important 'equality of opportunity' is but are never up for anything serious to be done to promote it.
You miss the point about funding - I did not fund it - his education at a private school cost the same as the state provision (that figure provided by the state as part of a legal process).
So, under parents choice I had an absolute right to send him to that private school and have the state pay - but the system still tried to stop this. It took a judge to tell them to go and think about what they were doing and then let her know later in the day their plan - whilst letting them know she would expedite a tribunal which she would chair.
The rest is history. But I will say this, they tried to argue I had no right of appeal - absolutely untrue - and I had to threaten a judicial review to get my legal rights.
I get angry even now about the lies and general absolute disregard for his well being that we were faced with.
It seems socialists will be happy if everyone (other than the kids of the party elite obviously) gets equally poor provision.
Well feck that.
Give those kids a fighting chance at a decent, happy life.
Part of the issue here is whether success in life is a zero-sum game, in which if X uses the skills learned and connections made at a private school to get a good job, then Y who hypothetically didn't get those skills and connections but is otherwise equally good misses out. For specific jobs, this is clearly the case (see the Cabinet for a start) - for the country as a whole, less so, since the better educated people are the more we'll all prosper...other things being equal. I'd address inequalities in other ways, starting with a wealth tax.
I think that removing charitable status is simply obvious, and expecting private schools to let state schools use facilities when not otherwise in use is reasonable. I wouldn't go further and ban them altogether, which feels too to-down intrusive - the underlying problem is entrenched elitism, and that will just appear in another form if it's not based on schooling - Cameron and Osborne would recognise each other as kindred spirits even if they both went to Barnsley Comp.
I don't favour banning either. Too illiberal. It's about disincentives, e.g. one you mention - ending the tax breaks.
If said seat is Labour held then (depending on the character and record of the MP) you might have a point.
Therefore voting Labour in such circumstances is always a Wasted Vote - it doesn’t matter whether they fall back in second or fall back to third. Anyone in a Tory held seat who wants some chance of defeating the MP needs to vote LibDem and hope enough others do the same. There’ll be some surprise Tory to LibDem losses and who is to say where they will be?
Now I can see why Brexit will win in the end. The Lib Dems will always be the Tories little helpers.
Simply recognising that people are (currently) moving away from Labour anyway, in significant numbers. As a potential tactical voter - which is the essence of your post - there is no point in going against the tide. If the chance of Labour winning a seat is 0% and of the LibDems winning 1%, you go with the 1% and hope for the best.
Prior to 2015 the LibDems and Liberals had a record of winning seats that no-one saw coming; as just one example, look at the 2010 to 2015 change in vote share in Redcar.
So you think LD has a better chance of winning in Chipping Barnet from 7.4%, where the Tory Theresa Villiers got 47.4% and Labour received 40%. Even in your glorious Euro election victory, when the Tories got 9% of the votes, you did not achieve a 20% swing. Basically, you are saying because you hate Corbyn so much, you'd rather let the UK do a Brexit than vote for a Remain Labour candidate. At least, you are being honest. And here I am voting for the Tories little helpers in Surbiton to stop the Tories winning.
No, I am simply suggesting that on current polling, Labour’s chance of winning the seat is Zero, and there is no point wasting a vote shoring up a hopeless second place. The LibDem’s chance is, I concede, tiny, but with their vote rising isn’t zero. I would stake money on the LibDems’ winning seats from third place, if the national polling is anything like it is now; the challenge is working out which seats those might be. Seats near London have a greater chance IMO
Besides, it’s Labour that has - in its own words - spent time “trying to bail out” the Tories on Brexit.
Why not allow people to raise their kids any damn way they want?
That's a different issue, but the answer to that is simply that childtren have a right to a decent upbringing with a variety of choices, and some parents don't supply it. In Broxtowe, we knew of one woman who taught her son to be a burglar like her - they used to raid houses together - and I'm sure you wouldn't just say that it was her right as a parent to do that?
Clearly the default should be that parents and children decide how to do it, but there has to be some effort to ensure that the kids aren't only brought up in a way that will damage them or society at large - schools can't do everything, but they can open eyes to alternatives.
If the Labour and Tory leaders are both unfit to be Prime Minister, what should one do?
My own answer to that question as a lifelong Labour voter living in a similar constituency, Ealing Central and Acton. The MP, Rupa Huq has impeccable Remain credentials and I like her personally. But I'm voting Lib Dem in the GE, because Jo Swinson would be an acceptable PM, whereas Johnson and Corbyn are not.
Incidentally, I'll be voting for Sadiq Khan, and not Siobhan Benita, in the mayoral election
You could elect the Tory in Ealing and Acton. Rupa Huq is not a Corbynista.
As long as they take the whip and vote as he tells them they're Corbynistas.
Jo Swinson is behaving like a perfect Tories little helper.
In what way?
By insisting that voters vote Lib Dem in seats where they have effectively zero chance of winning and helping a Tory Leaver win instead. My Chipping Barnet question: Why should a #Remainer vote #LibDem in a Tory-Labour marginal where the #Labour candidate is #Remain and the Tory candidate is strong #Brexiter.
If said seat is Labour held then (depending on the character and record of the MP) you might have a point.
But the answer to your question in a Tory held seat is that, on current polls or anything like them, Labour is going to make ZERO gains from the Tories. Therefore voting Labour in such circumstances is always a Wasted Vote - it doesn’t matter whether they fall back in second or fall back to third. Anyone in a Tory held seat who wants some chance of defeating the MP needs to vote LibDem and hope enough others do the same. There’ll be some surprise Tory to LibDem losses and who is to say where they will be?
Now I can see why Brexit will win in the end. The Lib Dems will always be the Tories little helpers.
It's not difficult for some state schools to outperform independent schools.
Grammar schools have an entry exam, usually the 11+. If their students don't come out with excellent GCSE grades then there's something wrong with the school. Apart from certain exceptions most independents don't have an entry exam as such. Independent schools also do IGCSE exams which dont count in any league tables so they are bound to be beaten by state schools.
Indeed, but begs the question -
Does a school that is getting good grades because its intake is disproportionately able deserve to be described as a good school?
If the Labour and Tory leaders are both unfit to be Prime Minister, what should one do?
My own answer to that question as
You could.
As lo
Jo Swinson is behaving like a perfect Tories little helper.
In what way?
By insisting that voters vote Lib Dem in seats where they have effectively zero chance of winning and helping a Tory Leaver win instead. My Chipping Barnet question: Why should a #Remainer vote #LibDem in a Tory-Labour marginal where the #Labour candidate is #Remain and the Tory candidate is strong #Brexiter.
If said seat is Labour held then (depending on the character and record of the MP) you might have a point.
But the answer to your question in a Tory held seat is that, on current polls or anything like them, Labour is going to make ZERO gains from the Tories. Therefore voting Labour in such circumstances is always a Wasted Vote - it doesn’t matter whether they fall back in second or fall back to third. Anyone in a Tory held seat who wants some chance of defeating the MP needs to vote LibDem and hope enough others do the same. There’ll be some surprise Tory to LibDem losses and who is to say where they will be?
Now I can see why Brexit will win in the end. The Lib Dems will always be the Tories little helpers.
Simply recognising that people are (currently) moving away from Labour anyway, in significant numbers. As a potential tactical voter - which is the essence of your post - there is no point in going against the tide. If the chance of Labour winning a seat is 0% and of the LibDems winning 1%, you go with the 1% and hope for the best.
Prior to 2015 the LibDems and Liberals had a record of winning seats that no-one saw coming; as just one example, look at the 2010 to 2015 change in vote share in Redcar.
Assuming that national polls now, long before an election has even started, mean that it's literally impossible that any con held lab con marginal will go Lab is completely wrong.
Assuming that things cannot change before or when we get to the election would certainly be wrong, but that wasn’t what I was saying.
Assuming that Labour won’t be gaining seats IF the polling doesn’t change is much less likely to be wrong.
Yet again, Labour are in power in Wales and have been for 20 years. They are in full control of the education system. There are hardly any independent or private schools in Wales, so whatever malign influence they exert is at a minimum.
It is perfectly reasonable to expect Labour to have shown the wonderful things they can do with a country's educational system by now.
What they have done is make Wales the worst place in the UK to get a state education.
If the Labour and Tory leaders are both unfit to be Prime Minister, what should one do?
My own answer to that question as a lifelong Labour voter living in a similar constituency, Ealing Central and Acton. The MP, Rupa Huq has impeccable Remain credentials and I like her personally. But I'm voting Lib Dem in the GE, because Jo Swinson would be an acceptable PM, whereas Johnson and Corbyn are not.
Incidentally, I'll be voting for Sadiq Khan, and not Siobhan Benita, in the mayoral election
You could elect the Tory in Ealing and Acton. Rupa Huq is not a Corbynista.
As long as they take the whip and vote as he tells them they're Corbynistas.
Jo Swinson is behaving like a perfect Tories little helper.
In what way?
By insisting that voters vote Lib Dem in seats where they have effectively zero chance of winning and helping a Tory Leaver win instead. My Chipping Barnet question: Why should a #Remainer vote #LibDem in a Tory-Labour marginal where the #Labour candidate is #Remain and the Tory candidate is strong #Brexiter.
If said seat is Labour held then (depending on the character and record of the MP) you might have a point.
But the answer to your question in a Tory held seat is that, on current polls or anything like them, Labour is going to make ZERO gains from the Tories. Therefore voting Labour in such circumstances is always a Wasted Vote - it doesn’t matter whether they fall back in second or fall back to third. Anyone in a Tory held seat who wants some chance of defeating the MP needs to vote LibDem and hope enough others do the same. There’ll be some surprise Tory to LibDem losses and who is to say where they will be?
Now I can see why Brexit will win in the end. The Lib Dems will always be the Tories little helpers.
Labour are helping Brexit now, by keeping Corbyn.
And there’s still a significant chance that it will be Labour MPs that help a last minute Brexit deal across the line.
If the Labour and Tory leaders are both unfit to be Prime Minister, what should one do?
My own answer to that question as
You could.
As lo
Jo Swinson is behaving like a perfect Tories little helper.
In what way?
By insisting that voters vote Lib Dem in seats where they have effectively zero chance of winning and helping a Tory Leaver win instead. My Chipping Barnet question: Why should a #Remainer vote #LibDem in a Tory-Labour marginal where the #Labour candidate is #Remain and the Tory candidate is strong #Brexiter.
If said seat is Labour held then (depending on the character and record of the MP) you might have a point.
Now I can see why Brexit will win in the end. The Lib Dems will always be the Tories little helpers.
Simply recognising that people are (currently) moving away from Labour anyway, in significant numbers. As a potential tactical voter - which is the essence of your post - there is no point in going against the tide. If the chance of Labour winning a seat is 0% and of the LibDems winning 1%, you go with the 1% and hope for the best.
Prior to 2015 the LibDems and Liberals had a record of winning seats that no-one saw coming; as just one example, look at the 2010 to 2015 change in vote share in Redcar.
Assuming that national polls now, long before an election has even started, mean that it's literally impossible that any con held lab con marginal will go Lab is completely wrong.
Assuming that things cannot change before or when we get to the election would certainly be wrong, but that wasn’t what I was saying.
Assuming that Labour won’t be gaining seats IF the polling doesn’t change is much less likely to be wrong.
On the basis of last Comres poll Labour would gain seats!
The desire to abolish private schools comes from a misguided attempt to make meritocracy work and be fair.
Meritocracy cannot be fair. I would rather concentrate on ensuring that everyone, even those who fail the meritocratic struggle, can live with security, dignity and a degree of comfort.
F1: red race, not a classic, but some interesting points.
Was decidedly boring; slow train at the start, train at the end... with Ferrari (for once) making fools of Mercedes on strategy in the middle, at the price of gifting the win to Vettel.
Leclerc did a good job of diplomatically keeping his feelings to himself in the podium interviews. Smart kid.
I think you're being faintly ridiculous. I would suggest if you really want to campaign for better state schools, then you do that: improve state schools. Closing private schools will not help that; it might even hinder it.
And what about private tutoring? Would that be banned as well, even for kids in state schools, as that is exactly purchasing educational advantage.
(I currently have no intention of sending our little 'un to any of the excellent private schools in the area.)
It is not ridiculous to believe that it would benefit the state sector if so many of society's most affluent and influential people did not opt out of it. I think it's ridiculous to believe otherwise.
And in case we are at cross purposes, I am NOT proposing banning private schools (or tuition). No way. Illiberal and impractical. We are talking about disincentivizing.
Question for you -
If you think that having 7% of kids going to private schools HELPS the state sector, you would presumably like to see the figure go higher?
It's not difficult for some state schools to outperform independent schools.
Grammar schools have an entry exam, usually the 11+. If their students don't come out with excellent GCSE grades then there's something wrong with the school. Apart from certain exceptions most independents don't have an entry exam as such. Independent schools also do IGCSE exams which dont count in any league tables so they are bound to be beaten by state schools.
Indeed, but begs the question -
Does a school that is getting good grades because its intake is disproportionately able deserve to be described as a good school?
That depends - some are; some aren’t. It certainly makes it easier to be one.
I maintain my opposition to circuits that are slow and where overtaking is ridiculously difficult.
The Ferrari situation is going to be testy, but right now their car looks like the best.
If they hadn’t cocked up their race management so many times in the first half of the season, they’d have had a real chance of the championship. Still, Mercedes returned the favour this time.
Mr. B, not so sure, they've been behind on pace a while.
The potential nightmare situation for Mercedes is that Red Bull are tasty too. That said, everyone else has a lot of points to make up on Hamilton. They really need him to DNF.
Rawnsley’s conclusion today, in an article mostly about Labour:
”This is a big and poisonous change in the culture of British politics. Both the Conservatives and Labour used to be proud to call themselves broad churches, capable of encompassing and speaking for many strands of opinion and they made that central to their appeal to the electorate. Now both are behaving like viciously intolerant sects.”
His review of Cammo’s book in today's Paper is also worth a read.
When 90-odd% of the Parliamentary Party and of the membership haven't departed the Conservatives, he might just mull on the idea that is the ultra-Europhiles who have been the sect found out in the party.....viciouly intolerant of the majority who voted to Leave.
I think you're being faintly ridiculous. I would suggest if you really want to campaign for better state schools, then you do that: improve state schools. Closing private schools will not help that; it might even hinder it.
And what about private tutoring? Would that be banned as well, even for kids in state schools, as that is exactly purchasing educational advantage.
(I currently have no intention of sending our little 'un to any of the excellent private schools in the area.)
It is not ridiculous to believe that it would benefit the state sector if so many of society's most affluent and influential people did not opt out of it. I think it's ridiculous to believe otherwise.
And in case we are at cross purposes, I am NOT proposing banning private schools (or tuition). No way. Illiberal and impractical. We are talking about disincentivizing.
Question for you -
If you think that having 7% of kids going to private schools HELPS the state sector, you would presumably like to see the figure go higher?
If not, why not?
The nation is about to implode and Corbyn's Labour is anxiously worrying over the inequity of a private education!
I think you're being faintly ridiculous. I would suggest if you really want to campaign for better state schools, then you do that: improve state schools. Closing private schools will not help that; it might even hinder it.
And what about private tutoring? Would that be banned as well, even for kids in state schools, as that is exactly purchasing educational advantage.
(I currently have no intention of sending our little 'un to any of the excellent private schools in the area.)
It is not ridiculous to believe that it would benefit the state sector if so many of society's most affluent and influential people did not opt out of it. I think it's ridiculous to believe otherwise.
And in case we are at cross purposes, I am NOT proposing banning private schools (or tuition). No way. Illiberal and impractical. We are talking about disincentivizing.
Question for you -
If you think that having 7% of kids going to private schools HELPS the state sector, you would presumably like to see the figure go higher?
If not, why not?
"It is not ridiculous to believe that it would benefit the state sector if so many of society's most affluent and influential people did not opt out of it. I think it's ridiculous to believe otherwise."
The private sector is massive. The vast majority of those attending won't be the most affluent, or influential - and neither will their families. I'm an example.
Do you really believe otherwise?
'disincentivizing' is just weasel words for banning. Many schools operate on the borderline of sustainability, and 'disincentivizing' them will force them to close. you seem to think all private schools are Harrow or Eton.
I will answer your question: the market should decide how many kids go to private school. If state schools do much better than they do at the moment, that will naturally disincentivise many parents from the private option because it will not be value for money. Simples.
But you haven't answered my question: what would you do about private tutoring, which drives a rather large coach and horses through your argument. Or, for that matter, home schooling?
You miss the point about funding - I did not fund it - his education at a private school cost the same as the state provision (that figure provided by the state as part of a legal process).
So, under parents choice I had an absolute right to send him to that private school and have the state pay - but the system still tried to stop this. It took a judge to tell them to go and think about what they were doing and then let her know later in the day their plan - whilst letting them know she would expedite a tribunal which she would chair.
The rest is history. But I will say this, they tried to argue I had no right of appeal - absolutely untrue - and I had to threaten a judicial review to get my legal rights.
I get angry even now about the lies and general absolute disregard for his well being that we were faced with.
It seems socialists will be happy if everyone (other than the kids of the party elite obviously) gets equally poor provision.
Well feck that.
Give those kids a fighting chance at a decent, happy life.
Ah OK, yes I see. This seems to speak more against toxic bureaucracy than against ending the tax breaks for private schools.
But, yes, I can understand why you feel private schools are a GOOD THING given that experience.
I tend to argue from theory and principles not personal experience. It's my strength and my weakness.
Rawnsley’s conclusion today, in an article mostly about Labour:
”This is a big and poisonous change in the culture of British politics. Both the Conservatives and Labour used to be proud to call themselves broad churches, capable of encompassing and speaking for many strands of opinion and they made that central to their appeal to the electorate. Now both are behaving like viciously intolerant sects.”
His review of Cammo’s book in today's Paper is also worth a read.
When 90-odd% of the Parliamentary Party and of the membership haven't departed the Conservatives, he might just mull on the idea that is the ultra-Europhiles who have been the sect found out in the party.....viciouly intolerant of the majority who voted to Leave.
Well, of course if Rees-Mogg and the other loonies had received the same treatment at May's hands as Ken Clarke and the other sane ones received at Johnson's, then they would have "departed" - or more appropriately they would have been departed.
Perhaps the other moral of the story is that 90% of the parliamentary party would go along with almost anything to keep their jobs.
The desire to abolish private schools comes from a misguided attempt to make meritocracy work and be fair.
Meritocracy cannot be fair. I would rather concentrate on ensuring that everyone, even those who fail the meritocratic struggle, can live with security, dignity and a degree of comfort.
A very good point. An obsession with meritocracy is a bit yucky.
However, that is not the same as wanting to mitigate the effect of privilege to at least a reasonable extent, rather than hands up and saying "c'est la vie".
The desire to abolish private schools comes from a misguided attempt to make meritocracy work and be fair.
Meritocracy cannot be fair. I would rather concentrate on ensuring that everyone, even those who fail the meritocratic struggle, can live with security, dignity and a degree of comfort.
A very good point. An obsession with meritocracy is a bit yucky.
However, that is not the same as wanting to mitigate the effect of privilege to at least a reasonable extent, rather than hands up and saying "c'est la vie".
What other goods would you stop people spending their own money on?
Rawnsley’s conclusion today, in an article mostly about Labour:
”This is a big and poisonous change in the culture of British politics. Both the Conservatives and Labour used to be proud to call themselves broad churches, capable of encompassing and speaking for many strands of opinion and they made that central to their appeal to the electorate. Now both are behaving like viciously intolerant sects.”
His review of Cammo’s book in today's Paper is also worth a read.
When 90-odd% of the Parliamentary Party and of the membership haven't departed the Conservatives, he might just mull on the idea that is the ultra-Europhiles who have been the sect found out in the party.....viciouly intolerant of the majority who voted to Leave.
So viciously intolerant that they needed to be viciously purged by the right-thinking majority, I suppose?
This is the mindset of the sect. They convince themselves that only complete ideological purity will do, and that they are doing God's work by crushing those who agree with them on most things but depart on some article of faith, as to disagree on that makes a person fundamentally wicked.
You're basically proving Rawnsley's point rather than contradicting it.
Yes , I would not normally use them but my grandson did not enjoy primary school and was due to go to a reasonably good school but with 1200 pupils he would not have done well. He has flourished in his present school , class sizes are 7 - 9 and he has lots of one to one which is what he has needed. For majority of children private school would be little benefit. However that is life and dumbing down everyone to try and make unequal people equal is just stupid. You can guarantee all you do is limit clever people and really rich will still make it. State schools will get worse as people will not be able to afford the difference in fees and so they will have even less cash as people have to send their kids to state schools. It is a petty idea and just cutting off your nose to spite your face. I will however be glad when he is finished as I will have some money.
Well I disagree with you in the sense that I think (over time and given certain other policies) that the state sector would be improved by a significant reduction in the prevalence of the private opt out.
But, anyway, I sense I am banging on so will take a pull ...
It does sound as if it's on the right side of the line because you want to abolish private schools...
Could you please answer my question about private tutoring? What would you do about that?
No, banning private schools (or tuition) would be on the WRONG side of the line.
But as I said in my post, 'disincentivising' is just a weasel word for banning.
Except you'd end up killing the schools that actually helped people like me, whilst the ones the left really hate - such as Eton - would continue just fine because they are much richer.
And in the meantime, the state sector has to pay to educate tens or hundreds of thousands of extra kids. Result! Or not ...
And if you're really interested in equality of opportunity, then private tutoring would matter as much - if not more - than private schooling.
I see this includes a rock-solid commitment to decide on whether the Labour Party is a Leave or a Remain party through a special, one day Labour Conference following the election of a Labour Government.
They could not possibly be clearer on the matter, and I trust this satisfies everyone.
Both Leavers and Remainers can be 100% confident that the question of whether Labour is on their side or not is a matter that will almost certainly probably be determined a mere unspecified period of time after General Election day.
What other goods would you stop people spending their own money on?
How do you mean 'other'?
What was the first?
You seem to have a problem with people spending their own money on education.
It’s the wrong focus. If state schools were adequate, the question of private education would resolve itself without conflict. Focus on improving them instead.
Yes , I would not normally use them but my grandson did not enjoy primary school and was due to go to a reasonably good school but with 1200 pupils he would not have done well. He has flourished in his present school , class sizes are 7 - 9 and he has lots of one to one which is what he has needed. For majority of children private school would be little benefit. However that is life and dumbing down everyone to try and make unequal people equal is just stupid. You can guarantee all you do is limit clever people and really rich will still make it. State schools will get worse as people will not be able to afford the difference in fees and so they will have even less cash as people have to send their kids to state schools. It is a petty idea and just cutting off your nose to spite your face. I will however be glad when he is finished as I will have some money.
Well I disagree with you in the sense that I think (over time and given certain other policies) that the state sector would be improved by a significant reduction in the prevalence of the private opt out.
But, anyway, I sense I am banging on so will take a pull ...
So you don't want to ban private schools, but you want to have a 'significant reduction in the prevalence of the private opt out."
As I said, weasel words.
But I've already told you the best way of reducing the prevalence of the private opt-out.
Improve state schools.But that doesn't suit the agenda ...
I see this includes a rock-solid commitment to decide on whether the Labour Party is a Leave or a Remain party through a special, one day Labour Conference following the election of a Labour Government.
They could not possibly be clearer on the matter, and I trust this satisfies everyone.
Both Leavers and Remainers can be 100% confident that the question of whether Labour is on their side or not is a matter that will almost certainly probably be determined a mere unspecified period of time after General Election day.
The policy is to have a policy? After the election?
Yes , I would not normally use them but my grandson did not enjoy primary school and was due to go to a reasonably good school but with 1200 pupils he would not have done well. He has flourished in his present school , class sizes are 7 - 9 and he has lots of one to one which is what he has needed. For majority of children private school would be little benefit. However that is life and dumbing down everyone to try and make unequal people equal is just stupid. You can guarantee all you do is limit clever people and really rich will still make it. State schools will get worse as people will not be able to afford the difference in fees and so they will have even less cash as people have to send their kids to state schools. It is a petty idea and just cutting off your nose to spite your face. I will however be glad when he is finished as I will have some money.
Well I disagree with you in the sense that I think (over time and given certain other policies) that the state sector would be improved by a significant reduction in the prevalence of the private opt out.
But, anyway, I sense I am banging on so will take a pull ...
It is good to discuss and I applaud your optimism, but all that would happen is no extra cash for state schools and drop in level of education all round, whilst people with lots of money would just buy up houses near the top state schools and deprive poorer people access to them. It would be lose lose for sure.
What other goods would you stop people spending their own money on?
How do you mean 'other'?
What was the first?
You seem to have a problem with people spending their own money on education.
It’s the wrong focus. If state schools were adequate, the question of private education would resolve itself without conflict. Focus on improving them instead.
Absolutely.
Focus too on improving equality of access to key professions: banking, law, medicine, and broadcasting.
The ROI on private education is getting better, not worse, as British society becomes silted.
If state schools were better, and the consequences of private versus state were also to even out, it would solve 3/4 of the problem. Few parents send their children private just for the snob value.
What other goods would you stop people spending their own money on?
How do you mean 'other'?
What was the first?
You seem to have a problem with people spending their own money on education.
It’s the wrong focus. If state schools were adequate, the question of private education would resolve itself without conflict. Focus on improving them instead.
The parents at a senior state school near me are delighted that, following housing development 10 miles away, a new state secondary school will open. It will improve the quality of education that their children receive. By taking away the unmotivated white working class council estate, think with your fists, set......
A surprise on our Sunday morning promenade down East Ham High Street to see the Brexit Party with a stall and some volunteers.
I was handed a copy of "The Brexiteer" which is an interesting read - the idea of Ann Widdecombe as a pro-Brexit Agony Aunt is one I hadn't considered before.
Clearly BP see themselves as having a real chance of taking the ultra-marginal East Ham constituency from Stephen Timms who is handing on to his tiny 39,883 majority.
To be fair, the BP finished third across Newham in the European Elections, behind the LDs but in front of both the Greens and the Conservatives. Probably just worth mentioning Labour still managed more than half the vote so not easy for the Faragists on that evidence.
The private sector is massive. The vast majority of those attending won't be the most affluent, or influential - and neither will their families. I'm an example.
Do you really believe otherwise?
'disincentivizing' is just weasel words for banning. Many schools operate on the borderline of sustainability, and 'disincentivizing' them will force them to close. you seem to think all private schools are Harrow or Eton.
I will answer your question: the market should decide how many kids go to private school. If state schools do much better than they do at the moment, that will naturally disincentivise many parents from the private option because it will not be value for money. Simples.
But you haven't answered my question: what would you do about private tutoring, which drives a rather large coach and horses through your argument. Or, for that matter, home schooling?
Have to go bullet.
1. Most of those attending are not elites. But most of the elites attend.
2. It is not code for banning. It is merely ending the tax breaks.
3. It's not a market. You need the voucher system for that.
However, the charitable status for private schools is an anomaly that should now be abolished.
This seems a pretty obvious move to me, even more so as we see that UK private schools take increasing numbers of foreign students. But to suggest it is to want to destroy the sector according to some...
I see this includes a rock-solid commitment to decide on whether the Labour Party is a Leave or a Remain party through a special, one day Labour Conference following the election of a Labour Government.
They could not possibly be clearer on the matter, and I trust this satisfies everyone.
Both Leavers and Remainers can be 100% confident that the question of whether Labour is on their side or not is a matter that will almost certainly probably be determined a mere unspecified period of time after General Election day.
The policy is to have a policy? After the election?
Have they gone mad?
Yes, yes, and yes.
As I say, they could not have been clearer and all loose ends have been tied up nicely.
The private sector is massive. The vast majority of those attending won't be the most affluent, or influential - and neither will their families. I'm an example.
Do you really believe otherwise?
'disincentivizing' is just weasel words for banning. Many schools operate on the borderline of sustainability, and 'disincentivizing' them will force them to close. you seem to think all private schools are Harrow or Eton.
I will answer your question: the market should decide how many kids go to private school. If state schools do much better than they do at the moment, that will naturally disincentivise many parents from the private option because it will not be value for money. Simples.
But you haven't answered my question: what would you do about private tutoring, which drives a rather large coach and horses through your argument. Or, for that matter, home schooling?
Have to go bullet.
1. Most of those attending are not elites. But most of the elites attend.
2. It is not code for banning. It is merely ending the tax breaks.
3. It's not a market. You need the voucher system for that.
4. I would do nothing about private tutoring.
5. I would ban home schooling above age ??
1. So in your attempt to get at 'the elites', you'll spoil it for everyone else who goes to private schools - and especially the 'lesser' schools?
2. That's exactly what it is, for the reasons I've given - unless you're saying the 'disincentivising' will essentially be meaningless. It's also particularly stupid, as it'll hurt the schools 'the elite' attend the least.
3. When my son is older, if we decide to send him to a different school, we can try to get the council to approve a move (and good luck with that!), or choose one of the several good private schools within driving distance. We might have to scrimp and save to do that, but he's what matters. But it is a market.
4. If you don't tackle private tutoring, you're not really concerned about levelling the playing field wrt equality of opportunity.
5. Why would you ban home schooling above any age? (That doesn't mean that home schooling should not be carefully regulated.)
You seem inconsistent on this - and it makes it seem that you're not interested in improving education, but rather getting at 'the elites' - and forget anyone else who is hurt in the process.
You seem to have a problem with people spending their own money on education.
It’s the wrong focus. If state schools were adequate, the question of private education would resolve itself without conflict. Focus on improving them instead.
Not in the sense of wishing to prevent them doing it if they insist.
Yes, let's bring the education budget up to the per pupil spend of the private sector. I would vote for that.
I see this includes a rock-solid commitment to decide on whether the Labour Party is a Leave or a Remain party through a special, one day Labour Conference following the election of a Labour Government.
They could not possibly be clearer on the matter, and I trust this satisfies everyone.
Both Leavers and Remainers can be 100% confident that the question of whether Labour is on their side or not is a matter that will almost certainly probably be determined a mere unspecified period of time after General Election day.
The policy is to have a policy? After the election?
Have they gone mad?
Yes, yes, and yes.
As I say, they could not have been clearer and all loose ends have been tied up nicely.
It really isn't a platitude - and the fact you think it is indicates you're more interested in class warfare than actually improving education.
OK, I will rephrase this.
It is a platitude unless you support increasing the education budget to the same per pupil spend as the private sector.
And do you?
Not blindly, no. Why? Because the situation is more complex than that - as the results of Blair's education funding increases show. For all the shiny new school buildings, there was precious little bang for the buck, results-wise.
Look at the illiteracy and innumeracy figures for an example - and that's a national tragedy and shame.
(That doesn't mean that I'm against increasing funding; just that increased funding is not a magic panacea, and how that funding is spent matters. Tackling the lower end of educational attainment seems vital to me - see above.)
If we are abolishing the charitable status of private schools I should like to see the cost/benefit analysis.
I rather expect it would end up like Gordy’s raid on private pensions. Short term gain for long term pain.
I also think that, for fairness, parents who pay for private schools - and therefore subsidise the state sector by paying for their child's education twice - should get rebates.
1. So in your attempt to get at 'the elites', you'll spoil it for everyone else who goes to private schools - and especially the 'lesser' schools?
2. That's exactly what it is, for the reasons I've given - unless you're saying the 'disincentivising' will essentially be meaningless. It's also particularly stupid, as it'll hurt the schools 'the elite' attend the least.
3. When my son is older, if we decide to send him to a different school, we can try to get the council to approve a move (and good luck with that!), or choose one of the several good private schools within driving distance. We might have to scrimp and save to do that, but he's what matters. But it is a market.
4. If you don't tackle private tutoring, you're not really concerned about levelling the playing field wrt equality of opportunity.
5. Why would you ban home schooling above any age? (That doesn't mean that home schooling should not be carefully regulated.)
You seem inconsistent on this - and it makes it seem that you're not interested in improving education, but rather getting at 'the elites' - and forget anyone else who is hurt in the process.
Will now de-bullet.
My view is that our predilection for private schools is so damaging to equality of opportunity that it requires tackling. Not by banning (impractical and illiberal) but by removing the tax breaks and applying certain other disincentives.
Now before we get buried in detail, can we establish where in principle you disagree -
Do you disagree that it is damaging to equal opportunities?
Or do you agree with that but think that the cure is worse than the problem?
1. So in your attempt to get at 'the elites', you'll spoil it for everyone else who goes to private schools - and especially the 'lesser' schools?
2. That's exactly what it is, for the reasons I've given - unless you're saying the 'disincentivising' will essentially be meaningless. It's also particularly stupid, as it'll hurt the schools 'the elite' attend the least.
3. When my son is older, if we decide to send him to a different school, we can try to get the council to approve a move (and good luck with that!), or choose one of the several good private schools within driving distance. We might have to scrimp and save to do that, but he's what matters. But it is a market.
4. If you don't tackle private tutoring, you're not really concerned about levelling the playing field wrt equality of opportunity.
5. Why would you ban home schooling above any age? (That doesn't mean that home schooling should not be carefully regulated.)
You seem inconsistent on this - and it makes it seem that you're not interested in improving education, but rather getting at 'the elites' - and forget anyone else who is hurt in the process.
Will now de-bullet.
My view is that our predilection for private schools is so damaging to equality of opportunity that it requires tackling. Not by banning (impractical and illiberal) but by removing the tax breaks and applying certain other disincentives.
Now before we get buried in detail, can we establish where in principle you disagree -
Do you disagree that it is damaging to equal opportunities?
Or do you agree with that but think that the cure is worse than the problem?
It may be damaging to equal opportunities, but the question is the scale of that damage. I'd argue it's minor - perhaps trivial - unless you're against public schools out of some form of political spite. And the 'cure' - if it is a cure - may well indeed be worse than the problem.
But as ever, I take an engineer's approach to the issue.
Firstly, define the problem. In this case, I'd argue it's that many state schools underperform (to complicate matters, many perform very well). Trying to equalise 'Equality of opportunity' is rather pointless if it doesn't address this fundamental issue.
And the problem is (in my view at least) that addressing this issue is much more than an educational one - social aspects, particularly parenting, is of vast importance as well. And good luck in sorting that out!
Firstly, define the problem. In this case, I'd argue it's that many state schools underperform
That's not the problem. The problem is the economic, education, social and political apartheid. There is not enough social mobility and it's keeping latent talent out of the important areas of public and commercial life. And, frankly, well-connected thickos are overpromoted. It's not good for the country. If you love Britain and you want it to do well, you have to fish for talent in every pool. Those who want to maintain the current levels of stratification hate Britain.
Firstly, define the problem. In this case, I'd argue it's that many state schools underperform
That's not the problem. The problem is the economic, education, social and political apartheid. There is not enough social mobility and it's keeping latent talent out of the important areas of public and commercial life. And, frankly, well-connected thickos are overpromoted. It's not good for the country. If you love Britain and you want it to do well, you have to fish for talent in every pool. Those who want to maintain the current levels of stratification hate Britain.
If we're talking about education, then I'd argue that education is the problem.
You've moved onto political and social aspects, and are using education as an excuse to tackle them.
It's utterly bogus.
As I've said many times before: as a country, we need to tackle the illiteracy and innumeracy rates that have remained more or less static for decades. This should be a high focus of the country. Helping those people - who sadly really are at the bottom - should be the priority.
Good to clarify that. Of course if you don't think that private schools constitute a serious impediment to equal opportunities and social mobility you will not be keen on measures to reduce the size of the sector.
But this does imply that parents are wasting their money. Because certainly they think they are buying an advantage for their kids. And the % of top jobs in high status occupations which those kids end up filling does rather support that view.
Firstly, define the problem. In this case, I'd argue it's that many state schools underperform
That's not the problem. The problem is the economic, education, social and political apartheid. There is not enough social mobility and it's keeping latent talent out of the important areas of public and commercial life. And, frankly, well-connected thickos are overpromoted. It's not good for the country. If you love Britain and you want it to do well, you have to fish for talent in every pool. Those who want to maintain the current levels of stratification hate Britain.
If we're talking about education, then I'd argue that education is the problem.
You've moved onto political and social aspects, and are using education as an excuse to tackle them.
It's utterly bogus.
As I've said many times before: as a country, we need to tackle the illiteracy and innumeracy rates that have remained more or less static for decades. This should be a high focus of the country. Helping those people - who sadly really are at the bottom - should be the priority.
Especially for socialists and people on the left.
I "moved onto" the other aspects because it's all connected. We need joined up policy making in this country. That means taking people's life chances holistically. You can make it without money, but it's much harder. You can without a private education, but it's harder. You can without knowing the right people, but it's harder. If you have no money, live near a bad school, don't know anyone influential, you're almost certainly suffed. For life. What a waste that is! All that talent discarded before it ever had the chance.
And here's the nasty little kicker. It's in the interests of those who send their children to private schools to use their influence to keep state education underfunded. That's the pernicious truth about inequality: for the small number of winners it becomes a negative sum game. Rich people don't like their tax money being used to help erode their advantage. And the whole country suffers when they can wield their influence to protect their interests. Which they inevitably do because money talks in politics.
I'm not a socialist, I'm a capitalist. It's the only way to prosperity. But inequality is the nasty byproduct of it, and it needs radical action to even things out. Not worker-owned collectives. Not state-run supermarkets. None of the socialist bollocks that has been tried and has been shown to fail. Just a capitalist, consumerist, market economy, with a ferocious tax on the extremely wealthy. Not because it's tax efficient, but because the poison of inequality ruins everything, including capitalism itself.
I "moved onto" the other aspects because it's all connected. We need joined up policy making in this country. That means taking people's life chances holistically. You can make it without money, but it's much harder. You can without a private education, but it's harder. You can without knowing the right people, but it's harder. If you have no money, live near a bad school, don't know anyone influential, you're almost certainly suffed. For life. What a waste that is! All that talent discarded before it ever had the chance.
And here's the nasty little kicker. It's in the interests of those who send their children to private schools to use their influence to keep state education underfunded. That's the pernicious truth about inequality: for the small number of winners it becomes a negative sum game. Rich people don't like their tax money being used to help erode their advantage. And the whole country suffers when they can wield their influence to protect their interests. Which they inevitably do because money talks in politics.
I'm not a socialist, I'm a capitalist. It's the only way to prosperity. But inequality is the nasty byproduct of it, and it needs radical action to even things out. Not worker-owned collectives. Not state-run supermarkets. None of the socialist bollocks that has been tried and has been shown to fail. Just a capitalist, consumerist, market economy, with a ferocious tax on the extremely wealthy. Not because it's tax efficient, but because the poison of inequality ruins everything, including capitalism itself.
I cal that utter b/s. To quote the great Dirk Gently, there is a fundamental interconnectedness of all things. The Butterfly effect. Therefore you can propose any action and pretend it will solve a certain problem. But it's b/s. You need to target solutions at problems, whilst looking at the side effects.
You're just using something you dislike and pretending it will fix a problem. A bit like some people and renationalisation of the railways.
" you have no money, live near a bad school, don't know anyone influential, you're almost certainly suffed."
Indeed. And I'd argue that your course of action will do f'all to help them.If you want to help such people, then target solutions at them, rather than picking on your favourite hate-envy figure and pretending that's a solution.
Someone posted a newspaper article the other day about the death of a homeless woman. Read that story, and please tell me how hurting public schools would have helped her? How it would help the tens of thousands people being dumped out of school each year functionally innumerate and/or illiterate ?
Answer: it won't. Yet that's a massive real problem - not just for them, but the country.
Good to clarify that. Of course if you don't think that private schools constitute a serious impediment to equal opportunities and social mobility you will not be keen on measures to reduce the size of the sector.
But this does imply that parents are wasting their money. Because certainly they think they are buying an advantage for their kids. And the % of top jobs in high status occupations which those kids end up filling does rather support that view.
No it doesn't imply they are wasting their money. Read the anecdote I gave earlier about my family member, and then tell me they're wasting their money.
Go on: or admit you just hate a certain segment of our society.
I "moved onto" the other aspects because it's all connected. We need joined up policy making in this country. That means taking people's life chances holistically. You can make it without money, but it's much harder. You can without a private education, but it's harder. You can without knowing the right people, but it's harder. If you have no money, live near a bad school, don't know anyone influential, you're almost certainly suffed. For life. What a waste that is! All that talent discarded before it ever had the chance.
And here's the nasty little kicker. It's in the interests of those who send their children to private schools to use their influence to keep state education underfunded. That's the pernicious truth about inequality: for the small number of winners it becomes a negative sum game. Rich people don't like their tax money being used to help erode their advantage. And the whole country suffers when they can wield their influence to protect their interests. Which they inevitably do because money talks in politics.
I'm not a socialist, I'm a capitalist. It's the only way to prosperity. But inequality is the nasty byproduct of it, and it needs radical action to even things out. Not worker-owned collectives. Not state-run supermarkets. None of the socialist bollocks that has been tried and has been shown to fail. Just a capitalist, consumerist, market economy, with a ferocious tax on the extremely wealthy. Not because it's tax efficient, but because the poison of inequality ruins everything, including capitalism itself.
I cal that utter b/s. To quote the great Dirk Gently, there is a fundamental interconnectedness of all things. The Butterfly effect. Therefore you can propose any action and pretend it will solve a certain problem. But it's b/s. You need to target solutions at problems, whilst looking at the side effects.
You're just using something you dislike and pretending it will fix a problem. A bit like some people and renationalisation of the railways.
" you have no money, live near a bad school, don't know anyone influential, you're almost certainly suffed."
Indeed. And I'd argue that your course of action will do f'all to help them.If you want to help such people, then target solutions at them, rather than picking on your favourite hate-envy figure and pretending that's a solution.
Someone posted a newspaper article the other day about the death of a homeless woman. Read that story, and please tell me how hurting public schools would have helped her? How it would help the tens of thousands people being dumped out of school each year functionally innumerate and/or illiterate ?
Answer: it won't. Yet that's a massive real problem - not just for them, but the country.
"your favourite hate-envy figure" You haven't understood anything I said. You must hate Britain.
I did read and do not doubt the anecdote. But the reason that parents fork out for private school is not usually to address special needs.
The main point to make however is that shrinking the pernicious influence of private schools does not mean there is not also a need to focus on the things you mention such as illiteracy and innumeracy.
I did read and do not doubt the anecdote. But the reason that parents fork out for private school is not usually to address special needs.
The main point to make however is that shrinking the pernicious influence of private schools does not mean there is not also a need to focus on the things you mention such as illiteracy and innumeracy.
We can walk and chew gum on this one.
@kinabalu Sorry about the delay in replying; life intruded. But this is important.
The school in question somewhat specialises in special needs, and does well. You may argue it's unusual (although it's far from the only one), but you would throw that under the bus for your simplistic and idealised worldview. That won't help the kids, who would be the victims of your idealised world.
The point I'd make is simple: time and time again on here, people talk about abolishing / hurting private schools, and don't even mention the evils of illiteracy and innumeracy. It's as if it never occurs to them. It's not about educational standards, or even the children; it's about narrow ideology. And as they don't care about the results of that ideology, or how much harm it causes, it's perverted.
As such, I get the impression that it's not a case of walking and chewing gum; it's a case of cutting off our nose to spite our face.
It's good to have some oversight of schools but I am really not convinced that OFSTED does a good job of this, as a parent of 3 children at state schools who also knows a few teachers. My personal view is that most of the problems in education are caused by two factors: first, not enough money, especially for teachers' salaries, resulting in high workloads and poor retention. Second, a pervasive attitude in England that education is wasted on the working class, especially among the working class themselves. Why do schools in London outperform? They get more money (first point). And the English working class have largely exited London, leaving schools full of the children of the middle classes and aspiring immigrants (second point). Until we achieve a change in English cultural attitudes to education and spend more money on it, creating OFSTED, abolishing OFSTED, creating academies, abolishing academies, or whatever, is simply displacement activity. Getting rid of private schools would in my view help with both points in the long run, but is also largely displacement activity.
I agree - except for the point that curing our predilection for private schools would be a marginal benefit.
I think if society's most affluent and influential people were invested in the mainstream sector rather than invested out of it, this would - over time - be transformational.
Nope. Society's "most affluent and influential people" will just send their kids to the best boarding schools abroad. What this would hit is the children of the middle classes, who currently attend day private schools that aren't Eton or Harrow - schools which would most likely take their staff and resources and set up in another country.
Most middle class kids go to state schools. If they all did, state schools would be better. The super rich can look after themselves, it's what they're best at.
Rubbish, it would just dumb down everything and put up taxes, only morons would think it was either an important issue or financially viable. It is for envious loonie crackpots. Labour commies would still be sending their kids to private schools.
If the Labour and Tory leaders are both unfit to be Prime Minister, what should one do?
Hold you nose and vote Labour if the Lib Dems don't have a chance in your constituency hoping that the end result means it requires a coalition of Labour, LD (and probably) the SNP to form a government without Corbyn.
Then Corbyn leaves/ retires victorious and someone slightly saner takes over.
Comments
It is a policy driven by envy and ideology rather than by a genuine concern for improving educational outcomes.
Could you please answer my question about private tutoring? What would you do about that?
Would I be correct in thinking that gains made trading currency positions are taxable in the UK, whereas gambling winnings aren't ?
However, he is a Unite sponsored MP and I know that when push comes to shove he will be forced to equivocate on Brexit under pressure from McCluskey and the Corbynistas. Therefore I have switched back to voting LD even if it is a wasted vote.
It is quite clear by now where Corbyn's heart lies on Brexit and he will slither and slide and obfuscate on the issue when the time comes. He hasn't the guts to be honest about where he really stands because the membership are so pro-Remain.
At the end of the day, nursing homes provide a service of care you don't get otherwise. That's why you do it.
For majority of children private school would be little benefit. However that is life and dumbing down everyone to try and make unequal people equal is just stupid. You can guarantee all you do is limit clever people and really rich will still make it. State schools will get worse as people will not be able to afford the difference in fees and so they will have even less cash as people have to send their kids to state schools.
It is a petty idea and just cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I will however be glad when he is finished as I will have some money.
I favour equality of opportunity over parental freedom when it comes to the question of schooling.
But I would not pursue the notion of PERFECT equality of opportunity in anything and everything. This is impossible outside of a totalitarian state ruled by non humans.
So, under parents choice I had an absolute right to send him to that private school and have the state pay - but the system still tried to stop this. It took a judge to tell them to go and think about what they were doing and then let her know later in the day their plan - whilst letting them know she would expedite a tribunal which she would chair.
The rest is history. But I will say this, they tried to argue I had no right of appeal - absolutely untrue - and I had to threaten a judicial review to get my legal rights.
I get angry even now about the lies and general absolute disregard for his well being that we were faced with.
It seems socialists will be happy if everyone (other than the kids of the party elite obviously) gets equally poor provision.
Well feck that.
Give those kids a fighting chance at a decent, happy life.
Which is the Labour policy, I think.
Besides, it’s Labour that has - in its own words - spent time “trying to bail out” the Tories on Brexit.
Clearly the default should be that parents and children decide how to do it, but there has to be some effort to ensure that the kids aren't only brought up in a way that will damage them or society at large - schools can't do everything, but they can open eyes to alternatives.
Does a school that is getting good grades because its intake is disproportionately able deserve to be described as a good school?
Assuming that Labour won’t be gaining seats IF the polling doesn’t change is much less likely to be wrong.
F1: red race, not a classic, but some interesting points.
Meritocracy cannot be fair. I would rather concentrate on ensuring that everyone, even those who fail the meritocratic struggle, can live with security, dignity and a degree of comfort.
Leclerc did a good job of diplomatically keeping his feelings to himself in the podium interviews. Smart kid.
And in case we are at cross purposes, I am NOT proposing banning private schools (or tuition). No way. Illiberal and impractical. We are talking about disincentivizing.
Question for you -
If you think that having 7% of kids going to private schools HELPS the state sector, you would presumably like to see the figure go higher?
If not, why not?
I maintain my opposition to circuits that are slow and where overtaking is ridiculously difficult.
The Ferrari situation is going to be testy, but right now their car looks like the best.
It certainly makes it easier to be one.
Still, Mercedes returned the favour this time.
The potential nightmare situation for Mercedes is that Red Bull are tasty too. That said, everyone else has a lot of points to make up on Hamilton. They really need him to DNF.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4uivPpzCGo
The private sector is massive. The vast majority of those attending won't be the most affluent, or influential - and neither will their families. I'm an example.
Do you really believe otherwise?
'disincentivizing' is just weasel words for banning. Many schools operate on the borderline of sustainability, and 'disincentivizing' them will force them to close. you seem to think all private schools are Harrow or Eton.
I will answer your question: the market should decide how many kids go to private school. If state schools do much better than they do at the moment, that will naturally disincentivise many parents from the private option because it will not be value for money. Simples.
But you haven't answered my question: what would you do about private tutoring, which drives a rather large coach and horses through your argument. Or, for that matter, home schooling?
But, yes, I can understand why you feel private schools are a GOOD THING given that experience.
I tend to argue from theory and principles not personal experience. It's my strength and my weakness.
Perhaps the other moral of the story is that 90% of the parliamentary party would go along with almost anything to keep their jobs.
However, that is not the same as wanting to mitigate the effect of privilege to at least a reasonable extent, rather than hands up and saying "c'est la vie".
This is the mindset of the sect. They convince themselves that only complete ideological purity will do, and that they are doing God's work by crushing those who agree with them on most things but depart on some article of faith, as to disagree on that makes a person fundamentally wicked.
You're basically proving Rawnsley's point rather than contradicting it.
But, anyway, I sense I am banging on so will take a pull ...
*sighs*
Those fantastic races after the French Car Park seem long ago...
What was the first?
Except you'd end up killing the schools that actually helped people like me, whilst the ones the left really hate - such as Eton - would continue just fine because they are much richer.
And in the meantime, the state sector has to pay to educate tens or hundreds of thousands of extra kids. Result! Or not ...
And if you're really interested in equality of opportunity, then private tutoring would matter as much - if not more - than private schooling.
They could not possibly be clearer on the matter, and I trust this satisfies everyone.
Both Leavers and Remainers can be 100% confident that the question of whether Labour is on their side or not is a matter that will almost certainly probably be determined a mere unspecified period of time after General Election day.
It’s the wrong focus. If state schools were adequate, the question of private education would resolve itself without conflict. Focus on improving them instead.
As I said, weasel words.
But I've already told you the best way of reducing the prevalence of the private opt-out.
Improve state schools.But that doesn't suit the agenda ...
Have they gone mad?
If that’s the case then there will be champagne corks flying at the Lib Dem HQs.
Focus too on improving equality of access to key professions: banking, law, medicine, and broadcasting.
The ROI on private education is getting better, not worse, as British society becomes silted.
If state schools were better, and the consequences of private versus state were also to even out, it would solve 3/4 of the problem. Few parents send their children private just for the snob value.
A surprise on our Sunday morning promenade down East Ham High Street to see the Brexit Party with a stall and some volunteers.
I was handed a copy of "The Brexiteer" which is an interesting read - the idea of Ann Widdecombe as a pro-Brexit Agony Aunt is one I hadn't considered before.
Clearly BP see themselves as having a real chance of taking the ultra-marginal East Ham constituency from Stephen Timms who is handing on to his tiny 39,883 majority.
To be fair, the BP finished third across Newham in the European Elections, behind the LDs but in front of both the Greens and the Conservatives. Probably just worth mentioning Labour still managed more than half the vote so not easy for the Faragists on that evidence.
1. Most of those attending are not elites. But most of the elites attend.
2. It is not code for banning. It is merely ending the tax breaks.
3. It's not a market. You need the voucher system for that.
4. I would do nothing about private tutoring.
5. I would ban home schooling above age ??
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2019/09/singapore-post-race-analysis-2019.html
2. Not weasel words. Ending the tax breaks, e.g. will have an impact.
3. Yes you have.
4. But it's a platitude.
As I say, they could not have been clearer and all loose ends have been tied up nicely.
2. That's exactly what it is, for the reasons I've given - unless you're saying the 'disincentivising' will essentially be meaningless. It's also particularly stupid, as it'll hurt the schools 'the elite' attend the least.
3. When my son is older, if we decide to send him to a different school, we can try to get the council to approve a move (and good luck with that!), or choose one of the several good private schools within driving distance. We might have to scrimp and save to do that, but he's what matters. But it is a market.
4. If you don't tackle private tutoring, you're not really concerned about levelling the playing field wrt equality of opportunity.
5. Why would you ban home schooling above any age? (That doesn't mean that home schooling should not be carefully regulated.)
You seem inconsistent on this - and it makes it seem that you're not interested in improving education, but rather getting at 'the elites' - and forget anyone else who is hurt in the process.
Yes, let's bring the education budget up to the per pupil spend of the private sector. I would vote for that.
It is a platitude unless you support increasing the education budget to the same per pupil spend as the private sector.
And do you?
I rather expect it would end up like Gordy’s raid on private pensions. Short term gain for long term pain.
Look at the illiteracy and innumeracy figures for an example - and that's a national tragedy and shame.
(That doesn't mean that I'm against increasing funding; just that increased funding is not a magic panacea, and how that funding is spent matters. Tackling the lower end of educational attainment seems vital to me - see above.)
My view is that our predilection for private schools is so damaging to equality of opportunity that it requires tackling. Not by banning (impractical and illiberal) but by removing the tax breaks and applying certain other disincentives.
Now before we get buried in detail, can we establish where in principle you disagree -
Do you disagree that it is damaging to equal opportunities?
Or do you agree with that but think that the cure is worse than the problem?
But as ever, I take an engineer's approach to the issue.
Firstly, define the problem. In this case, I'd argue it's that many state schools underperform (to complicate matters, many perform very well). Trying to equalise 'Equality of opportunity' is rather pointless if it doesn't address this fundamental issue.
And the problem is (in my view at least) that addressing this issue is much more than an educational one - social aspects, particularly parenting, is of vast importance as well. And good luck in sorting that out!
It's not good for the country. If you love Britain and you want it to do well, you have to fish for talent in every pool. Those who want to maintain the current levels of stratification hate Britain.
You've moved onto political and social aspects, and are using education as an excuse to tackle them.
It's utterly bogus.
As I've said many times before: as a country, we need to tackle the illiteracy and innumeracy rates that have remained more or less static for decades. This should be a high focus of the country. Helping those people - who sadly really are at the bottom - should be the priority.
Especially for socialists and people on the left.
Good to clarify that. Of course if you don't think that private schools constitute a serious impediment to equal opportunities and social mobility you will not be keen on measures to reduce the size of the sector.
But this does imply that parents are wasting their money. Because certainly they think they are buying an advantage for their kids. And the % of top jobs in high status occupations which those kids end up filling does rather support that view.
And here's the nasty little kicker. It's in the interests of those who send their children to private schools to use their influence to keep state education underfunded. That's the pernicious truth about inequality: for the small number of winners it becomes a negative sum game. Rich people don't like their tax money being used to help erode their advantage. And the whole country suffers when they can wield their influence to protect their interests. Which they inevitably do because money talks in politics.
I'm not a socialist, I'm a capitalist. It's the only way to prosperity. But inequality is the nasty byproduct of it, and it needs radical action to even things out. Not worker-owned collectives. Not state-run supermarkets. None of the socialist bollocks that has been tried and has been shown to fail. Just a capitalist, consumerist, market economy, with a ferocious tax on the extremely wealthy. Not because it's tax efficient, but because the poison of inequality ruins everything, including capitalism itself.
(Which, as is always the case, won't be you and yours.)
You're just using something you dislike and pretending it will fix a problem. A bit like some people and renationalisation of the railways.
" you have no money, live near a bad school, don't know anyone influential, you're almost certainly suffed."
Indeed. And I'd argue that your course of action will do f'all to help them.If you want to help such people, then target solutions at them, rather than picking on your favourite hate-envy figure and pretending that's a solution.
Someone posted a newspaper article the other day about the death of a homeless woman. Read that story, and please tell me how hurting public schools would have helped her? How it would help the tens of thousands people being dumped out of school each year functionally innumerate and/or illiterate ?
Answer: it won't. Yet that's a massive real problem - not just for them, but the country.
Go on: or admit you just hate a certain segment of our society.
You haven't understood anything I said. You must hate Britain.
As for hating Britain: you are welcome to your opinion, but I don't think so. It's also a rather weird tangent to go down.
I did read and do not doubt the anecdote. But the reason that parents fork out for private school is not usually to address special needs.
The main point to make however is that shrinking the pernicious influence of private schools does not mean there is not also a need to focus on the things you mention such as illiteracy and innumeracy.
We can walk and chew gum on this one.
Sorry about the delay in replying; life intruded.
But this is important.
The school in question somewhat specialises in special needs, and does well. You may argue it's unusual (although it's far from the only one), but you would throw that under the bus for your simplistic and idealised worldview. That won't help the kids, who would be the victims of your idealised world.
The point I'd make is simple: time and time again on here, people talk about abolishing / hurting private schools, and don't even mention the evils of illiteracy and innumeracy. It's as if it never occurs to them. It's not about educational standards, or even the children; it's about narrow ideology. And as they don't care about the results of that ideology, or how much harm it causes, it's perverted.
As such, I get the impression that it's not a case of walking and chewing gum; it's a case of cutting off our nose to spite our face.