So now I understand. The wealthy only send Tarquin and Jemima to private schools out of the kindness of their hearts, so as to save the taxpayer the cost of educating the little darlings.
There are very many ordinary working people who send their children to private school making huge sacrifices. They would not class themselves as the left snear 'weathy'
Labour may be able to try to undermine the Private education sector by withdrawing various financial incentives/tax advantages. I can see that banning them outright would present serious legal complications. Wouldn’t they have to in effect ban all forms of regular schooling outside of the state sector - including, for example, home schooling?
'Labour's chairman is backing a campaign to abolish all private schools, with party delegates set to consider the policy at their annual conference this month. Ian Lavery has thrown his weight behind the Labour Against Private Schools movement which wants all fee-paying schools brought into the state sector.'
Their class obsession will cost taxpayers billions, overload state schools creating huge class sizes, transfer enormous salary and pensions costs on to the exchequer, require massive building costs, and is idiotic
Against that, when Jo Johnson resigned, I could post here more than a dozen Conservative MPs who went to the same school, and there were a few I missed. Is that desirable? What the cure is, I don't know, but it cannot be healthy that a small group of schools dominates entry to politics (all parties), the media, the professions and even sport.
The abolition is pure marxism
Are you aware how much private schools save the public purse and the cost of abolishing them including new buildings, salary and pension costs, and the loss of foreign students studying in the UK
The cure is and always has been to improve state schools and work in cooperation with the private sector which does occur to some extent at present
There is not one advantage by abolishing them
Surely if we make state schools as good as private schools, the private schools will go out of business, with the same cost to the public purse
How much do you think it will cost to prohibit private schools
Ten of billions of new money from the taxpayer just to satisfy marxist dogma
Much less than your suggestion of raising the quality of state schools to match private schools, is my point
Yes, let's close our privatest common denominator.
Mrs Thatcher closed most grammar schools.
The Wilson and Callaghan and Heath governments closed most actually, Thatcher as PM closed fewer than they did and grammar school attendance increased at the end of her premiership and under Major
Mrs Thatcher was the Education Secretary in Heath's government.
She had to follow Heath's orders though unlike when she was PM
Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.
However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status
You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to very able students to drive up results and make themselves more attractive to parents. And that applies to both charitable AND corporate foundations.
This makes me wonder if women politicians are more likely to have science backgrounds than their male colleagues. Probably not but there are certainly high-profile examples like Angela Merkel, Margaret Thatcher and Margaret Beckett.
It may be more that women with science backgrounds are likely to have considerable experience of male dominated environments, and are therefore far more prepared for and/or willing to enter the political arena.
I think that is correct.
Less so now, but in the era of Thatcher & Merkel, scientific research environments would have been overwhelmingly male-dominated.
Labour may be able to try to undermine the Private education sector by withdrawing various financial incentives/tax advantages. I can see that banning them outright would present serious legal complications. Wouldn’t they have to in effect ban all forms of regular schooling outside of the state sector - including, for example, home schooling?
'Labour's chairman is backing a campaign to abolish all private schools, with party delegates set to consider the policy at their annual conference this month. Ian Lavery has thrown his weight behind the Labour Against Private Schools movement which wants all fee-paying schools brought into the state sector.'
Their class obsession will cost taxpayers billions, overload state schools creating huge class sizes, transfer enormous salary and pensions costs on to the exchequer, require massive building costs, and is idiotic
Against that, when Jo Johnson resigned, I could post here more than a dozen Conservative MPs who went to the same school, and there were a few I missed. Is that desirable? What the cure is, I don't know, but it cannot be healthy that a small group of schools dominates entry to politics (all parties), the media, the professions and even sport.
The abolition is pure marxism
Are you aware how much private schools save the public purse and the cost of abolishing them including new buildings, salary and pension costs, and the loss of foreign students studying in the UK
The cure is and always has been to improve state schools and work in cooperation with the private sector which does occur to some extent at present
There is not one advantage by abolishing them
Surely if we make state schools as good as private schools, the private schools will go out of business, with the same cost to the public purse
How much do you think it will cost to prohibit private schools
Ten of billions of new money from the taxpayer just to satisfy marxist dogma
Abolishing them is absurd and punitive. There is, however, a good case to be made for stripping private schools of their charitable status, and giving the proceeds to the state sector. I can certainly see a Labour govt doing THAT.
That is very different to abolishing the education of 620,000 students and enrolling them in state schools
I agree. Do not abolish. But strip them of their charitable status. Why should a tax paying nurse in Swansea subsidise billionaire parents who send their kids to Eton?
They don't, they subsidise bright children from Swansea who might get a scholarship to Eton
Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.
However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status
You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to very able students to drive up results and make themselves more attractive to parents. And that applies to both charitable AND corporate foundations.
There's a certain amount of truth in that. Westminster, Eton and St Paul's all claim that they're gradually attempting to make themselves fully "needs-blind" , for instance.
Abolishing the assisted places scheme was also an error if the schools themselves were going to be retained ; it just lowered the social mix in these schools for two decades.
Labour may be able to try to undermine the Private education sector by withdrawing various financial incentives/tax advantages. I can see that banning them outright would present serious legal complications. Wouldn’t they have to in effect ban all forms of regular schooling outside of the state sector - including, for example, home schooling?
Probably and of course it would be England only.
Education is devolved to Scotland and Wales
Hardly a major issues in Wales though, is it? If I list private schools in Wales I come up with Llandaff, Monmouth, Monmouth Haberdasher, Christ's College Brecon, St David's Colwyn, Llandovery and then I start struggling.
'Labour's chairman is backing a campaign to abolish all private schools, with party delegates set to consider the policy at their annual conference this month. Ian Lavery has thrown his weight behind the Labour Against Private Schools movement which wants all fee-paying schools brought into the state sector.'
Their class obsession will cost taxpayers billions, overload state schools creating huge class sizes, transfer enormous salary and pensions costs on to the exchequer, require massive building costs, and is idiotic
Against that, when Jo Johnson resigned, I could nd even sport.
The abolition is pure marxism
Are you aware how much private schools save the public purse and the cost of abolishing them including new buildings, salary and pension costs, and the loss of foreign students studying in the UK
The cure is and always has been to improve state schools and work in cooperation with the private sector which does occur to some extent at present
There is not one advantage by abolishing them
Surely if we make state schools as good as private schools, the private schools will go out of business, with the same cost to the public purse
How much do you think it will cost to prohibit private schools
Ten of billions of new money from the taxpayer just to satisfy marxist dogma
Much less than your suggestion of raising the quality of state schools to match private schools, is my point
Yes, let's close our privatest common denominator.
Mrs Thatcher closed most grammar schools.
The Wilson and Callaghan and Heath governments closed most actually, Thatcher as PM closed fewer than they did and grammar school attendance increased at the end of her premiership and under Major
Mrs Thatcher was the Education Secretary in Heath's government.
She had to follow Heath's orders though unlike when she was PM
If she didn't agree with the policy she would have resigned from Cabinet. But she embraced it.
I was at a family day today around 60 people there nearly all natural Tories in and around south London and also Surrey. Over 40 of them.are.now not going to vote Tory and will.vote LD. I have had this feeling for.ahile that we are in for a political.earthquake in the south and the LDs are going to make massive inroads. Unfortunately they are still no.spread most on GE seats up.. If LDs are 48-53 they are a huge buy in my opinion.
I am sure you are right and it will not just be conservatives taking a hit, I would expect labour to suffer greatly as well
Very few Labour seats obviously at risk to LDs - indeed Sheffield Hallam is possibly the only likely loss.
'Labour's chairman is backing a campaign to abolish all private schools, with party delegates set to consider the policy at their annual conference this month. Ian Lavery has thrown his weight behind the Labour Against Private Schools movement which wants all fee-paying schools brought into the state sector.'
Againstols dominates entry to politics (all parties), the media, the professions and even sport.
The abolition is pure marxism
Are you aware how much private schools save the public purse and the cost of abolishing them including new buildings, salary and pension costs, and the loss of foreign students studying in the UK
The cure is and always has been to improve state schools and work in cooperation with the private sector which does occur to some extent at present
There is not one advantage by abolishing them
Surely if we make state schools as good as private schools, the private schools will go out of business, with the same cost to the public purse
How much do you think it will cost to prohibit private schools
Ten of billions of new money from the taxpayer just to satisfy marxist dogma
Abolishing them is absurd and punitive. There is, however, a good case to be made for stripping private schools of their charitable status, and giving the proceeds to the state sector. I can certainly see a Labour govt doing THAT.
Why? Those who pay for private education are already paying twice - once for the state system they never use and then again for the private system they do.
Making it more expensive will just drive more people into the state system at greater cost to the tax payer. Post codes will then become the driver of quality. And the middle classes are brilliant at gaming that.
Net result for the taxpayer and society? Zero.
Driving rich pushy parents into the state sector is inherently a good thing. They will raise the game of state schools. Do it.
I also see no reason why I, as a taxpayer, should subsidise Eton, Westminster and Harrow.
Rich, pushy parents if their kids have to go state will send their children to either grammar schools and free schools or outstanding Comprehensive schools or Academies, they are not going to send their kids to the bog standard comp down the road
Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.
However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status
You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to very able students to drive up results and make themselves more attractive to parents. And that applies to both charitable AND corporate foundations.
The lack of knowledge from those envious of public schools is unsurprising
'Labour's chairman is backing a campaign to abolish all private schools, with party delegates set to consider the policy at their annual conference this month. Ian Lavery has thrown his weight behind the Labour Against Private Schools movement which wants all fee-paying schools brought into the state sector.'
Their class obsession will cost taxpayers billions, overload state schools creating huge class sizes, transfer enormous salary and pensions costs on to the exchequer, require massive building costs, and is idiotic
Against that, when Jo Johnson resigned, I could post here more than a dozen Conservative MPs who went to the same school, and there were a few I missed. Is that desirable? What the cure is, I don't know, but it cannot be healthy that a small group of schools dominates entry to politics (all parties), the media, the professions and even sport.
The abolition is pure marxism
Are you aware how much private schools save the public purse and the cost of abolishing them including new buildings, salary and pension costs, and the loss of foreign students studying in the UK
The cure is and always has been to improve state schools and work in cooperation with the private sector which does occur to some extent at present
There is not one advantage by abolishing them
Surely if we make state schools as good as private schools, the private schools will go out of business, with the same cost to the public purse
How much do you think it will cost to prohibit private schools
Ten of billions of new money from the taxpayer just to satisfy marxist dogma
Abolishing them is absurd and punitive. There is, however, a good case to be made for stripping private schools of their charitable status, and giving the proceeds to the state sector. I can certainly see a Labour govt doing THAT.
That is very different to abolishing the education of 620,000 students and enrolling them in state schools
I agree. Do not abolish. But strip them of their charitable status. Why should a tax paying nurse in Swansea subsidise billionaire parents who send their kids to Eton?
They don't, they subsidise bright children from Swansea who might get a scholarship to Eton
Bozo, Moggster and Cammo have all lost the Swansea accent.
'Labour's chairman is backing a campaign to abolish all private schools, with party delegates set to consider the policy at their annual conference this month. Ian Lavery has thrown his weight behind the Labour Against Private Schools movement which wants all fee-paying schools brought into the state sector.'
Their class obsession will cost taxpayers billions, overload state schools creating huge class sizes, transfer enormous salary and pensions costs on to the exchequer, require massive building costs, and is idiotic
Against that, when Jo Johnson resigned, I could post here more than a dozen Conservative MPs who went to the same school, and there were a few I missed. Is that desirable? What the cure is, I don't know, but it cannot be healthy that a small group of schools dominates entry to politics (all parties), the media, the professions and even sport.
The abolition is pure marxism
Are you aware how much private schools save the public purse and the cost of abolishing them including new buildings, salary and pension costs, and the loss of foreign students studying in the UK
The cure is and always has been to improve state schools and work in cooperation with the private sector which does occur to some extent at present
There is not one advantage by abolishing them
Surely if we make state schools as good as private schools, the private schools will go out of business, with the same cost to the public purse
How much do you think it will cost to prohibit private schools
Ten of billions of new money from the taxpayer just to satisfy marxist dogma
Much less than your suggestion of raising the quality of state schools to match private schools, is my point
Yes, let's close our private schools, some of the best schools in the world with pupils from across the world providing scholarships and bursaries too just as Labour closed most of the grammar schools so as per usual Labour can drag everybody down to the lowest common denominator.
Mrs Thatcher closed most grammar schools.
Mrs Thatcher was the Education Secretary in Heath's government.
Rich, pushy parents if their kids have to go state will send their children to either grammar schools and free schools or outstanding Comprehensive schools or Academies, they are not going to send their kids to the bog standard comp down the road
Even Corbyn didn't, although he blamed his ex-wife as I recall.
I was at a family day today around 60 people there nearly all natural Tories in and around south London and also Surrey. Over 40 of them.are.now not going to vote Tory and will.vote LD. I have had this feeling for.ahile that we are in for a political.earthquake in the south and the LDs are going to make massive inroads. Unfortunately they are still no.spread most on GE seats up.. If LDs are 48-53 they are a huge buy in my opinion.
I am sure you are right and it will not just be conservatives taking a hit, I would expect labour to suffer greatly as well
Very few Labour seats obviously at risk to LDs - indeed Sheffield Hallam is possibly the only likely loss.
Speaking of which - I assume that it has been noted on here that Jared O’Mara has discovered he doesn’t quite fancy taking a crown sinecure quite yet...?
I was at a family day today around 60 people there nearly all natural Tories in and around south London and also Surrey. Over 40 of them.are.now not going to vote Tory and will.vote LD. I have had this feeling for.ahile that we are in for a political.earthquake in the south and the LDs are going to make massive inroads. Unfortunately they are still no.spread most on GE seats up.. If LDs are 48-53 they are a huge buy in my opinion.
I am sure you are right and it will not just be conservatives taking a hit, I would expect labour to suffer greatly as well
Very few Labour seats obviously at risk to LDs - indeed Sheffield Hallam is possibly the only likely loss.
Justin.
I admire your blind loyalty but the fact is labour will lose some London seats to the lib dems and leave voting seats to the conservatives. And most all of their Scottish seats to the SNP and some Welsh seats
Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.
However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status
You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to very able students to drive up results and make themselves more attractive to parents. And that applies to both charitable AND corporate foundations.
The lack of knowledge from those envious of public schools is unsurprising
Labour may be able to try to undermine the Private education sector by withdrawing various financial incentives/tax advantages. I can see that banning them outright would present serious legal complications. Wouldn’t they have to in effect ban all forms of regular schooling outside of the state sector - including, for example, home schooling?
Probably and of course it would be England only.
Education is devolved to Scotland and Wales
Hardly a major issues in Wales though, is it? If I list private schools in Wales I come up with Llandaff, Monmouth, Monmouth Haberdasher, Christ's College Brecon, St David's Colwyn, Llandovery and then I start struggling.
'Labour's chairman is backing a campaign to abolish all private schools, with party delegates set to consider the policy at their annual conference this month. Ian Lavery has thrown his weight behind the Labour Against Private Schools movement which wants all fee-paying schools brought into the state sector.'
Againstols dominates entry to politics (all parties), the media, the professions and even sport.
The abolition is pure marxism
There is not one advantage by abolishing them
Surely if we make state schools as good as private schools, the private schools will go out of business, with the same cost to the public purse
How much do you think it will cost to prohibit private schools
Ten of billions of new money from the taxpayer just to satisfy marxist dogma
Abolishing them is absurd and punitive. There is, however, a good case to be made for stripping private schools of their charitable status, and giving the proceeds to the state sector. I can certainly see a Labour govt doing THAT.
Net result for the taxpayer and society? Zero.
Driving rich pushy parents into the state sector is inherently a good thing. They will raise the game of state schools. Do it.
I also see no reason why I, as a taxpayer, should subsidise Eton, Westminster and Harrow.
Rich, pushy parents if their kids have to go state will send their children to either grammar schools and free schools or outstanding Comprehensive schools or Academies, they are not going to send their kids to the bog standard comp down the road
To be fair I think rich pushy parents do that already (especially grammar schools) if their children are smart enough to get in. Private school is often the backup.
Just out of interest - is Labour advocating boarding schools in the state sector? Are there any at the moment? As pointed out above many of the elite public schools won’t exactly fit in very well in the state sector.
Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.
However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status
You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to very able students to drive up results and make themselves more attractive to parents. And that applies to both charitable AND corporate foundations.
The lack of knowledge from those envious of public schools is unsurprising
If labour do abolish private education they will need to find the money to build a lot more schools and employ the teachers required to house 7% extra pupils in the state system. Good luck with that.
Labour may be able to try to undermine the Private education sector by withdrawing various financial incentives/tax advantages. I can see that banning them outright would present serious legal complications. Wouldn’t they have to in effect ban all forms of regular schooling outside of the state sector - including, for example, home schooling?
Probably and of course it would be England only.
Education is devolved to Scotland and Wales
Hardly a major issues in Wales though, is it? If I list private schools in Wales I come up with Llandaff, Monmouth, Monmouth Haberdasher, Christ's College Brecon, St David's Colwyn, Llandovery and then I start struggling.
Rydal Penrhos here in Colwyn Bay
Apparently there are 30, far more than I realised. Should have got Ruthin. Amazed to find there's one in Llanelli!
If labour do abolish private education they will need to find the money to build a lot more schools and employ the teachers required to house 7% extra pupils in the state system. Good luck with that.
They will destroy a lot of extremely good world-beating schools that add a huge amount to our economy and society here.
The solution isn't to abolish or ban them. It's to broaden access through scholarships and bursaries which the state should also help provide.
'Labour's chairman is backing a campaign to abolish all private schools, with party delegates set to consider the policy at their annual conference this month. Ian Lavery has thrown his weight behind the Labour Against Private Schools movement which wants all fee-paying schools brought into the state sector.'
Their class obsession will cost taxpayers billions, overload state schools creating huge class sizes, transfer enormous salary and pensions costs on to the exchequer, require massive building costs, and is idiotic
Against that, when Jo Johnson resigned, I could post here more than a dozen Conservative MPs who went to the same school, and there were a few I missed. Is that desirable? What the cure is, I don't know, but it cannot be healthy that a small group of schools dominates entry to politics (all parties), the media, the professions and even sport.
The abolition is pure marxism
Are you aware how much private schools save the public purse and the cost of abolishing them including new buildings, salary and pension costs, and the loss of foreign students studying in the UK
The cure is and always has been to improve state schools and work in cooperation with the private sector which does occur to some extent at present
There is not one advantage by abolishing them
Surely if we make state schools as good as private schools, the private schools will go out of business, with the same cost to the public purse
How much do you think it will cost to prohibit private schools
Ten of billions of new money from the taxpayer just to satisfy marxist dogma
Abolishing them is absurd and punitive. There is, however, a good case to be made for stripping private schools of their charitable status, and giving the proceeds to the state sector. I can certainly see a Labour govt doing THAT.
That will kill most of them and cost state a fortune anyway
Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.
However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status
You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to very able students to drive up results and make themselves more attractive to parents. And that applies to both charitable AND corporate foundations.
The lack of knowledge from those envious of public schools is unsurprising
Public sector good
Private sector bad (no very bad)
No.
Social justice and equality of opportunity good
Buying an advantage and entrenching privilege bad
Bollocks
My son has dyslexia and Aspergers.
Mainstream failed him utterly.
He went to a private school which cost the state exactly what they were saying his costs were in mainstream.
Of course the state refused to do anything that might actually, you know help him - until they were dragged into doing it at a fair cost to my family financially but even more so emotionally.
I even had to threaten them with a judicial revue at one stage.
My son has gone from a broken, anxious wreck who the state system told me would fall ever further behind and would never be able to write.
We now have a wonderful young man happy add enjoying life, who can write and did ok in his exams considering the lost time and the issues he has to contend with.
So, with the greatest respect those of you who would seek to deny him and others like him that chance can feck right off.
I was at a family day today around 60 people there nearly all natural Tories in and around south London and also Surrey. Over 40 of them.are.now not going to vote Tory and will.vote LD. I have had this feeling for.ahile that we are in for a political.earthquake in the south and the LDs are going to make massive inroads. Unfortunately they are still no.spread most on GE seats up.. If LDs are 48-53 they are a huge buy in my opinion.
I am sure you are right and it will not just be conservatives taking a hit, I would expect labour to suffer greatly as well
Very few Labour seats obviously at risk to LDs - indeed Sheffield Hallam is possibly the only likely loss.
Justin.
I admire your blind loyalty but the fact is labour will lose some London seats to the lib dems and leave voting seats to the conservatives. And most all of their Scottish seats to the SNP and some Welsh seats
Labour are in a very grim place at present
Loyalty is not an issue for me here - particularly in respect of an election at which I will effectively abstain by spoiling my ballot paper. In London the only Labour seat at all likely to be at risk to the LDs is Southwark & Bermondsey, but in realty that has become unlikely due to Simon Hughes not standing again.Labour is not doing well at present , but 3 of last night's polls only show a 3% Tory lead implying very few losses to the Tories even before taking account of first time incumbency in several of the seats concerned.Labour is far better placed than at the outset of the 2017 campaign when it faced Tory leads of 20% - 25%.
'Labour's chairman is backing a campaign to abolish all private schools, with party delegates set to consider the policy at their annual conference this month. Ian Lavery has thrown his weight behind the Labour Against Private Schools movement which wants all fee-paying schools brought into the state sector.'
Their class obsession will cost taxpayers billions, overload state schools creating huge class sizes, transfer enormous salary and pensions costs on to the exchequer, require massive building costs, and is idiotic
n sport.
The abolition is pure marxism
Are you aware how much private schools save the public purse and the cost of abolishing them including new buildings, salary and pension costs, and the loss of foreign students studying in the UK
The cure is and always has been to improve state schools and work in cooperation with the private sector which does occur to some extent at present
There is not one advantage by abolishing them
Surely if we make state schools as good as private schools, the private schools will go out of business, with the same cost to the public purse
How much do you think it will cost to prohibit private schools
Ten of billions of new money from the taxpayer just to satisfy marxist dogma
Abolishing them is absurd and punitive. There is, however, a good case to be made for stripping private schools of their charitable status, and giving the proceeds to the state sector. I can certainly see a Labour govt doing THAT.
That is very different to abolishing the education of 620,000 students and enrolling them in state schools
I agree. Do not abolish. But strip them of their charitable status. Why should a tax paying nurse in Swansea subsidise billionaire parents who send their kids to Eton?
Because they are not a profit making business generating returns to shareholders. They are educating children, a charitable activity. If you made that tax liable - which it shouldn't be - you'd also need to make donating to charities that seek to find education in poor deprived parts of Africa also tax liable.
Its effect would simply be to raise fees, make the schools even more the preserve of the well off, make them more exclusive, close schools and load additional children into the state system.
Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.
However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status
You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to very able students to drive up results and make themselves more attractive to parents. And that applies to both charitable AND corporate foundations.
The lack of knowledge from those envious of public schools is unsurprising
Public sector good
Private sector bad (no very bad)
No.
Social justice and equality of opportunity good
Buying an advantage and entrenching privilege bad
No.
Academic excellence and the right of parents to choose how to educate their own children = Good
Ham-fisted levelling-down and contempt for excellence = Bad
I was at a family day today around 60 people there nearly all natural Tories in and around south London and also Surrey. Over 40 of them.are.now not going to vote Tory and will.vote LD. I have had this feeling for.ahile that we are in for a political.earthquake in the south and the LDs are going to make massive inroads. Unfortunately they are still no.spread most on GE seats up.. If LDs are 48-53 they are a huge buy in my opinion.
I am sure you are right and it will not just be conservatives taking a hit, I would expect labour to suffer greatly as well
Very few Labour seats obviously at risk to LDs - indeed Sheffield Hallam is possibly the only likely loss.
Justin.
I admire your blind loyalty but the fact is labour will lose some London seats to the lib dems and leave voting seats to the conservatives. And most all of their Scottish seats to the SNP and some Welsh seats
Labour are in a very grim place at present
Loyalty is not an issue for me here - particularly in respect of an election at which I will effectively abstain by spoiling my ballot paper. In London the only Labour seat at all likely to be at risk to the LDs is Southwark & Bermondsey, but in realty that has become unlikely due to Simon Hughes not standing again.Labour is not doing well at present , but 3 of last night's polls only show a 3% Tory lead implying very few losses to the Tories even before taking account of first time incumbency in several of the seats concerned.Labour is far better placed than at the outset of the 2017 campaign when it faced Tory leads of 20% - 25%.
You have such a belief in first term incumbency and that history will repeat itself
I do not believe either will happen in these extraordinary times.
So now I understand. The wealthy only send Tarquin and Jemima to private schools out of the kindness of their hearts, so as to save the taxpayer the cost of educating the little darlings.
There are very many ordinary working people who send their children to private school making huge sacrifices. They would not class themselves as the left snear 'weathy'
Even with huge sacrifices, the vast majority of the public cannot afford private school.
Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.
However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status
You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to very able students to drive up results and make themselves more attractive to parents. And that applies to both charitable AND corporate foundations.
The lack of knowledge from those envious of public schools is unsurprising
Public sector good
Private sector bad (no very bad)
No.
Social justice and equality of opportunity good
Buying an advantage and entrenching privilege bad
Bollocks
My son has dyslexia and Aspergers.
Mainstream failed him utterly.
He went to a private school which cost the state exactly what they were saying his costs were in mainstream.
Of course the state refused to do anything that might actually, you know help him - until they were dragged into doing it at a fair cost to my family financially but even more so emotionally.
I even had to threaten them with a judicial revue at one stage.
My son has gone from a broken, anxious wreck who the state system told me would fall ever further behind and would never be able to write.
We now have a wonderful young man happy add enjoying life, who can write and did ok in his exams considering the lost time and the issues he has to contend with.
So, with the greatest respect those of you who would seek to deny him and others like him that chance can feck right off.
Distressing to hear about your family's experience. Of course there should be quality specialist education for those who need it within the state sector.
Thinking more about this - perhaps our Labour friends can explain why they couldn't support this at the time and we could have avoided all this anguish.
I was at a family day today around 60 people there nearly all natural Tories in and around south London and also Surrey. Over 40 of them.are.now not going to vote Tory and will.vote LD. I have had this feeling for.ahile that we are in for a political.earthquake in the south and the LDs are going to make massive inroads. Unfortunately they are still no.spread most on GE seats up.. If LDs are 48-53 they are a huge buy in my opinion.
I am sure you are right and it will not just be conservatives taking a hit, I would expect labour to suffer greatly as well
Very few Labour seats obviously at risk to LDs - indeed Sheffield Hallam is possibly the only likely loss.
Justin.
I admire your blind loyalty but the fact is labour will lose some London seats to the lib dems and leave voting seats to the conservatives. And most all of their Scottish seats to the SNP and some Welsh seats
Labour are in a very grim place at present
No Big G. Labour will not lose a single seat to the LDs in London. Maybe Hallam but I am not that sure. Bermondsey was a throwback to 1983 and a vicious by-election between Hughes and Tatchell. But Hughes majority progressively fell and finally he lost thanks to the coalition. By the way, Coyle, the current MP, supported Owen Smith in the 2017 leadership election.
Statistical draw for Swinson really, but you'd think she'd be romping ahead with les femmes, especially since Ruth the hearthrob of the centrists is wiv da angels now.
Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.
However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status
You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to very able students to drive up results and make themselves more attractive to parents. And that applies to both charitable AND corporate foundations.
The lack of knowledge from those envious of public schools is unsurprising
Public sector good
Private sector bad (no very bad)
No.
Social justice and equality of opportunity good
Buying an advantage and entrenching privilege bad
No equality of opportunity and social mobility bad according to Corbyn Labour, equality of outcome better so the good has to be closed to ensuring everything is equally bad
Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.
However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status
You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to very able students to drive up results and make themselves more attractive to parents. And that applies to both charitable AND corporate foundations.
The lack of knowledge from those envious of public schools is unsurprising
Public sector good
Private sector bad (no very bad)
No.
Social justice and equality of opportunity good
Buying an advantage and entrenching privilege bad
Bollocks
My son has dyslexia and Aspergers.
Mainstream failed him utterly.
He went to a private school which cost the state exactly what they were saying his costs were in mainstream.
Of course the state refused to do anything that might actually, you know help him - until they were dragged into doing it at a fair cost to my family financially but even more so emotionally.
I even had to threaten them with a judicial revue at one stage.
My son has gone from a broken, anxious wreck who the state system told me would fall ever further behind and would never be able to write.
We now have a wonderful young man happy add enjoying life, who can write and did ok in his exams considering the lost time and the issues he has to contend with.
So, with the greatest respect those of you who would seek to deny him and others like him that chance can feck right off.
Distressing to hear about your family's experience. Of course there should be quality specialist education for those who need it within the state sector.
Or alternatively, a max class size of 15 in the state sector.
That would solve so many different problems it's actually frightening.
But it would be very expensive so it will never happen.
'Labour's chairman is backing a campaign to abolish all private schools, with party delegates set to consider the policy at their annual conference this month. Ian Lavery has thrown his weight behind the Labour Against Private Schools movement which wants all fee-paying schools brought into the state sector.'
Their class obsession will cost taxpayers billions, overload state schools creating huge class sizes, transfer enormous salary and pensions costs on to the exchequer, require massive building costs, and is idiotic
Against that, when Jo Johnson resigned, I could post here more than a dozen Conservative MPs who went to the same school, and there were a few I missed. Is that desirable? What the cure is, I don't know, but it cannot be healthy that a small group of schools dominates entry to politics (all parties), the media, the professions and even sport.
The abolition is pure marxism
Are you aware how much private schools save the public purse and the cost of abolishing them including new buildings, salary and pension costs, and the loss of foreign students studying in the UK
The cure is and always has been to improve state schools and work in cooperation with the private sector which does occur to some extent at present
There is not one advantage by abolishing them
Surely if we make state schools as good as private schools, the private schools will go out of business, with the same cost to the public purse
How much do you think it will cost to prohibit private schools
Ten of billions of new money from the taxpayer just to satisfy marxist dogma
Abolishing them is absurd and punertainly see a Labour govt doing THAT.
That is very different to abolishing the education of 620,000 students and enrolling them in state schools
I agree. Do not abolish. But strip them of their charitable status. Why should a tax paying nurse in Swansea subsidise billionaire parents who send their kids to Eton?
They don't, they subsidise bright children from Swansea who might get a scholarship to Eton
Bozo, Moggster and Cammo have all lost the Swansea accent.
Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.
However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status
You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to very able students to drive up results and make themselves more attractive to parents. And that applies to both charitable AND corporate foundations.
The lack of knowledge from those envious of public schools is unsurprising
Public sector good
Private sector bad (no very bad)
No.
Social justice and equality of opportunity good
Buying an advantage and entrenching privilege bad
No.
Academic excellence and the right of parents to choose how to educate their own children = Good
Ham-fisted levelling-down and contempt for excellence = Bad
Please explain how my parents had the same choices open to David Cameron's folks.
I was at a family day today around 60 people there nearly all natural Tories in and around south London and also Surrey. Over 40 of them.are.now not going to vote Tory and will.vote LD. I have had this feeling for.ahile that we are in for a political.earthquake in the south and the LDs are going to make massive inroads. Unfortunately they are still no.spread most on GE seats up.. If LDs are 48-53 they are a huge buy in my opinion.
I am sure you are right and it will not just be conservatives taking a hit, I would expect labour to suffer greatly as well
Very few Labour seats obviously at risk to LDs - indeed Sheffield Hallam is possibly the only likely loss.
Justin.
I admire your blind loyalty but the fact is labour will lose some London seats to the lib dems and leave voting seats to the conservatives. And most all of their Scottish seats to the SNP and some Welsh seats
Labour are in a very grim place at present
Loyalty is not an issue for me here - particularly in respect of an election at which I will effectively abstain by spoiling my ballot paper. In London the only Labour seat at all likely to be at risk to the LDs is Southwark & Bermondsey, but in realty that has become unlikely due to Simon Hughes not standing again.Labour is not doing well at present , but 3 of last night's polls only show a 3% Tory lead implying very few losses to the Tories even before taking account of first time incumbency in several of the seats concerned.Labour is far better placed than at the outset of the 2017 campaign when it faced Tory leads of 20% - 25%.
You have such a belief in first term incumbency and that history will repeat itself
I do not believe either will happen in these extraordinary times.
The rule book has been torn up
I agree that the rule book has been torn up. The Lds could take around Camden and Kilburn and St Pancras quite easily. If 97 taught us anything it is that massive majorities can be overturned if the public turn. Sam Gymiahs seat around Tandridge for example could quite easily go Yellow as could Sutton and Cheam and also Stephen Hammonds seat around Merton. That is why i keep asking where any GE seat spread markets are?
I was at a family day today around 60 people there nearly all natural Tories in and around south London and also Surrey. Over 40 of them.are.now not going to vote Tory and will.vote LD. I have had this feeling for.ahile that we are in for a political.earthquake in the south and the LDs are going to make massive inroads. Unfortunately they are still no.spread most on GE seats up.. If LDs are 48-53 they are a huge buy in my opinion.
I am sure you are right and it will not just be conservatives taking a hit, I would expect labour to suffer greatly as well
Very few Labour seats obviously at risk to LDs - indeed Sheffield Hallam is possibly the only likely loss.
Justin.
I admire your blind loyalty but the fact is labour will lose some London seats to the lib dems and leave voting seats to the conservatives. And most all of their Scottish seats to the SNP and some Welsh seats
Labour are in a very grim place at present
No Big G. Labour will not lose a single seat to the LDs in London. Maybe Hallam but I am not that sure. Bermondsey was a throwback to 1983 and a vicious by-election between Hughes and Tatchell. But Hughes majority progressively fell and finally he lost thanks to the coalition. By the way, Coyle, the current MP, supported Owen Smith in the 2017 leadership election.
I was at a family day today around 60 people there nearly all natural Tories in and around south London and also Surrey. Over 40 of them.are.now not going to vote Tory and will.vote LD. I have had this feeling for.ahile that we are in for a political.earthquake in the south and the LDs are going to make massive inroads. Unfortunately they are still no.spread most on GE seats up.. If LDs are 48-53 they are a huge buy in my opinion.
I am sure you are right and it will not just be conservatives taking a hit, I would expect labour to suffer greatly as well
Very few Labour seats obviously at risk to LDs - indeed Sheffield Hallam is possibly the only likely loss.
Justin.
I admire your blind loyalty but the fact is labour will lose some London seats to the lib dems and leave voting seats to the conservatives. And most all of their Scottish seats to the SNP and some Welsh seats
Labour are in a very grim place at present
No Big G. Labour will not lose a single seat to the LDs in London. Maybe Hallam but I am not that sure. Bermondsey was a throwback to 1983 and a vicious by-election between Hughes and Tatchell. But Hughes majority progressively fell and finally he lost thanks to the coalition. By the way, Coyle, the current MP, supported Owen Smith in the 2017 leadership election.
Cambridge and Leeds NW will also go LD, as may Oxford East and Kensington and Battersea
Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.
However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status
You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to very able students to drive up results and make themselves more attractive to parents. And that applies to both charitable AND corporate foundations.
The lack of knowledge from those envious of public schools is unsurprising
Public sector good
Private sector bad (no very bad)
No.
Social justice and equality of opportunity good
Buying an advantage and entrenching privilege bad
No.
Academic excellence and the right of parents to choose how to educate their own children = Good
Ham-fisted levelling-down and contempt for excellence = Bad
Please explain how my parents had the same choices open to David Cameron's folks.
So your answer is to confiscate weath and ambition
Thinking more about this - perhaps our Labour friends can explain why they couldn't support this at the time and we could have avoided all this anguish.
But then again, what would we talk about? .....
Actually, Labour did support that at the time (admittedly, as just one of their approx 6,587 positions on Brexit throughout the year). Most Labour MPs, including McDonnell and Corbyn, voted several times to put forward Theresa May's deal in a referendum against Remain (the 'Kyle/Wilson Amendment')
If labour do abolish private education they will need to find the money to build a lot more schools and employ the teachers required to house 7% extra pupils in the state system. Good luck with that.
They will destroy a lot of extremely good world-beating schools that add a huge amount to our economy and society here.
The solution isn't to abolish or ban them. It's to broaden access through scholarships and bursaries which the state should also help provide.
Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.
However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status
You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to very able students to drive up results and make themselves more attractive to parents. And that applies to both charitable AND corporate foundations.
The lack of knowledge from those envious of public schools is unsurprising
Public sector good
Private sector bad (no very bad)
No.
Social justice and equality of opportunity good
Buying an advantage and entrenching privilege bad
No equality of opportunity and social mobility bad according to Corbyn Labour, equality of outcome better so the good has to be closed to ensuring everything is equally bad
'Labour's chairman is backing a campaign to abolish all private schools, with party delegates set to consider the policy at their annual conference this month. Ian Lavery has thrown his weight behind the Labour Against Private Schools movement which wants all fee-paying schools brought into the state sector.'
Againstols dominates entry to politics (all parties), the media, the professions and even sport.
The abolition is pure marxism
Are you aware how much private schools save the public purse and the cost of abolishing them including new buildings, salary and pension costs, and the loss of foreign students studying in the UK
The cure is and always has been to improve state schools and work in cooperation with the private sector which does occur to some extent at present
There is not one advantage by abolishing them
Surely if we make state schools as good as private schools, the private schools will go out of business, with the same cost to the public purse
How much do you think it will cost to prohibit private schools
Ten of billions of new money from the taxpayer just to satisfy marxist dogma
Abolishing them is absurd and punitive. There is, however, a good case to be made for stripping private schools of their charitable status, and giving the proceeds to the state sector. I can certainly see a Labour govt doing THAT.
Net result for the taxpayer and society? Zero.
Driving rich pushy parents into the state sector is inherently a good thing. They will raise the game of state schools. Do it.
I also see no reason why I, as a taxpayer, should subsidise Eton, Westminster and Harrow.
I'm intrigued. How do you subsidise them?
Because I have to pay more tax to make up for the tax not paid by Eton College
Don't be stupid you save a fortune not having to fund all those private pupils education, what a turnip.
Labour may be able to try to undermine the Private education sector by withdrawing various financial incentives/tax advantages. I can see that banning them outright would present serious legal complications. Wouldn’t they have to in effect ban all forms of regular schooling outside of the state sector - including, for example, home schooling?
Any attempt to "abolish" private schools would go to the European Court for Human Rights (and would likely be against EU law, too....)
EDIT: And I am pretty sure Labour would lose. So they won't do it. This is a red meat decoy for the ravening socialist hordes.
Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.
However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status
You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to very able students to drive up results and make themselves more attractive to parents. And that applies to both charitable AND corporate foundations.
The lack of knowledge from those envious of public schools is unsurprising
Public sector good
Private sector bad (no very bad)
No.
Social justice and equality of opportunity good
Buying an advantage and entrenching privilege bad
No.
Academic excellence and the right of parents to choose how to educate their own children = Good
Ham-fisted levelling-down and contempt for excellence = Bad
Please explain how my parents had the same choices open to David Cameron's folks.
So your answer is to confiscate weath and ambition
2 things
A clear example of how socialists see the world, everyone has to be dragged down to a common level.
Second point related to the first, how comes so many socialists send or have sent their kids to private school?
Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.
However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status
You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to very able students to drive up results and make themselves more attractive to parents. And that applies to both charitable AND corporate foundations.
The lack of knowledge from those envious of public schools is unsurprising
Public sector good
Private sector bad (no very bad)
No.
Social justice and equality of opportunity good
Buying an advantage and entrenching privilege bad
Bollocks
My son has dyslexia and Aspergers.
Mainstream failed him utterly.
He went to a private school which cost the state exactly what they were saying his costs were in mainstream.
Of course the state refused to do anything that might actually, you know help him - until they were dragged into doing it at a fair cost to my family financially but even more so emotionally.
I even had to threaten them with a judicial revue at one stage.
My son has gone from a broken, anxious wreck who the state system told me would fall ever further behind and would never be able to write.
We now have a wonderful young man happy add enjoying life, who can write and did ok in his exams considering the lost time and the issues he has to contend with.
So, with the greatest respect those of you who would seek to deny him and others like him that chance can feck right off.
I totally agree. I have just retired from a private school which wasn't an Eton or Harrow by any means. We had students come to us the majority of whom were dyslexic etc and suffered from ADHD. The fees weren't cheap but we offered an education which they weren't getting in the state system due to lack of money and large class sizes. Our smaller class sizes meant we could cater for the students needs more easily and they achieved very creditable GCSE and A level/BTEC grades at the end. The majority of parents weren't well off so had to make many sacrifices throughout.
Statistical draw for Swinson really, but you'd think she'd be romping ahead with les femmes, especially since Ruth the hearthrob of the centrists is wiv da angels now.
Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.
However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status
You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to very able students to drive up results and make themselves more attractive to parents. And that applies to both charitable AND corporate foundations.
The lack of knowledge from those envious of public schools is unsurprising
Public sector good
Private sector bad (no very bad)
No.
Social justice and equality of opportunity good
Buying an advantage and entrenching privilege bad
No.
Academic excellence and the right of parents to choose how to educate their own children = Good
Ham-fisted levelling-down and contempt for excellence = Bad
Please explain how my parents had the same choices open to David Cameron's folks.
Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.
However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be e foundations.
The lack of knowledge from those envious of public schools is unsurprising
Public sector good
Private sector bad (no very bad)
No.
Social justice and equality of opportunity good
Buying an advantage and entrenching privilege bad
Bollocks
My son has dyslexia and Aspergers.
Mainstream failed him utterly.
He went to a private school which cost the state exactly what they were saying his costs were in mainstream.
Of course the state refused to do anything that might actually, you know help him - until they were dragged into doing it at a fair cost to my family financially but even more so emotionally.
I even had to threaten them with a judicial revue at one stage.
My son has gone from a broken, anxious wreck who the state system told me would fall ever further behind and would never be able to write.
We now have a wonderful young man happy add enjoying life, who can write and did ok in his exams considering the lost time and the issues he has to contend with.
So, with the greatest respect those of you who would seek to deny him and others like him that chance can feck right off.
Distressing to hear about your family's experience. Of course there should be quality specialist education for those who need it within the state sector.
Am currently going through that process with my own son...currently excluded from mainstream school due to challenging behaviour, which his current headteacher describes as the worst she's seen in 30 years of teaching. Elder siblings completed A levels, passed all GCSE and are excelling in state schools. He is currently receiving NO eductaion whatsover and hasn't done since May.
He has his EHCP but the council claim that 2 days at a farm school, patting ponies and playing with guinea pigs meets his needs. We have found a perfect place for him in a special school run by a charity which is 10 miles up the road but out of county and because it's out of county they refuse to enter the school in to his EHCP and are determined to send him back to mainstream.
He is NINE. He will not have the opportunity when he's older to look back on his childhood as a happy time...thanks to Tory SEN cuts, he has, in effect, lost his childhood.
Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.
However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status
You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to very able students to drive up results and make themselves more attractive to parents. And that applies to both charitable AND corporate foundations.
The lack of knowledge from those envious of public schools is unsurprising
Public sector good
Private sector bad (no very bad)
No.
Social justice and equality of opportunity good
Buying an advantage and entrenching privilege bad
No.
Academic excellence and the right of parents to choose how to educate their own children = Good
Ham-fisted levelling-down and contempt for excellence = Bad
Please explain how my parents had the same choices open to David Cameron's folks.
So your answer is to confiscate weath and ambition
Grammar schools are a useful compromise within the State Sector.
Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.
However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status
You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to very able students to drive up results and make themselves more attractive to parents. And that applies to both charitable AND corporate foundations.
The lack of knowledge from those envious of public schools is unsurprising
Public sector good
Private sector bad (no very bad)
No.
Social justice and equality of opportunity good
Buying an advantage and entrenching privilege bad
No.
Academic excellence and the right of parents to choose how to educate their own children = Good
Ham-fisted levelling-down and contempt for excellence = Bad
Please explain how my parents had the same choices open to David Cameron's folks.
So your answer is to confiscate weath and ambition
Oh, so sorry. I forgot that us working class folks aren't allowed to have ambition. That is the preserve of our betters.
I must apologise for having the temerity to pass my A Levels and go to a Russell Group university. Should have gone down the pit.
Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.
However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status
You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to very able students to drive up results and make themselves more attractive to parents. And that applies to both charitable AND corporate foundations.
The lack of knowledge from those envious of public schools is unsurprising
Public sector good
Private sector bad (no very bad)
No.
Social justice and equality of opportunity good
Buying an advantage and entrenching privilege bad
No equality of opportunity and social mobility bad according to Corbyn Labour, equality of outcome better so the good has to be closed to ensuring everything is equally bad
Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.
However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status
You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scth charitable AND corporate foundations.
The lack of knowledge from those envious of public schools is unsurprising
Public sector good
Private sector bad (no very bad)
No.
Social justice and equality of opportunity good
Buying an advantage and entrenching privilege bad
Bollocks
My son has dyslexia and Aspergers.
Mainstream failed him utterly.
He went to a private school which cost the state exactly what they were saying his costs were in mainstream.
but even more so emotionally.
I even had to threaten them with a judicial revue at one stage.
Myle to write.
We now have a wonderful young man happy add enjoying life, who can write and did ok in his exams considering the lost time and the issues he has to contend with.
So, with the greatest respect those of you who would seek to deny him and others like him that chance can feck right off.
I totally agree. we could cater for the students needs more easily and they achieved very creditable GCSE and A level/BTEC grades at the end. The majority of parents weren't well off so had to make many sacrifices throughout.
Am currently going through that process with my own son...currently excluded from mainstream school due to challenging behaviour, which his current headteacher describes as the worst she's seen in 30 years of teaching. Elder siblings completed A levels, passed all GCSE and are excelling in state schools. He is currently receiving NO eductaion whatsover and hasn't done since May.
He has his EHCP but the council claim that 2 days at a farm school, patting ponies and playing with guinea pigs meets his needs. We have found a perfect place for him in a special school run by a charity which is 10 miles up the road but out of county and because it's out of county they refuse to enter the school in to his EHCP and are determined to send him back to mainstream.
He is NINE. He will not have the opportunity when he's older to look back on his childhood as a happy time...thanks to Tory SEN cuts, he has, in effect, lost his childhood.
Statistical draw for Swinson really, but you'd think she'd be romping ahead with les femmes, especially since Ruth the hearthrob of the centrists is wiv da angels now.
Young women were particularly hard hit by the Coalition and in 2015 are the most anti-Tory/pro-Labour demographic.
Whether it is more loyalty to Labour, or anti-Coalition I'm not sure, but the strength of Labour support relative to the Lib Dems among women doesn't surprise me.
I was at a family day today around 60 people there nearly all natural Tories in and around south London and also Surrey. Over 40 of them.are.now not going to vote Tory and will.vote LD. I have had this feeling for.ahile that we are in for a political.earthquake in the south and the LDs are going to make massive inroads. Unfortunately they are still no.spread most on GE seats up.. If LDs are 48-53 they are a huge buy in my opinion.
I am sure you are right and it will not just be conservatives taking a hit, I would expect labour to suffer greatly as well
Very few Labour seats obviously at risk to LDs - indeed Sheffield Hallam is possibly the only likely loss.
Justin.
I admire your blind loyalty but the fact is labour will lose some London seats to the lib dems and leave voting seats to the conservatives. And most all of their Scottish seats to the SNP and some Welsh seats
Labour are in a very grim place at present
Loyalty is not an issue for me here - particularly in respect of an election at which I will effectively abstain by spoiling my ballot paper. In London the only Labour seat at all likely to be at risk to the LDs is Southwark & Bermondsey, but in realty that has become unlikely due to Simon Hughes not standing again.Labour is not doing well at present , but 3 of last night's polls only show a 3% Tory lead implying very few losses to the Tories even before taking account of first time incumbency in several of the seats concerned.Labour is far better placed than at the outset of the 2017 campaign when it faced Tory leads of 20% - 25%.
You have such a belief in first term incumbency and that history will repeat itself
I do not believe either will happen in these extraordinary times.
The rule book has been torn up
First term incumbency is pretty well established - indeed we saw clear evidence of if as far back as the 1964 election when the Tories managed to hang on to quite a few of the seats gained in 1959 despite a national pro-Labour swing of 3.5%. More recently its influence was very evident at the 2015 and 2017 elections. Seats gained by the Tories - against the tiny pro-Labour national swing - in 2015 such as Telford and Morley & Outwood were not recaptured by Labour in 2017 despite the 2% swing to Labour.
Statistical draw for Swinson really, but you'd think she'd be romping ahead with les femmes, especially since Ruth the hearthrob of the centrists is wiv da angels now.
I was at a family day today around 60 people there nearly all natural Tories in and around south London and also Surrey. Over 40 of them.are.now not going to vote Tory and will.vote LD. I have had this feeling for.ahile that we are in for a political.earthquake in the south and the LDs are going to make massive inroads. Unfortunately they are still no.spread most on GE seats up.. If LDs are 48-53 they are a huge buy in my opinion.
I am sure you are right and it will not just be conservatives taking a hit, I would expect labour to suffer greatly as well
Very few Labour seats obviously at risk to LDs - indeed Sheffield Hallam is possibly the only likely loss.
Justin.
I admire your blind loyalty but the fact is labour will lose some London seats to the lib dems and leave voting seats to the conservatives. And most all of their Scottish seats to the SNP and some Welsh seats
Labour are in a very grim place at present
Loyalty is not an issue for me here - particularly in respect of an election at which I will effectively abstain by spoiling my ballot paper. In London the only Labour seat at all likely to be at risk to the LDs is Southwark & Bermondsey, but in realty that has become unlikely due to Simon Hughes not standing again.Labour is not doing well at present , but 3 of last night's polls only show a 3% Tory lead implying very few losses to the Tories even before taking account of first time incumbency in several of the seats concerned.Labour is far better placed than at the outset of the 2017 campaign when it faced Tory leads of 20% - 25%.
You have such a belief in first term incumbency and that history will repeat itself
I do not believe either will happen in these extraordinary times.
The rule book has been torn up
First term incumbency is pretty well established - indeed we saw clear evidence of if as far back as the 1964 election when the Tories managed to hang on to quite a few of the seats gained in 1959 despite a national pro-Labour swing of 3.5%. More recently its influence was very evident at the 2015 and 2017 elections. Seats gained by the Tories - against the tiny pro-Labour national swing - in 2015 such as Telford and Morley & Outwood were not recaptured by Labour in 2017 despite the 2% swing to Labour.
I was at a family day today around 60 people there nearly all natural Tories in and around south London and also Surrey. Over 40 of them.are.now not going to vote Tory and will.vote LD. I have had this feeling for.ahile that we are in for a political.earthquake in the south and the LDs are going to make massive inroads. Unfortunately they are still no.spread most on GE seats up.. If LDs are 48-53 they are a huge buy in my opinion.
I am sure you are right and it will not just be conservatives taking a hit, I would expect labour to suffer greatly as well
Very few Labour seats obviously at risk to LDs - indeed Sheffield Hallam is possibly the only likely loss.
Justin.
I admire your blind loyalty but the fact is labour will lose some London seats to the lib dems and leave voting seats to the conservatives. And most all of their Scottish seats to the SNP and some Welsh seats
Labour are in a very grim place at present
Loyalty is not an issue for me here - particularly in respect of an election at which I will effectively abstain by spoiling my ballot paper. In London the only Labour seat at all likely to be at risk to the LDs is Southwark & Bermondsey, but in realty that has become unlikely due to Simon Hughes not standing again.Labour is not doing well at present , but 3 of last night's polls only show a 3% Tory lead implying very few losses to the Tories even before taking account of first time incumbency in several of the seats concerned.Labour is far better placed than at the outset of the 2017 campaign when it faced Tory leads of 20% - 25%.
You have such a belief in first term incumbency and that history will repeat itself
I do not believe either will happen in these extraordinary times.
The rule book has been torn up
First term incumbency is pretty well established - indeed we saw clear evidence of if as far back as the 1964 election when the Tories managed to hang on to quite a few of the seats gained in 1959 despite a national pro-Labour swing of 3.5%. More recently its influence was very evident at the 2015 and 2017 elections. Seats gained by the Tories - against the tiny pro-Labour national swing - in 2015 such as Telford and Morley & Outwood were not recaptured by Labour in 2017 despite the 2% swing to Labour.
I repeat - the rule book has been torn up
Agreed. With the disgust at MPs incumbency is likely to be a drawback
Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.
However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status
You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to very able students to drive up results and make themselves more attractive to parents. And that applies to both charitable AND corporate foundations.
The lack of knowledge from those envious of public schools is unsurprising
Public sector good
Private sector bad (no very bad)
No.
Social justice and equality of opportunity good
Buying an advantage and entrenching privilege bad
No.
Academic excellence and the right of parents to choose how to educate their own children = Good
Ham-fisted levelling-down and contempt for excellence = Bad
Please explain how my parents had the same choices open to David Cameron's folks.
So your answer is to confiscate weath and ambition
Oh, so sorry. I forgot that us working class folks aren't allowed to have ambition. That is the preserve of our betters.
I must apologise for having the temerity to pass my A Levels and go to a Russell Group university. Should have gone down the pit.
I was at a family day today around 60 people there nearly all natural Tories in and around south London and also Surrey. Over 40 of them.are.now not going to vote Tory and will.vote LD. I have had this feeling for.ahile that we are in for a political.earthquake in the south and the LDs are going to make massive inroads. Unfortunately they are still no.spread most on GE seats up.. If LDs are 48-53 they are a huge buy in my opinion.
I am sure you are right and it will not just be conservatives taking a hit, I would expect labour to suffer greatly as well
Very few Labour seats obviously at risk to LDs - indeed Sheffield Hallam is possibly the only likely loss.
Justin.
I admire your blind loyalty but the fact is labour will lose some London seats to the lib dems and leave voting seats to the conservatives. And most all of their Scottish seats to the SNP and some Welsh seats
Labour are in a very grim place at present
No Big G. Labour will not lose a single seat to the LDs in London. Maybe Hallam but I am not that sure. Bermondsey was a throwback to 1983 and a vicious by-election between Hughes and Tatchell. But Hughes majority progressively fell and finally he lost thanks to the coalition. By the way, Coyle, the current MP, supported Owen Smith in the 2017 leadership election.
Cambridge and Leeds NW will also go LD, as may Oxford East and Kensington and Battersea
Cambridge is probably safe now for Labour - particularly with such a pro- Remain MP as Zeichner. Leeds NW is less at risk than it appears because Greg Mulholland is not standing again. Oxford East is now safe for Labour - and will not be a LD target. If Labour loses Kensington or Battersea , it will be to the Tories - certainly not the LDs.
I think their argument will be that a No Deal Brexit risks most of those things, and that unless they have the unfettered ability to threaten the EU with No Deal, they won't be able to get the right deal, thereby increasing the chance of No Deal.
I was at a family day today around 60 people there nearly all natural Tories in and around south London and also Surrey. Over 40 of them.are.now not going to vote Tory and will.vote LD. I have had this feeling for.ahile that we are in for a political.earthquake in the south and the LDs are going to make massive inroads. Unfortunately they are still no.spread most on GE seats up.. If LDs are 48-53 they are a huge buy in my opinion.
I am sure you are right and it will not just be conservatives taking a hit, I would expect labour to suffer greatly as well
Very few Labour seats obviously at risk to LDs - indeed Sheffield Hallam is possibly the only likely loss.
Justin.
I admire your blind loyalty but the fact is labour will lose some London seats to the lib dems and leave voting seats to the conservatives. And most all of their Scottish seats to the SNP and some Welsh seats
Labour are in a very grim place at present
Loyalty is not an issue for me here - particularly in respect of an election at which I will effectively abstain by spoiling my ballot paper. In London the only Labour seat at all likely to be at risk to the LDs is Southwark & Bermondsey, but in realty that has become unlikely due to Simon Hughes not standing again.Labour is not doing well at present , but 3 of last night's polls only show a 3% Tory lead implying very few losses to the Tories even before taking account of first time incumbency in several of the seats concerned.Labour is far better placed than at the outset of the 2017 campaign when it faced Tory leads of 20% - 25%.
You have such a belief in first term incumbency and that history will repeat itself
I do not believe either will happen in these extraordinary times.
The rule book has been torn up
First term incumbency is pretty well established - indeed we saw clear evidence of if as far back as the 1964 election when the Tories managed to hang on to quite a few of the seats gained in 1959 despite a national pro-Labour swing of 3.5%. More recently its influence was very evident at the 2015 and 2017 elections. Seats gained by the Tories - against the tiny pro-Labour national swing - in 2015 such as Telford and Morley & Outwood were not recaptured by Labour in 2017 despite the 2% swing to Labour.
I think their argument will be that a No Deal Brexit risks most of those things, and that unless they have the unfettered ability to threaten the EU with No Deal, they won't be able to get the right deal, thereby increasing the chance of No Deal.
I would laugh if I didn’t genuinely think someone might try to argue that
Statistical draw for Swinson really, but you'd think she'd be romping ahead with les femmes, especially since Ruth the hearthrob of the centrists is wiv da angels now.
Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.
However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status
You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to very able students to drive up results and make themselves more attractive to parents. And that applies to both charitable AND corporate foundations.
The lack of knowledge from those envious of public schools is unsurprising
Public sector good
Private sector bad (no very bad)
No.
Social justice and equality of opportunity good
Buying an advantage and entrenching privilege bad
No.
Academic excellence and the right of parents to choose how to educate their own children = Good
Ham-fisted levelling-down and contempt for excellence = Bad
Please explain how my parents had the same choices open to David Cameron's folks.
So your answer is to confiscate weath and ambition
Oh, so sorry. I forgot that us working class folks aren't allowed to have ambition. That is the preserve of our betters.
I must apologise for having the temerity to pass my A Levels and go to a Russell Group university. Should have gone down the pit.
On what (non-communist) planet is society supposed to be engineered in such a way that all parents have the exact same range of choices?
Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.
SNIP
Private sector bad (no very bad)
No.
Social justice and equality of opportunity good
Buying an advantage and entrenching privilege bad
Bollocks
My son has dyslexia and Aspergers.
Mainstream failed him utterly.
He went to a private school which cost the state exactly what they were saying his costs were in mainstream.
but even more so emotionally.
I even had to threaten them with a judicial revue at one stage.
Myle to write.
We now have a wonderful young man happy add enjoying life, who can write and did ok in his exams considering the lost time and the issues he has to contend with.
So, with the greatest respect those of you who would seek to deny him and others like him that chance can feck right off.
SNIP
Am currently going through that process with my own son...currently excluded from mainstream school due to challenging behaviour, which his current headteacher describes as the worst she's seen in 30 years of teaching. Elder siblings completed A levels, passed all GCSE and are excelling in state schools. He is currently receiving NO eductaion whatsover and hasn't done since May.
He has his EHCP but the council claim that 2 days at a farm school, patting ponies and playing with guinea pigs meets his needs. We have found a perfect place for him in a special school run by a charity which is 10 miles up the road but out of county and because it's out of county they refuse to enter the school in to his EHCP and are determined to send him back to mainstream.
He is NINE. He will not have the opportunity when he's older to look back on his childhood as a happy time...thanks to Tory SEN cuts, he has, in effect, lost his childhood.
Probably not a lot to do with the tories in my experience but more bureaucracy, indifference and in our case some horrible people.
WE live in Essex and my son attended school in Suffolk.
Forgive the phrase, but across county lines is not insurmountable.
We had a long old journey getting my son to that school and back daily (more than 10 miles) but by god it was worth it.
I dont know where you are but please consider speaking to Fiona in the attached link
Comments
Less so now, but in the era of Thatcher & Merkel, scientific research environments would have been overwhelmingly male-dominated.
Education is devolved to Scotland and Wales
all claim that they're gradually attempting to make themselves fully "needs-blind" , for instance.
Abolishing the assisted places scheme was also an error if the schools themselves were going to be retained ; it just lowered the social mix in these schools for two decades.
Public sector good
Private sector bad (no very bad)
I admire your blind loyalty but the fact is labour will lose some London seats to the lib dems and leave voting seats to the conservatives. And most all of their Scottish seats to the SNP and some Welsh seats
Labour are in a very grim place at present
Social justice and equality of opportunity good
Buying an advantage and entrenching privilege bad
Just out of interest - is Labour advocating boarding schools in the state sector? Are there any at the moment? As pointed out above many of the elite public schools won’t exactly fit in very well in the state sector.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7440897/Labour-revive-Theresa-Mays-Brexit-deal-John-McDonnell-says.html
Meanwhile, the Diophantine solution for 42 has been arrived at:
https://phys.org/news/2019-09-sum-cubes-solvedusing-real-life.html
A timely reminder that Tories who disagree with Bozo over Brexit are still Tories through and through.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/education/private-school-independent-wales-cardiff-15516098
The solution isn't to abolish or ban them. It's to broaden access through scholarships and bursaries which the state should also help provide.
My son has dyslexia and Aspergers.
Mainstream failed him utterly.
He went to a private school which cost the state exactly what they were saying his costs were in mainstream.
Of course the state refused to do anything that might actually, you know help him - until they were dragged into doing it at a fair cost to my family financially but even more so emotionally.
I even had to threaten them with a judicial revue at one stage.
My son has gone from a broken, anxious wreck who the state system told me would fall ever further behind and would never be able to write.
We now have a wonderful young man happy add enjoying life, who can write and did ok in his exams considering the lost time and the issues he has to contend with.
So, with the greatest respect those of you who would seek to deny him and others like him that chance can feck right off.
They really are delusional.
Its effect would simply be to raise fees, make the schools even more the preserve of the well off, make them more exclusive, close schools and load additional children into the state system.
It would actually cost the Exchequer money.
So, maybe we should cancel it perhaps?
Academic excellence and the right of parents to choose how to educate their own children = Good
Ham-fisted levelling-down and contempt for excellence = Bad
I do not believe either will happen in these extraordinary times.
The rule book has been torn up
“If we only went by precedent, manifestly nothing would ever change."
--- John Bercow
Thinking more about this - perhaps our Labour friends can explain why they couldn't support this at the time and we could have avoided all this anguish.
But then again, what would we talk about? .....
One has to wonder why.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/11/corbyn-ditch-social-mobility
That would solve so many different problems it's actually frightening.
But it would be very expensive so it will never happen.
Sam Gymiahs seat around Tandridge for example could quite easily go Yellow as could Sutton and Cheam and also Stephen Hammonds seat around Merton.
That is why i keep asking where any GE seat spread markets are?
Oh sorry, you meant educationally?
I believe that everyone should have equal reward for achieving their potential. Having innate ability is an accident of birth, so why reward it?
However, everyone should have:
An equal chance of achieving their full potential
Only be rewarded with 'standard income' if they put the graft in to get there.
EDIT: And I am pretty sure Labour would lose. So they won't do it. This is a red meat decoy for the ravening socialist hordes.
A clear example of how socialists see the world, everyone has to be dragged down to a common level.
Second point related to the first, how comes so many socialists send or have sent their kids to private school?
I must apologise for having the temerity to pass my A Levels and go to a Russell Group university. Should have gone down the pit.
He has his EHCP but the council claim that 2 days at a farm school, patting ponies and playing with guinea pigs meets his needs. We have found a perfect place for him in a special school run by a charity which is 10 miles up the road but out of county and because it's out of county they refuse to enter the school in to his EHCP and are determined to send him back to mainstream.
He is NINE. He will not have the opportunity when he's older to look back on his childhood as a happy time...thanks to Tory SEN cuts, he has, in effect, lost his childhood.
Whether it is more loyalty to Labour, or anti-Coalition I'm not sure, but the strength of Labour support relative to the Lib Dems among women doesn't surprise me.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/36/section/19
https://twitter.com/JenniferMerode/status/1170781245585989633