My personal take on the private school debate, which I've kept out of so far. The 7% who send their kids to private education are obviously over-represented, if not dominant, on here, so I thought it might be useful to give a perspective from somebody who went to, and spent all of his career in and around, state education. Obviously it's tough if the school one's kids are currently at is due to close, and I sympathise. And I don't particularly want to dwell on Labour's VAT policy (though I support it, for transparency).
But what I really do find pretty offensive is the notion held by many that the worst thing that can happen is that one's kids are forced to go to a state school. Me, my kids, and my entire extended family and friends all went to state comprehensive schools, of varying quality, and we've all done pretty well in life. I rarely come across anybody outside here who was privately educated. And you know what? We are proud of our schools. We think they gave us a great education, both academically and socially. Most of us got into good universities. We're not ashamed. We don't envy our private school counterparts in the slightest - each to their own.
But we are insulted by many of you who regard a state education as somehow second class. Yes, there are rubbish comprehensive schools, but far fewer than there used to be. But there are quite a lot of rubbish private schools as well, as I discovered in my career, and they are held much less accountable than poor state schools, because it's easier for them to pull the wool over their stakeholders' eyes.
Apologies for the length of this rant - not my usual. But I feel just as strongly about this as do those who feel their interests are, or may be threatened, by the proposed change in policy (which in my view is pretty minor in the big scheme of things, if not for some individuals).
My personal take on the private school debate, which I've kept out of so far. The 7% who send their kids to private education are obviously over-represented, if not dominant, on here, so I thought it might be useful to give a perspective from somebody who went to, and spent all of his career in and around, state education. Obviously it's tough if the school one's kids are currently at is due to close, and I sympathise. And I don't particularly want to dwell on Labour's VAT policy (though I support it, for transparency).
But what I really do find pretty offensive is the notion held by many that the worst thing that can happen is that one's kids are forced to go to a state school. Me, my kids, and my entire extended family and friends all went to state comprehensive schools, of varying quality, and we've all done pretty well in life. I rarely come across anybody outside here who was privately educated. And you know what? We are proud of our schools. We think they gave us a great education, both academically and socially. We're not ashamed. We don't envy our private school counterparts in the slightest - each to their own.
But we are insulted by many of you who regard a state education as somehow second class. Yes, there are rubbish comprehensive schools. But there are quite a lot of rubbish private schools as well, as I discovered in my career, and they are held much less accountable than poor state schools, because it's easier for them to pull the wool over their stakeholders' eyes.
Apologies for the length of this rant - not my usual. But I feel just as strongly about this as do those who feel their interests are, or may be threatened, by the proposed change in policy (which in my view is pretty minor in the big scheme of things, if not for some individuals).
I really don't see many people on here seeing a state education as 'second class'.
As I said, in my case we *want* to send our son to a local state school. It is our favoured option - by far.
You'll agree if you agree, but Patrick Flynn in the Speccie sums up Sunak's national service policy very eloquently:
His resort to the old right-wing rallying cry of ‘bring back national service’ echoes the final move of his disastrous cabinet reshuffle last autumn – making the GB News presenter Esther McVey his ‘minister for common sense’. It is a gimmick from a posh liberal who thinks the plebs can be won over with eye-catching superficiality because they are too dim to notice that the important decisions are all going in the other direction.
Summoning up the spirit of Sir John Junor and Alf Garnett is hardly an effective counterweight to telling police to stop arresting so many criminals because the jails are overflowing or presiding over yet another year of recklessly excessive immigration that trashes social cohesion. Or indeed taking people for fools when it comes to the prospects of his flagship Rwanda removals plan.
That's why it won't work in a nutshell. Sunak is an insider of Britain's broken system of a social democratic consensus to his core, as is Starmer. That leaves zero room for manoeuvre, because as Truss found, genuinely breaking the consensus is going to be fought tooth and nail. So we're left with common sense tsars, flights to Rwanda that will never happen, and increasing restrictions on civil liberties gussied up as patriotic interventions on behalf of our beleaguered bobbies. The consensus will let you have any policy, as long as it's what they sort of wanted anyway.
And people are getting wise to it. That's why they don't like particularly like Starmer, and why they won't trust Sunak.
Doctor LuckyGuy is in
Background: 14 years of Conservative rule Symptoms: (too many to list here: see attached Appendices I to XXVI) Diagnosis: TOO MUCH SOCIAL DEMOCRACY Prescription: More leeches! Another lurch to the right
Hang on.
That wasn't Truss's remedy. Truss's remedy was - genuinely - a return to the 1970s. I always thought that people like Corbyn should have been overjoyed at her prospectus. More spending, less taxes, growth will pay for itself!
Were you alive in the 70s RCS? I don't remember cutting the top rate of tax to 40% being high on the agenda. Truss's shambles owes nothing to the 70s, it was a neolib wankfest gone mad.
I think RCS, myself and Truss were all born in the mid-seventies. And Truss has ensured that she will be the only PM born in that decade. Thanks Liz.
Interesting point: Starmer (b. 1962) hands over to Rayner (b. 1980) in c. 2032?
Something like that. Maybe David Beckham gets interested in politics but I don’t see it.
I'd argue that the parents of the kids at the private schools I attended were not particularly privileged. In fact there were very few 'posh' people. In the case of those kids on bursaries or scholarships, the parents were certainly not rich.
[Snip]
What proportion of the country would you say are 'privileged'? 1%? 5%? 10%?
90% of the population wouldn't be able to afford to send their kids to a private school no matter what sacrifices they made. To those people the parents sending their kids to private schools are definitely privileged.
Define 'privilege'.
I never had a foreign holiday as a kid. Many of my state school friends did - perhaps because their parents were not spending the money on school fees. Were they 'privileged' ?
My definition of privilege: having had a private education.
For the Conservatives to lose to him... that means the public must really hate the Tories.
And they do. And a lot of it is utterly self-inflicted.
To return to Casino's school problem for a moment (sorry), if we accept the premise that the school is closing "because Labour are going to win", then the blame for that falls squarely on
BoZo Truss Richi
Casino should be focusing his righteous anger on those cretins for screwing the pooch so completely
I think this is one you're struggling with as the reality of a Labour government comes into focus somewhere deep in the annals of your mind, so instead you're trying to fingerpoint to what you're comfortable fingerpointing toward instead.
The school operated on just a 2% gross margin last year. A 20% demand shock (everyone knows Labour is going to win) has led to a significant drop in the pupil roll for next year and that's been enough to put it into administration.
That wouldn't have happened were it not for Labour's VAT on private schools policy. It's killed it off.
If it helps, I think the scenario you present is all too plausible. I'm sorry that it's happened, and for the parents, pupils and teachers affected.
The pushback you're getting on this is interesting.
The pushback I'm getting is because absolutely no-one wants to hear anything negative about Keir Starmer and our prospective new Labour government.
You get pushback because it is patently absurd to be blaming a future Labour government for a school closing in 2024, whatever cartwheels you are doing in your brain to justify otherwise.
I'd argue that the parents of the kids at the private schools I attended were not particularly privileged. In fact there were very few 'posh' people. In the case of those kids on bursaries or scholarships, the parents were certainly not rich.
I think this is a mistake some make: they assume that all private schools are Eton or Harrow. Many are local schools, serving local people (shades of Royston Vasey...), and the parents struggle and make sacrifices to send their kids to the school. Mine certainly did.
So, another anecdote. We live less than ten minutes' walk from an 'outstanding' secondary school, and one my son wants to go to. We moved here before the school was built, so we can hardly be accused of moving to be near it!
We (currently...) are in the fortunate situation where we could afford to send our son to a private school. Since we're tight, and the local secondary is good and so near, we don't want to go private. He also wants to go there.
However, a fair few kids in the village have been allocated to a school half an hour's drive away, which has a terrible reputation locally, and does not have stellar results. *If* the council choose to send him there, in their infinite wisdom, we would be faced with a choice. Do I want to drive my son to and from a poor school every day, or have him go on a complex bus journey, or do we send him to a local private school? I'd still have to drive him, or he would have to go on a bus, but it would at least be to a decent school.
I'd laugh in the face of anyone who told me that I was doing the 'wrong' thing in sending him to a private school in that situation.
But when did you attend private school? I attended private school in the 70s and 80s. Private school fees have risen by much more than inflation since then. They have become more selective, more limited to the richest. They’re not the same social mix as when we attended.
So, that’s a considerably bigger increase than the addition of VAT now would be. I don’t know why that is. Are the schools profiteering? Are they offering a different kind of service? Do schooling costs just rise much more quickly than general inflation? But we have a sector that has been hiking fees for years that’s not talking about why they hiked fees but is keen on talking about how Labour’s policy will make them unaffordable.
You'll agree if you agree, but Patrick Flynn in the Speccie sums up Sunak's national service policy very eloquently:
His resort to the old right-wing rallying cry of ‘bring back national service’ echoes the final move of his disastrous cabinet reshuffle last autumn – making the GB News presenter Esther McVey his ‘minister for common sense’. It is a gimmick from a posh liberal who thinks the plebs can be won over with eye-catching superficiality because they are too dim to notice that the important decisions are all going in the other direction.
Summoning up the spirit of Sir John Junor and Alf Garnett is hardly an effective counterweight to telling police to stop arresting so many criminals because the jails are overflowing or presiding over yet another year of recklessly excessive immigration that trashes social cohesion. Or indeed taking people for fools when it comes to the prospects of his flagship Rwanda removals plan.
That's why it won't work in a nutshell. Sunak is an insider of Britain's broken system of a social democratic consensus to his core, as is Starmer. That leaves zero room for manoeuvre, because as Truss found, genuinely breaking the consensus is going to be fought tooth and nail. So we're left with common sense tsars, flights to Rwanda that will never happen, and increasing restrictions on civil liberties gussied up as patriotic interventions on behalf of our beleaguered bobbies. The consensus will let you have any policy, as long as it's what they sort of wanted anyway.
And people are getting wise to it. That's why they don't like particularly like Starmer, and why they won't trust Sunak.
Doctor LuckyGuy is in
Background: 14 years of Conservative rule Symptoms: (too many to list here: see attached Appendices I to XXVI) Diagnosis: TOO MUCH SOCIAL DEMOCRACY Prescription: More leeches! Another lurch to the right
Hang on.
That wasn't Truss's remedy. Truss's remedy was - genuinely - a return to the 1970s. I always thought that people like Corbyn should have been overjoyed at her prospectus. More spending, less taxes, growth will pay for itself!
Were you alive in the 70s RCS? I don't remember cutting the top rate of tax to 40% being high on the agenda. Truss's shambles owes nothing to the 70s, it was a neolib wankfest gone mad.
I think RCS, myself and Truss were all born in the mid-seventies. And Truss has ensured that she will be the only PM born in that decade. Thanks Liz.
Interesting point: Starmer (b. 1962) hands over to Rayner (b. 1980) in c. 2032?
Something like that. Maybe David Beckham gets interested in politics but I don’t see it.
Jess Phillips MP @jessphillips · 1h Well that was a rainy day! Hundreds of doors knocked in Yardley under our trusty umbrellas. I can recommend one to the PM
Which door in Yardley was she planning to recommend?
Tut tut: 'one' logically refers to the nearest noun in the sentence, i.e. 'umbrellas'
I had to read it a couple of times before I came to that conclusion. I'm not sure 'one' refers necessarily to the 'nearest' noun. I'm not saying Jess got it wrong, but if both rottenborough and at our first attempt read it that way...
George Parker @GeorgeWParker · 1h Key election pitches to young so far: Labour: votes for 16 and 17-year-olds. Conservatives: compulsory national service at 18. YouGov voting intention poll for 18-24 age group: Lab 57%, Con 8%.
Neither side cares at all about the young, but they don't have to. The Tories' hatred is so transparent and obvious that most of them will surge leftwards without requiring prompting (and aren't persuadable to do otherwise,) but simultaneously their numbers are sufficiently small that Labour can afford not to bother about their concerns very much, even at the cost of shedding a few to the Greens.
This election is going to be primarily about Labour reassuring the grey vote that it's safe to defect or sit on their hands, and thus convert a Hung Parliament into a rout.
I'd argue that the parents of the kids at the private schools I attended were not particularly privileged. In fact there were very few 'posh' people. In the case of those kids on bursaries or scholarships, the parents were certainly not rich.
I think this is a mistake some make: they assume that all private schools are Eton or Harrow. Many are local schools, serving local people (shades of Royston Vasey...), and the parents struggle and make sacrifices to send their kids to the school. Mine certainly did.
So, another anecdote. We live less than ten minutes' walk from an 'outstanding' secondary school, and one my son wants to go to. We moved here before the school was built, so we can hardly be accused of moving to be near it!
We (currently...) are in the fortunate situation where we could afford to send our son to a private school. Since we're tight, and the local secondary is good and so near, we don't want to go private. He also wants to go there.
However, a fair few kids in the village have been allocated to a school half an hour's drive away, which has a terrible reputation locally, and does not have stellar results. *If* the council choose to send him there, in their infinite wisdom, we would be faced with a choice. Do I want to drive my son to and from a poor school every day, or have him go on a complex bus journey, or do we send him to a local private school? I'd still have to drive him, or he would have to go on a bus, but it would at least be to a decent school.
I'd laugh in the face of anyone who told me that I was doing the 'wrong' thing in sending him to a private school in that situation.
But when did you attend private school? I attended private school in the 70s and 80s. Private school fees have risen by much more than inflation since then. They have become more selective, more limited to the richest. They’re not the same social mix as when we attended.
So, that’s a considerably bigger increase than the addition of VAT now would be. I don’t know why that is. Are the schools profiteering? Are they offering a different kind of service? Do schooling costs just rise much more quickly than general inflation? But we have a sector that has been hiking fees for years that’s not talking about why they hiked fees but is keen on talking about how Labour’s policy will make them unaffordable.
Teachers' salaries have rather more than tripled since 1997.
Even allowing for independent schools not paying as much as the state sector, that's certainly going to be one impact.
George Parker @GeorgeWParker · 1h Key election pitches to young so far: Labour: votes for 16 and 17-year-olds. Conservatives: compulsory national service at 18. YouGov voting intention poll for 18-24 age group: Lab 57%, Con 8%.
Neither side cares at all about the young, but they don't have to. The Tories' hatred is so transparent and obvious that most of them will surge leftwards without requiring prompting, and their numbers are sufficiently small that Labour can afford to shed a few to the Greens.
I am not at all convinced by this but if Labour manage to make this a "your future is on the line, you will go into the army" election (however untrue that may be), I wonder if it will do anything for youth turnout. I am sceptical because we heard this all in 2017 and 2019. But let's see.
For the Conservatives to lose to him... that means the public must really hate the Tories.
And they do. And a lot of it is utterly self-inflicted.
To return to Casino's school problem for a moment (sorry), if we accept the premise that the school is closing "because Labour are going to win", then the blame for that falls squarely on
BoZo Truss Richi
Casino should be focusing his righteous anger on those cretins for screwing the pooch so completely
I think this is one you're struggling with as the reality of a Labour government comes into focus somewhere deep in the annals of your mind, so instead you're trying to fingerpoint to what you're comfortable fingerpointing toward instead.
The school operated on just a 2% gross margin last year. A 20% demand shock (everyone knows Labour is going to win) has led to a significant drop in the pupil roll for next year and that's been enough to put it into administration.
That wouldn't have happened were it not for Labour's VAT on private schools policy. It's killed it off.
If it helps, I think the scenario you present is all too plausible. I'm sorry that it's happened, and for the parents, pupils and teachers affected.
The pushback you're getting on this is interesting.
The pushback I'm getting is because absolutely no-one wants to hear anything negative about Keir Starmer and our prospective new Labour government.
Isn't the pushback more about not seeing the bigger picture? I'm sure it's sad that this school has financial problems. But we're talking about a change to tax policy that affects a group of the most privileged people in the country, one that many other private schools and parents will negotiate, and which will allow more money to be spent on the education of the 93% of kids who don't have the privilege of private schooling.
It's always possible to pick sad stories of those on the wrong end of a policy. And it's not like Tories have given a jot about the misery they've inflicted on far less privileged people over the past 14 years. But I guess the kids Tory policies pushed into poverty deserved it, unlike Tarquin and Jocasta - who might now have to mix with the hoi polloi. For shame.
Except, (a) it doesn't affect the most privileged in the country - that's just the rhetoric - because they won't be affected; it's hard-working professionals and the small independent schools that will be, (b), it will not allow more money to be spent on the education of the 93% and will actually cost the taxpayer, and, (c) your last point seems to be an eye for an eye, which isn't invalidates what little merit your first two points have.
None.
People who can afford today’s private school fees are certainly at the top end of “hard-working professionals”. 7% of kids go to private schools and that’s very closely correlated with income, i.e. the top 7% earners.
I didn't go to private school, but struggle to get worked up by them.
One thing that is getting no coverage, Labour proposed usage of this extra tax is to recruit 1250 extra teachers each year. It is literally drop in the bucket (500k teachers and 40k leave the profession every year) and less than the increase in teacher numbers last year.
I think more than getting worked up about poshos and foreign kids going to private schools, seems a much more important is how do we improve state schools. Labour pledge is not exactly Blair's education, education, education.
I'd argue that the parents of the kids at the private schools I attended were not particularly privileged. In fact there were very few 'posh' people. In the case of those kids on bursaries or scholarships, the parents were certainly not rich.
[Snip]
What proportion of the country would you say are 'privileged'? 1%? 5%? 10%?
90% of the population wouldn't be able to afford to send their kids to a private school no matter what sacrifices they made. To those people the parents sending their kids to private schools are definitely privileged.
Define 'privilege'.
I never had a foreign holiday as a kid. Many of my state school friends did - perhaps because their parents were not spending the money on school fees. Were they 'privileged' ?
Privileged means someone else has something I haven't got, and would like.
We're not an aspirational society anymore, sadly; we're one riven with bitterness, jealousy and resentment.
Privilege is buying your child a ticket that gives them a ten-fold better chance of a top job.
I'd argue that the parents of the kids at the private schools I attended were not particularly privileged. In fact there were very few 'posh' people. In the case of those kids on bursaries or scholarships, the parents were certainly not rich.
I think this is a mistake some make: they assume that all private schools are Eton or Harrow. Many are local schools, serving local people (shades of Royston Vasey...), and the parents struggle and make sacrifices to send their kids to the school. Mine certainly did.
So, another anecdote. We live less than ten minutes' walk from an 'outstanding' secondary school, and one my son wants to go to. We moved here before the school was built, so we can hardly be accused of moving to be near it!
We (currently...) are in the fortunate situation where we could afford to send our son to a private school. Since we're tight, and the local secondary is good and so near, we don't want to go private. He also wants to go there.
However, a fair few kids in the village have been allocated to a school half an hour's drive away, which has a terrible reputation locally, and does not have stellar results. *If* the council choose to send him there, in their infinite wisdom, we would be faced with a choice. Do I want to drive my son to and from a poor school every day, or have him go on a complex bus journey, or do we send him to a local private school? I'd still have to drive him, or he would have to go on a bus, but it would at least be to a decent school.
I'd laugh in the face of anyone who told me that I was doing the 'wrong' thing in sending him to a private school in that situation.
But when did you attend private school? I attended private school in the 70s and 80s. Private school fees have risen by much more than inflation since then. They have become more selective, more limited to the richest. They’re not the same social mix as when we attended.
So, that’s a considerably bigger increase than the addition of VAT now would be. I don’t know why that is. Are the schools profiteering? Are they offering a different kind of service? Do schooling costs just rise much more quickly than general inflation? But we have a sector that has been hiking fees for years that’s not talking about why they hiked fees but is keen on talking about how Labour’s policy will make them unaffordable.
I went to both state and private schools at various times, between the late 1970s to the early 1990s.
And yes, I know costs have increased. And many prospective parents have been priced out as a result - and some schools have closed. But that's not an excuse to add an artificial cost on top of it. In the case of my old school, the facilities have apparently improved massively. Have they improved enough to compensate for the extra costs? I don't know - in the case of boarders, perhaps.
The problem with Corbyn is that he's never been on the right side of history; except when he opposed the Iraq War, Apartheid in South Africa, Poll Tax, supported miners strike, protested austerity, voted against tuition fees, stood up for Kurds/Palestinians, warned PFI would be an expensive disaster, warned against privatisation of water and rail would be a disaster.
Always wrong. Prsumably the good people of Islington North will realise the Private Health CEO is the way to go
Could you just give me a quick list of all the British politicians who were in favor of apartheid in South Africa? Just so I can understand how he stood alone against the consensus.
Being British politicians, they would have been in favour of it, not in favor of it.
I see what you did there.
The world is not going to end if we stop putting a “u” in words ending “our”. Worse things have happened to languages.
The problem with Corbyn is that he's never been on the right side of history; except when he opposed the Iraq War, Apartheid in South Africa, Poll Tax, supported miners strike, protested austerity, voted against tuition fees, stood up for Kurds/Palestinians, warned PFI would be an expensive disaster, warned against privatisation of water and rail would be a disaster.
Always wrong. Prsumably the good people of Islington North will realise the Private Health CEO is the way to go
Could you just give me a quick list of all the British politicians who were in favor of apartheid in South Africa? Just so I can understand how he stood alone against the consensus.
Being British politicians, they would have been in favour of it, not in favor of it.
I see what you did there.
The world is not going to end if we stop putting a “u” in words ending “our”. Worse things have happened to languages.
I’d fight pretty hard for sulphur rather than sulfur. And don’t get me started on aluminium.
As a chemist, you should know that in the IUPAC wars of the 60s and 70s, we got aluminium and they got sulfur as the official spellings.
I’m too young to care… Besides Yanks still insist on calling it aluminum. Peasants.
I'd argue that the parents of the kids at the private schools I attended were not particularly privileged. In fact there were very few 'posh' people. In the case of those kids on bursaries or scholarships, the parents were certainly not rich.
[Snip]
What proportion of the country would you say are 'privileged'? 1%? 5%? 10%?
90% of the population wouldn't be able to afford to send their kids to a private school no matter what sacrifices they made. To those people the parents sending their kids to private schools are definitely privileged.
Define 'privilege'.
I never had a foreign holiday as a kid. Many of my state school friends did - perhaps because their parents were not spending the money on school fees. Were they 'privileged' ?
My definition of privilege: having had a private education.
That's a really, really poor definition IMO.
from my perspective, having a healthy childhood is definitely a 'privilege', and one I didn't have ...
I didn't go to private school, but struggle to get worked up by them.
One thing that is getting no coverage, Labour proposed usage of this extra tax is to recruit 1250 extra teachers each year. It is literally drop in the bucket (500k teachers and 40k leave the profession every year) and less than the increase in teacher numbers last year.
I think more than getting worked up about poshos and foreign kids going to private schools, seems a much more important is how do we improve state schools. Labour pledge is not exactly Blair's education, education, education.
Maybe they have more to come?
If of course they wanted to deal with that problem, it would be rather better to start with trying to clean up the nuclear wasteland that the Conservatives and DfE between them have made of teacher training.
My personal take on the private school debate, which I've kept out of so far. The 7% who send their kids to private education are obviously over-represented, if not dominant, on here, so I thought it might be useful to give a perspective from somebody who went to, and spent all of his career in and around, state education. Obviously it's tough if the school one's kids are currently at is due to close, and I sympathise. And I don't particularly want to dwell on Labour's VAT policy (though I support it, for transparency).
But what I really do find pretty offensive is the notion held by many that the worst thing that can happen is that one's kids are forced to go to a state school. Me, my kids, and my entire extended family and friends all went to state comprehensive schools, of varying quality, and we've all done pretty well in life. I rarely come across anybody outside here who was privately educated. And you know what? We are proud of our schools. We think they gave us a great education, both academically and socially. We're not ashamed. We don't envy our private school counterparts in the slightest - each to their own.
But we are insulted by many of you who regard a state education as somehow second class. Yes, there are rubbish comprehensive schools. But there are quite a lot of rubbish private schools as well, as I discovered in my career, and they are held much less accountable than poor state schools, because it's easier for them to pull the wool over their stakeholders' eyes.
Apologies for the length of this rant - not my usual. But I feel just as strongly about this as do those who feel their interests are, or may be threatened, by the proposed change in policy (which in my view is pretty minor in the big scheme of things, if not for some individuals).
To give an alternative view I was sent to a state school and other pupils prevented me from learning anything because that was not the thing to do....hell I still remember being in an english class as they burnt all my notes because I was trying to learn....the teachers response...was sigh put it out to which their response was fuck off and do it yourself
State schools have improved significantly over the last 20 years or so. I don't get the impression that you're a recent school leaver.
For the Conservatives to lose to him... that means the public must really hate the Tories.
And they do. And a lot of it is utterly self-inflicted.
To return to Casino's school problem for a moment (sorry), if we accept the premise that the school is closing "because Labour are going to win", then the blame for that falls squarely on
BoZo Truss Richi
Casino should be focusing his righteous anger on those cretins for screwing the pooch so completely
I think this is one you're struggling with as the reality of a Labour government comes into focus somewhere deep in the annals of your mind, so instead you're trying to fingerpoint to what you're comfortable fingerpointing toward instead.
The school operated on just a 2% gross margin last year. A 20% demand shock (everyone knows Labour is going to win) has led to a significant drop in the pupil roll for next year and that's been enough to put it into administration.
That wouldn't have happened were it not for Labour's VAT on private schools policy. It's killed it off.
If it helps, I think the scenario you present is all too plausible. I'm sorry that it's happened, and for the parents, pupils and teachers affected.
The pushback you're getting on this is interesting.
Will be even more interesting when it goes tits up and Labour need to fund all the pupils that cannot go to private schools and no extra VAT coming in.
And the state schools that used to get offered time on playing fields or use of arts facilities suddenly see that chance gone.
The school that my youngest daughter goes to offers use of its sports facilities to local schools. The basic access was required as a condition of planning permission, but they provide school staff, for free, to teach.
So instead of just a swimming pool* the kids get swimming lessons by trained sports coaches.
*The geniuses who drew up the condition of use ignored the issue of minimum staff for safety. So, the school could just say “here’s the swimming pool. Find a life guard”. But they don’t.
Yes I think you’d struggle to find state schools near a public school that want it shut. I didn’t go to public school and I would personally think twice about sending my kids there, but I don’t want them gone. But then I’ve never understood the politics of jealousy. Other people can have nice things without me having to have them too.
I dunno about your first line. I think state schools thrive when they are truly comprehensive; in each class there are a few Tarquins as well as plenty that Tarquin might otherwise never see or spend time with.
Tarquin is useful as a teacher as he tends to do his homework, answer questions and generally want to do well. He's useful as a school leader because his parents often organise eg PTAs.
I also don't think there is enough social mixing amongst young people at present, and I think private schools make that worse at the margins.
OTOH I can see why rich parents would baulk at Tarquin being a pawn in a game of social engineering, especially if they themselves have not had much experience outside their social bubble.
The body of your post is why I wouldn’t send mine there (don’t want them to be Tarquin). But your last paragraph I why I don’t want to attack them - let Tarquin’s parents do what they think’s best for him.
What j would continue to do is ensure public schooling is moderated against at Uni and for selection for a first job.
It just shows how little idea people have of what private schools are actually like, which they assume are all like Eton or something out of an Enid Blyton story.
These are just myths.
The kids at my local school are perfectly normal and aren't even developing cut-glass accents. It's just an independent school with its own educational ethos, that requires parents to afford £5k a term, or £1.4k a month spread over 12 months (with the extras and interest).
That's it.
But that's the heart of the matter.
Families with £1400 a month per child to spare are extremely abnormal. And an educational ethos that costs 2-3 times as much as the government chooses to spend more on most children is a luxury ethos.
Independent schools decided to price themselves out of the middle class market, largely because they could.
I hope it works out for your family, but the sector has been mismanaging itself for ages. Even if Labour's proposals hadn't delivered the coup de grace, something else would have.
I'd argue that the parents of the kids at the private schools I attended were not particularly privileged. In fact there were very few 'posh' people. In the case of those kids on bursaries or scholarships, the parents were certainly not rich.
I think this is a mistake some make: they assume that all private schools are Eton or Harrow. Many are local schools, serving local people (shades of Royston Vasey...), and the parents struggle and make sacrifices to send their kids to the school. Mine certainly did.
So, another anecdote. We live less than ten minutes' walk from an 'outstanding' secondary school, and one my son wants to go to. We moved here before the school was built, so we can hardly be accused of moving to be near it!
We (currently...) are in the fortunate situation where we could afford to send our son to a private school. Since we're tight, and the local secondary is good and so near, we don't want to go private. He also wants to go there.
However, a fair few kids in the village have been allocated to a school half an hour's drive away, which has a terrible reputation locally, and does not have stellar results. *If* the council choose to send him there, in their infinite wisdom, we would be faced with a choice. Do I want to drive my son to and from a poor school every day, or have him go on a complex bus journey, or do we send him to a local private school? I'd still have to drive him, or he would have to go on a bus, but it would at least be to a decent school.
I'd laugh in the face of anyone who told me that I was doing the 'wrong' thing in sending him to a private school in that situation.
A lot of private schools are not even schools. There are several converted shops round here offering after-school tuition.
I'm not quite sure what that has to do with my situation, but home schooling with tutors is another potential course we could take if he gets allocated the school we don't want him at. But the biggest problem with that is that he's an only child, and I see socialisation as vital for kids. Besides, an acquaintance was home-schooled, and even though he loves his parents, he hated the experience.
After-school tuition, not home schooling with tutors.
And after-school tuition done in a converted shop, i.e. with other children.
I'd argue that the parents of the kids at the private schools I attended were not particularly privileged. In fact there were very few 'posh' people. In the case of those kids on bursaries or scholarships, the parents were certainly not rich.
I think this is a mistake some make: they assume that all private schools are Eton or Harrow. Many are local schools, serving local people (shades of Royston Vasey...), and the parents struggle and make sacrifices to send their kids to the school. Mine certainly did.
So, another anecdote. We live less than ten minutes' walk from an 'outstanding' secondary school, and one my son wants to go to. We moved here before the school was built, so we can hardly be accused of moving to be near it!
We (currently...) are in the fortunate situation where we could afford to send our son to a private school. Since we're tight, and the local secondary is good and so near, we don't want to go private. He also wants to go there.
However, a fair few kids in the village have been allocated to a school half an hour's drive away, which has a terrible reputation locally, and does not have stellar results. *If* the council choose to send him there, in their infinite wisdom, we would be faced with a choice. Do I want to drive my son to and from a poor school every day, or have him go on a complex bus journey, or do we send him to a local private school? I'd still have to drive him, or he would have to go on a bus, but it would at least be to a decent school.
I'd laugh in the face of anyone who told me that I was doing the 'wrong' thing in sending him to a private school in that situation.
A lot of private schools are not even schools. There are several converted shops round here offering after-school tuition.
I'm not quite sure what that has to do with my situation, but home schooling with tutors is another potential course we could take if he gets allocated the school we don't want him at. But the biggest problem with that is that he's an only child, and I see socialisation as vital for kids. Besides, an acquaintance was home-schooled, and even though he loves his parents, he hated the experience.
After-school tuition, not home schooling with tutors.
And after-school tuition done in a converted shop, i.e. with other children.
One thing Labour do need to clarify is whether they intend to levy VAT on private tuition as well as independent schools.
Or at least, if they've said what their views are I haven't seen them yet.
. I rarely come across anybody outside here who was privately educated.
I'm genuinely surprised at that given you worked in education management. Albeit it was a fair time ago and the ratios may have changed since.
Hey, it's not that long since I retired. But I'm sure you're right - lots of people in the exalted bubble I worked in will have been privately educated. But I didn't know them well and they never mentioned it.
I'd argue that the parents of the kids at the private schools I attended were not particularly privileged. In fact there were very few 'posh' people. In the case of those kids on bursaries or scholarships, the parents were certainly not rich.
[Snip]
What proportion of the country would you say are 'privileged'? 1%? 5%? 10%?
90% of the population wouldn't be able to afford to send their kids to a private school no matter what sacrifices they made. To those people the parents sending their kids to private schools are definitely privileged.
Define 'privilege'.
I never had a foreign holiday as a kid. Many of my state school friends did - perhaps because their parents were not spending the money on school fees. Were they 'privileged' ?
That was many years ago and doesn’t tell us about the social make-up of today’s private school attenders.
I'd argue that the parents of the kids at the private schools I attended were not particularly privileged. In fact there were very few 'posh' people. In the case of those kids on bursaries or scholarships, the parents were certainly not rich.
[Snip]
What proportion of the country would you say are 'privileged'? 1%? 5%? 10%?
90% of the population wouldn't be able to afford to send their kids to a private school no matter what sacrifices they made. To those people the parents sending their kids to private schools are definitely privileged.
Define 'privilege'.
I never had a foreign holiday as a kid. Many of my state school friends did - perhaps because their parents were not spending the money on school fees. Were they 'privileged' ?
My definition of privilege: having had a private education.
That's a really, really poor definition IMO.
from my perspective, having a healthy childhood is definitely a 'privilege', and one I didn't have ...
I am sorry you didn't have a healthy childhood but I don't think having one meets the definition of privilege:
a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group.
I'd argue that the parents of the kids at the private schools I attended were not particularly privileged. In fact there were very few 'posh' people. In the case of those kids on bursaries or scholarships, the parents were certainly not rich.
[Snip]
What proportion of the country would you say are 'privileged'? 1%? 5%? 10%?
90% of the population wouldn't be able to afford to send their kids to a private school no matter what sacrifices they made. To those people the parents sending their kids to private schools are definitely privileged.
Define 'privilege'.
I never had a foreign holiday as a kid. Many of my state school friends did - perhaps because their parents were not spending the money on school fees. Were they 'privileged' ?
My definition of privilege: having had a private education.
That's a really, really poor definition IMO.
from my perspective, having a healthy childhood is definitely a 'privilege', and one I didn't have ...
Greatest privilege any of us can have is being born into a happy family.
I'd argue that the parents of the kids at the private schools I attended were not particularly privileged. In fact there were very few 'posh' people. In the case of those kids on bursaries or scholarships, the parents were certainly not rich.
[Snip]
What proportion of the country would you say are 'privileged'? 1%? 5%? 10%?
90% of the population wouldn't be able to afford to send their kids to a private school no matter what sacrifices they made. To those people the parents sending their kids to private schools are definitely privileged.
Define 'privilege'.
I never had a foreign holiday as a kid. Many of my state school friends did - perhaps because their parents were not spending the money on school fees. Were they 'privileged' ?
That was many years ago and doesn’t tell us about the social make-up of today’s private school attenders.
Sure. Give us better data-driven examples then, instead of your own prejudices.
You'll agree if you agree, but Patrick Flynn in the Speccie sums up Sunak's national service policy very eloquently:
His resort to the old right-wing rallying cry of ‘bring back national service’ echoes the final move of his disastrous cabinet reshuffle last autumn – making the GB News presenter Esther McVey his ‘minister for common sense’. It is a gimmick from a posh liberal who thinks the plebs can be won over with eye-catching superficiality because they are too dim to notice that the important decisions are all going in the other direction.
Summoning up the spirit of Sir John Junor and Alf Garnett is hardly an effective counterweight to telling police to stop arresting so many criminals because the jails are overflowing or presiding over yet another year of recklessly excessive immigration that trashes social cohesion. Or indeed taking people for fools when it comes to the prospects of his flagship Rwanda removals plan.
That's why it won't work in a nutshell. Sunak is an insider of Britain's broken system of a social democratic consensus to his core, as is Starmer. That leaves zero room for manoeuvre, because as Truss found, genuinely breaking the consensus is going to be fought tooth and nail. So we're left with common sense tsars, flights to Rwanda that will never happen, and increasing restrictions on civil liberties gussied up as patriotic interventions on behalf of our beleaguered bobbies. The consensus will let you have any policy, as long as it's what they sort of wanted anyway.
And people are getting wise to it. That's why they don't like particularly like Starmer, and why they won't trust Sunak.
Doctor LuckyGuy is in
Background: 14 years of Conservative rule Symptoms: (too many to list here: see attached Appendices I to XXVI) Diagnosis: TOO MUCH SOCIAL DEMOCRACY Prescription: More leeches! Another lurch to the right
Hang on.
That wasn't Truss's remedy. Truss's remedy was - genuinely - a return to the 1970s. I always thought that people like Corbyn should have been overjoyed at her prospectus. More spending, less taxes, growth will pay for itself!
Were you alive in the 70s RCS? I don't remember cutting the top rate of tax to 40% being high on the agenda. Truss's shambles owes nothing to the 70s, it was a neolib wankfest gone mad.
I think RCS, myself and Truss were all born in the mid-seventies. And Truss has ensured that she will be the only PM born in that decade. Thanks Liz.
Interesting point: Starmer (b. 1962) hands over to Rayner (b. 1980) in c. 2032?
Something like that. Maybe David Beckham gets interested in politics but I don’t see it.
My personal take on the private school debate, which I've kept out of so far. The 7% who send their kids to private education are obviously over-represented, if not dominant, on here, so I thought it might be useful to give a perspective from somebody who went to, and spent all of his career in and around, state education. Obviously it's tough if the school one's kids are currently at is due to close, and I sympathise. And I don't particularly want to dwell on Labour's VAT policy (though I support it, for transparency).
But what I really do find pretty offensive is the notion held by many that the worst thing that can happen is that one's kids are forced to go to a state school. Me, my kids, and my entire extended family and friends all went to state comprehensive schools, of varying quality, and we've all done pretty well in life. I rarely come across anybody outside here who was privately educated. And you know what? We are proud of our schools. We think they gave us a great education, both academically and socially. We're not ashamed. We don't envy our private school counterparts in the slightest - each to their own.
But we are insulted by many of you who regard a state education as somehow second class. Yes, there are rubbish comprehensive schools. But there are quite a lot of rubbish private schools as well, as I discovered in my career, and they are held much less accountable than poor state schools, because it's easier for them to pull the wool over their stakeholders' eyes.
Apologies for the length of this rant - not my usual. But I feel just as strongly about this as do those who feel their interests are, or may be threatened, by the proposed change in policy (which in my view is pretty minor in the big scheme of things, if not for some individuals).
I really don't see many people on here seeing a state education as 'second class'.
As I said, in my case we *want* to send our son to a local state school. It is our favoured option - by far.
I'm sorry, but don't agree. Quite a lot of posters, over the years not just today, exhibit a sneering contempt for 'shit comprehensives' and their products. You're not one of them.
My personal take on the private school debate, which I've kept out of so far. The 7% who send their kids to private education are obviously over-represented, if not dominant, on here, so I thought it might be useful to give a perspective from somebody who went to, and spent all of his career in and around, state education. Obviously it's tough if the school one's kids are currently at is due to close, and I sympathise. And I don't particularly want to dwell on Labour's VAT policy (though I support it, for transparency).
But what I really do find pretty offensive is the notion held by many that the worst thing that can happen is that one's kids are forced to go to a state school. Me, my kids, and my entire extended family and friends all went to state comprehensive schools, of varying quality, and we've all done pretty well in life. I rarely come across anybody outside here who was privately educated. And you know what? We are proud of our schools. We think they gave us a great education, both academically and socially. We're not ashamed. We don't envy our private school counterparts in the slightest - each to their own.
But we are insulted by many of you who regard a state education as somehow second class. Yes, there are rubbish comprehensive schools. But there are quite a lot of rubbish private schools as well, as I discovered in my career, and they are held much less accountable than poor state schools, because it's easier for them to pull the wool over their stakeholders' eyes.
Apologies for the length of this rant - not my usual. But I feel just as strongly about this as do those who feel their interests are, or may be threatened, by the proposed change in policy (which in my view is pretty minor in the big scheme of things, if not for some individuals).
To give an alternative view I was sent to a state school and other pupils prevented me from learning anything because that was not the thing to do....hell I still remember being in an english class as they burnt all my notes because I was trying to learn....the teachers response...was sigh put it out to which their response was fuck off and do it yourself
It’s also worth saying that today’s state schools are, on average, much improved compared to how they were when many of us were kids.
You'll agree if you agree, but Patrick Flynn in the Speccie sums up Sunak's national service policy very eloquently:
His resort to the old right-wing rallying cry of ‘bring back national service’ echoes the final move of his disastrous cabinet reshuffle last autumn – making the GB News presenter Esther McVey his ‘minister for common sense’. It is a gimmick from a posh liberal who thinks the plebs can be won over with eye-catching superficiality because they are too dim to notice that the important decisions are all going in the other direction.
Summoning up the spirit of Sir John Junor and Alf Garnett is hardly an effective counterweight to telling police to stop arresting so many criminals because the jails are overflowing or presiding over yet another year of recklessly excessive immigration that trashes social cohesion. Or indeed taking people for fools when it comes to the prospects of his flagship Rwanda removals plan.
That's why it won't work in a nutshell. Sunak is an insider of Britain's broken system of a social democratic consensus to his core, as is Starmer. That leaves zero room for manoeuvre, because as Truss found, genuinely breaking the consensus is going to be fought tooth and nail. So we're left with common sense tsars, flights to Rwanda that will never happen, and increasing restrictions on civil liberties gussied up as patriotic interventions on behalf of our beleaguered bobbies. The consensus will let you have any policy, as long as it's what they sort of wanted anyway.
And people are getting wise to it. That's why they don't like particularly like Starmer, and why they won't trust Sunak.
Doctor LuckyGuy is in
Background: 14 years of Conservative rule Symptoms: (too many to list here: see attached Appendices I to XXVI) Diagnosis: TOO MUCH SOCIAL DEMOCRACY Prescription: More leeches! Another lurch to the right
Hang on.
That wasn't Truss's remedy. Truss's remedy was - genuinely - a return to the 1970s. I always thought that people like Corbyn should have been overjoyed at her prospectus. More spending, less taxes, growth will pay for itself!
Were you alive in the 70s RCS? I don't remember cutting the top rate of tax to 40% being high on the agenda. Truss's shambles owes nothing to the 70s, it was a neolib wankfest gone mad.
I think RCS, myself and Truss were all born in the mid-seventies. And Truss has ensured that she will be the only PM born in that decade. Thanks Liz.
Interesting point: Starmer (b. 1962) hands over to Rayner (b. 1980) in c. 2032?
Something like that. Maybe David Beckham gets interested in politics but I don’t see it.
An early Starmer retirement leading to Reeves (b. Feb 1979) is probably your best bet. Maybe an outside chance of Jonathan Ashworth (b. Oct 1978) if the party took a more Brownite turn?
Not that uncommon to only have a single PM from a whole decade - Home (1900s), Thatcher (1920s), and Major (1940s) are all in that category. And it could be worse - there were no PMs at all from either the 1820s or 1930s!
I'd argue that the parents of the kids at the private schools I attended were not particularly privileged. In fact there were very few 'posh' people. In the case of those kids on bursaries or scholarships, the parents were certainly not rich.
[Snip]
What proportion of the country would you say are 'privileged'? 1%? 5%? 10%?
90% of the population wouldn't be able to afford to send their kids to a private school no matter what sacrifices they made. To those people the parents sending their kids to private schools are definitely privileged.
Define 'privilege'.
I never had a foreign holiday as a kid. Many of my state school friends did - perhaps because their parents were not spending the money on school fees. Were they 'privileged' ?
Privileged means someone else has something I haven't got, and would like.
We're not an aspirational society anymore, sadly; we're one riven with bitterness, jealousy and resentment.
Those do describe the Conservative voting base, yes.
My personal take on the private school debate, which I've kept out of so far. The 7% who send their kids to private education are obviously over-represented, if not dominant, on here, so I thought it might be useful to give a perspective from somebody who went to, and spent all of his career in and around, state education. Obviously it's tough if the school one's kids are currently at is due to close, and I sympathise. And I don't particularly want to dwell on Labour's VAT policy (though I support it, for transparency).
But what I really do find pretty offensive is the notion held by many that the worst thing that can happen is that one's kids are forced to go to a state school. Me, my kids, and my entire extended family and friends all went to state comprehensive schools, of varying quality, and we've all done pretty well in life. I rarely come across anybody outside here who was privately educated. And you know what? We are proud of our schools. We think they gave us a great education, both academically and socially. Most of us got into good universities. We're not ashamed. We don't envy our private school counterparts in the slightest - each to their own.
But we are insulted by many of you who regard a state education as somehow second class. Yes, there are rubbish comprehensive schools, but far fewer than there used to be. But there are quite a lot of rubbish private schools as well, as I discovered in my career, and they are held much less accountable than poor state schools, because it's easier for them to pull the wool over their stakeholders' eyes.
Apologies for the length of this rant - not my usual. But I feel just as strongly about this as do those who feel their interests are, or may be threatened, by the proposed change in policy (which in my view is pretty minor in the big scheme of things, if not for some individuals).
I'd argue that the parents of the kids at the private schools I attended were not particularly privileged. In fact there were very few 'posh' people. In the case of those kids on bursaries or scholarships, the parents were certainly not rich.
[Snip]
What proportion of the country would you say are 'privileged'? 1%? 5%? 10%?
90% of the population wouldn't be able to afford to send their kids to a private school no matter what sacrifices they made. To those people the parents sending their kids to private schools are definitely privileged.
Define 'privilege'.
I never had a foreign holiday as a kid. Many of my state school friends did - perhaps because their parents were not spending the money on school fees. Were they 'privileged' ?
My definition of privilege: having had a private education.
That's a really, really poor definition IMO.
from my perspective, having a healthy childhood is definitely a 'privilege', and one I didn't have ...
I am sorry you didn't have a healthy childhood but I don't think having one meets the definition of privilege:
a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group.
I'd argue that good health is something that is 'available' to a particular group of people.
When you don't have good health, it's easy to see how privileged people who have good health are. And sometimes even act - as many disabled people can probably attest.
You'll agree if you agree, but Patrick Flynn in the Speccie sums up Sunak's national service policy very eloquently:
His resort to the old right-wing rallying cry of ‘bring back national service’ echoes the final move of his disastrous cabinet reshuffle last autumn – making the GB News presenter Esther McVey his ‘minister for common sense’. It is a gimmick from a posh liberal who thinks the plebs can be won over with eye-catching superficiality because they are too dim to notice that the important decisions are all going in the other direction.
Summoning up the spirit of Sir John Junor and Alf Garnett is hardly an effective counterweight to telling police to stop arresting so many criminals because the jails are overflowing or presiding over yet another year of recklessly excessive immigration that trashes social cohesion. Or indeed taking people for fools when it comes to the prospects of his flagship Rwanda removals plan.
That's why it won't work in a nutshell. Sunak is an insider of Britain's broken system of a social democratic consensus to his core, as is Starmer. That leaves zero room for manoeuvre, because as Truss found, genuinely breaking the consensus is going to be fought tooth and nail. So we're left with common sense tsars, flights to Rwanda that will never happen, and increasing restrictions on civil liberties gussied up as patriotic interventions on behalf of our beleaguered bobbies. The consensus will let you have any policy, as long as it's what they sort of wanted anyway.
And people are getting wise to it. That's why they don't like particularly like Starmer, and why they won't trust Sunak.
Doctor LuckyGuy is in
Background: 14 years of Conservative rule Symptoms: (too many to list here: see attached Appendices I to XXVI) Diagnosis: TOO MUCH SOCIAL DEMOCRACY Prescription: More leeches! Another lurch to the right
Hang on.
That wasn't Truss's remedy. Truss's remedy was - genuinely - a return to the 1970s. I always thought that people like Corbyn should have been overjoyed at her prospectus. More spending, less taxes, growth will pay for itself!
Were you alive in the 70s RCS? I don't remember cutting the top rate of tax to 40% being high on the agenda. Truss's shambles owes nothing to the 70s, it was a neolib wankfest gone mad.
I think RCS, myself and Truss were all born in the mid-seventies. And Truss has ensured that she will be the only PM born in that decade. Thanks Liz.
Interesting point: Starmer (b. 1962) hands over to Rayner (b. 1980) in c. 2032?
Something like that. Maybe David Beckham gets interested in politics but I don’t see it.
For the Conservatives to lose to him... that means the public must really hate the Tories.
And they do. And a lot of it is utterly self-inflicted.
To return to Casino's school problem for a moment (sorry), if we accept the premise that the school is closing "because Labour are going to win", then the blame for that falls squarely on
BoZo Truss Richi
Casino should be focusing his righteous anger on those cretins for screwing the pooch so completely
I think this is one you're struggling with as the reality of a Labour government comes into focus somewhere deep in the annals of your mind, so instead you're trying to fingerpoint to what you're comfortable fingerpointing toward instead.
The school operated on just a 2% gross margin last year. A 20% demand shock (everyone knows Labour is going to win) has led to a significant drop in the pupil roll for next year and that's been enough to put it into administration.
That wouldn't have happened were it not for Labour's VAT on private schools policy. It's killed it off.
If it helps, I think the scenario you present is all too plausible. I'm sorry that it's happened, and for the parents, pupils and teachers affected.
The pushback you're getting on this is interesting.
Will be even more interesting when it goes tits up and Labour need to fund all the pupils that cannot go to private schools and no extra VAT coming in.
And the state schools that used to get offered time on playing fields or use of arts facilities suddenly see that chance gone.
The school that my youngest daughter goes to offers use of its sports facilities to local schools. The basic access was required as a condition of planning permission, but they provide school staff, for free, to teach.
So instead of just a swimming pool* the kids get swimming lessons by trained sports coaches.
*The geniuses who drew up the condition of use ignored the issue of minimum staff for safety. So, the school could just say “here’s the swimming pool. Find a life guard”. But they don’t.
Yes I think you’d struggle to find state schools near a public school that want it shut. I didn’t go to public school and I would personally think twice about sending my kids there, but I don’t want them gone. But then I’ve never understood the politics of jealousy. Other people can have nice things without me having to have them too.
I dunno about your first line. I think state schools thrive when they are truly comprehensive; in each class there are a few Tarquins as well as plenty that Tarquin might otherwise never see or spend time with.
Tarquin is useful as a teacher as he tends to do his homework, answer questions and generally want to do well. He's useful as a school leader because his parents often organise eg PTAs.
I also don't think there is enough social mixing amongst young people at present, and I think private schools make that worse at the margins.
OTOH I can see why rich parents would baulk at Tarquin being a pawn in a game of social engineering, especially if they themselves have not had much experience outside their social bubble.
The body of your post is why I wouldn’t send mine there (don’t want them to be Tarquin). But your last paragraph I why I don’t want to attack them - let Tarquin’s parents do what they think’s best for him.
What j would continue to do is ensure public schooling is moderated against at Uni and for selection for a first job.
It just shows how little idea people have of what private schools are actually like, which they assume are all like Eton or something out of an Enid Blyton story.
These are just myths.
The kids at my local school are perfectly normal and aren't even developing cut-glass accents. It's just an independent school with its own educational ethos, that requires parents to afford £5k a term, or £1.4k a month spread over 12 months (with the extras and interest).
That's it.
Are you aware that £1.4k a month for two kids equates to more than the median salary in this country?
I haven’t really paid attention to Schoolgate on here and I’m not going to start now, particularly as it seems to be getting very personal which isn’t good.
But generally I don’t see why private schools should be VAT exempt or benefit from charitable status as many (most) do.
They are businesses and if you wish to use their services you are fully entitled to do so. And pay VAT.
No, they are not businesses: they are charities and make no profit for anyone.
But then, you've admitted you haven't paid it any attention. As you see it it's a Labour policy and that means it must be defended.
In the ordinary understanding people have of 'charity' a school could only be one if its admissions policy was unrelated to ability to pay. I have no problem with independent schools at all, but many of them (not all) are no more charities than Harrods.
Another bit of a giveaway is that they tend to pay teachers above rather than below the market rate.
The idea that paying “above the going rate” is indicative of being a charity or not is simply wrong.
Aside from “Charity Shops” which are commercial enterprises run on a “screw the workforce” basis, plenty of charity staff are well paid.
Incidentally, the idea that the pay scales for teachers are a “market rate” is an interesting one.
You have a near monopoly employer (the government) attempting to dictate pay by national negotiation with unions and then forbidding schools from deviating from the negotiated rate.
Being slightly pedantic on something that's not quite core in your argument, that's not quite right.
The charity shop model benefits from:
- Much free Labour ie volunteers. - Much free stock. - 80-100% off business rates. - Low rent usually. The pitch to the LL is often around LL not being left with the costs and security risks etc of an empty unit.
I'd suggest relatively low paid store managers etc are not the most significant element.
That has an impact on local businesses if the shop starts trading in new stock, or mint stock.
That's why I have a downer on Oxfam's shops, who do precisely that.
Rishi Sunak just joined TikTok to post about his new national service plan.
Judging by the comments, it's not going down well...
At 00:29 does Sunak really say that the volunteers could be doing search and rescue or has my brain exploded?
Yep. For 12 weekends, with no training, equipment, or supervision. That's going to go well, isn'it?
The other example role, "delivering prescriptions and food to elderly people", does at least sound a bit more realistic... but isn't that just a public sector knock-off of Deliveroo, only with even dodgier employment practices?
Where does it say they would have no training, equipment or supervision?
You'll agree if you agree, but Patrick Flynn in the Speccie sums up Sunak's national service policy very eloquently:
His resort to the old right-wing rallying cry of ‘bring back national service’ echoes the final move of his disastrous cabinet reshuffle last autumn – making the GB News presenter Esther McVey his ‘minister for common sense’. It is a gimmick from a posh liberal who thinks the plebs can be won over with eye-catching superficiality because they are too dim to notice that the important decisions are all going in the other direction.
Summoning up the spirit of Sir John Junor and Alf Garnett is hardly an effective counterweight to telling police to stop arresting so many criminals because the jails are overflowing or presiding over yet another year of recklessly excessive immigration that trashes social cohesion. Or indeed taking people for fools when it comes to the prospects of his flagship Rwanda removals plan.
That's why it won't work in a nutshell. Sunak is an insider of Britain's broken system of a social democratic consensus to his core, as is Starmer. That leaves zero room for manoeuvre, because as Truss found, genuinely breaking the consensus is going to be fought tooth and nail. So we're left with common sense tsars, flights to Rwanda that will never happen, and increasing restrictions on civil liberties gussied up as patriotic interventions on behalf of our beleaguered bobbies. The consensus will let you have any policy, as long as it's what they sort of wanted anyway.
And people are getting wise to it. That's why they don't like particularly like Starmer, and why they won't trust Sunak.
Doctor LuckyGuy is in
Background: 14 years of Conservative rule Symptoms: (too many to list here: see attached Appendices I to XXVI) Diagnosis: TOO MUCH SOCIAL DEMOCRACY Prescription: More leeches! Another lurch to the right
Hang on.
That wasn't Truss's remedy. Truss's remedy was - genuinely - a return to the 1970s. I always thought that people like Corbyn should have been overjoyed at her prospectus. More spending, less taxes, growth will pay for itself!
Were you alive in the 70s RCS? I don't remember cutting the top rate of tax to 40% being high on the agenda. Truss's shambles owes nothing to the 70s, it was a neolib wankfest gone mad.
I think RCS, myself and Truss were all born in the mid-seventies. And Truss has ensured that she will be the only PM born in that decade. Thanks Liz.
Interesting point: Starmer (b. 1962) hands over to Rayner (b. 1980) in c. 2032?
Something like that. Maybe David Beckham gets interested in politics but I don’t see it.
An early Starmer retirement leading to Reeves (b. Feb 1979) is probably your best bet. Maybe an outside chance of Jonathan Ashworth (b. Oct 1978) if the party took a more Brownite turn?
Not that uncommon to only have a single PM from a whole decade - Home (1900s), Thatcher (1920s), and Major (1940s) are all in that category. And it could be worse - there were no PMs at all from either the 1820s or 1930s!
Home, Thatcher and Major as representatives for their birth decades are infinitely preferable to the 49 day disaster. She was (as I bang on about) in my year at Oxford, which is an absolute embarrassment
Jess Phillips MP @jessphillips · 1h Well that was a rainy day! Hundreds of doors knocked in Yardley under our trusty umbrellas. I can recommend one to the PM
For the Conservatives to lose to him... that means the public must really hate the Tories.
And they do. And a lot of it is utterly self-inflicted.
To return to Casino's school problem for a moment (sorry), if we accept the premise that the school is closing "because Labour are going to win", then the blame for that falls squarely on
BoZo Truss Richi
Casino should be focusing his righteous anger on those cretins for screwing the pooch so completely
I think this is one you're struggling with as the reality of a Labour government comes into focus somewhere deep in the annals of your mind, so instead you're trying to fingerpoint to what you're comfortable fingerpointing toward instead.
The school operated on just a 2% gross margin last year. A 20% demand shock (everyone knows Labour is going to win) has led to a significant drop in the pupil roll for next year and that's been enough to put it into administration.
That wouldn't have happened were it not for Labour's VAT on private schools policy. It's killed it off.
If it helps, I think the scenario you present is all too plausible. I'm sorry that it's happened, and for the parents, pupils and teachers affected.
The pushback you're getting on this is interesting.
The pushback I'm getting is because absolutely no-one wants to hear anything negative about Keir Starmer and our prospective new Labour government.
You get pushback because it is patently absurd to be blaming a future Labour government for a school closing in 2024, whatever cartwheels you are doing in your brain to justify otherwise.
It's not absurd in the slightest, and is factually accurate - inconveniently for you.
Everyone knows Labour will win, and the policy that will be introduced next academic year. That's altering the behaviour of prospective future parents now, because many can't afford a 20%+ uplift in fees for years, which would be permanent, and leading to closures now of marginal schools.
This is simply a fact, it's just one you don't want to acknowledge prior to the election.
I'd argue that the parents of the kids at the private schools I attended were not particularly privileged. In fact there were very few 'posh' people. In the case of those kids on bursaries or scholarships, the parents were certainly not rich.
I think this is a mistake some make: they assume that all private schools are Eton or Harrow. Many are local schools, serving local people (shades of Royston Vasey...), and the parents struggle and make sacrifices to send their kids to the school. Mine certainly did.
So, another anecdote. We live less than ten minutes' walk from an 'outstanding' secondary school, and one my son wants to go to. We moved here before the school was built, so we can hardly be accused of moving to be near it!
We (currently...) are in the fortunate situation where we could afford to send our son to a private school. Since we're tight, and the local secondary is good and so near, we don't want to go private. He also wants to go there.
However, a fair few kids in the village have been allocated to a school half an hour's drive away, which has a terrible reputation locally, and does not have stellar results. *If* the council choose to send him there, in their infinite wisdom, we would be faced with a choice. Do I want to drive my son to and from a poor school every day, or have him go on a complex bus journey, or do we send him to a local private school? I'd still have to drive him, or he would have to go on a bus, but it would at least be to a decent school.
I'd laugh in the face of anyone who told me that I was doing the 'wrong' thing in sending him to a private school in that situation.
But when did you attend private school? I attended private school in the 70s and 80s. Private school fees have risen by much more than inflation since then. They have become more selective, more limited to the richest. They’re not the same social mix as when we attended.
So, that’s a considerably bigger increase than the addition of VAT now would be. I don’t know why that is. Are the schools profiteering? Are they offering a different kind of service? Do schooling costs just rise much more quickly than general inflation? But we have a sector that has been hiking fees for years that’s not talking about why they hiked fees but is keen on talking about how Labour’s policy will make them unaffordable.
I went to both state and private schools at various times, between the late 1970s to the early 1990s.
And yes, I know costs have increased. And many prospective parents have been priced out as a result - and some schools have closed. But that's not an excuse to add an artificial cost on top of it. In the case of my old school, the facilities have apparently improved massively. Have they improved enough to compensate for the extra costs? I don't know - in the case of boarders, perhaps.
It’s not an excuse to add VAT, no. That is a political decision by a party I’m not voting for. But it does suggest to me that (a) our experience of who went to private school when we were kids doesn’t tell us all that much about who goes now, (b) consumers are more willing to tolerate price rises than some people here suggest, and (c) the schools crying “woe is me” may, in some cases (not Casino’s), be doing very nicely for themselves.
Rishi Sunak just joined TikTok to post about his new national service plan.
Judging by the comments, it's not going down well...
At 00:29 does Sunak really say that the volunteers could be doing search and rescue or has my brain exploded?
Yep. For 12 weekends, with no training, equipment, or supervision. That's going to go well, isn'it?
The other example role, "delivering prescriptions and food to elderly people", does at least sound a bit more realistic... but isn't that just a public sector knock-off of Deliveroo, only with even dodgier employment practices?
Where does it say they would have no training, equipment or supervision?
Rishi Sunak just joined TikTok to post about his new national service plan.
Judging by the comments, it's not going down well...
At 00:29 does Sunak really say that the volunteers could be doing search and rescue or has my brain exploded?
Yep. For 12 weekends, with no training, equipment, or supervision. That's going to go well, isn'it?
The other example role, "delivering prescriptions and food to elderly people", does at least sound a bit more realistic... but isn't that just a public sector knock-off of Deliveroo, only with even dodgier employment practices?
What Rishi meant was that volunteers could be requiring search and rescue at any time during their training. Keeps the real guys on their toes.
That's not a bad idea. Realistic training is always hard to come by. Sort of like a YTS Running Man Scheme. I like it.
For the Conservatives to lose to him... that means the public must really hate the Tories.
And they do. And a lot of it is utterly self-inflicted.
To return to Casino's school problem for a moment (sorry), if we accept the premise that the school is closing "because Labour are going to win", then the blame for that falls squarely on
BoZo Truss Richi
Casino should be focusing his righteous anger on those cretins for screwing the pooch so completely
I think this is one you're struggling with as the reality of a Labour government comes into focus somewhere deep in the annals of your mind, so instead you're trying to fingerpoint to what you're comfortable fingerpointing toward instead.
The school operated on just a 2% gross margin last year. A 20% demand shock (everyone knows Labour is going to win) has led to a significant drop in the pupil roll for next year and that's been enough to put it into administration.
That wouldn't have happened were it not for Labour's VAT on private schools policy. It's killed it off.
If it helps, I think the scenario you present is all too plausible. I'm sorry that it's happened, and for the parents, pupils and teachers affected.
The pushback you're getting on this is interesting.
He gets pushback because he's a hell-crazed loon who's "willing to wade through blood" to stop Starmer destroying his children.
He's upset about a child's school closing - as I hope you would be too, if it happened to one of your kids' schools (*). It's an upsetting thing to have happen, and the reaction on here has been tantamount to "You're lying!!!"
CR goes over the top at times - as well all do. But the reaction to him over this has been over the top as well.
Have a little compassion for someone who's upset.
(*) Assuming you have some.
I don't really want to comment on Casino's position individually (other than to express sympathy for what must be a right pain for his family).
I'm with @malcolmg - this is a place where disagreements are sometimes rambunctious and that's good.
But (speaking as someone who spends their weekdays with teenagers) compassion for someone who has upset is very different from excusing someone who lashes out at others when they're upset. The latter perpetuates a problem, the former can end it.
I agree. However: IMV the lashing out occurred *after* people essentially accused CR of being untruthful.
As it happens, I have an anecdote. My son was recently quite ill. When he was released from hospital, I wrote a post stating how good the NHS had been. For the next few days, I was tired, concerned and emotional. A while later, I felt a certain poster was being deliberately cruel to me. I decided not to respond.
A few days later, with my son improving, I read back the thread and realised my reaction had been out of order, and I was glad I ignored the post and had not responded.
So there are perhaps three lessons: 1) Remember that getting angry might be *your* problem, not the person you are getting angry towards; 2) If you are tired, emotional or upset, perhaps don't post - and especially don't argue. It won't help. 3) You may not know what someone on t'Internet has going on in their personal lives. Try to be kind, and detect the signs that someone is genuinely stressed or upset.
(And yes, I fail at these at times as well. Too often, sadly...)
Sympathies for your son. Glad to hear he's improving. I'm a minnow in here and don't always read comments, I missed your post at the time.
I two-thirds agree with your substantive point. Points (1) and (2) are bang on imv. But I think (3) creates sanitised, dull discussions where brusque frankness, pushing into rudeness/attacking, allows for a much healthier debate. I think it fits in with a commitment to free speech.
At a basic level, if you're any of what you list in (2), posting on an anonymous internet forum is your call. I don't think others should self-censor in order to protect you.
It's sort of anonymous and it sort of isn't.
I've made good friends through this site, and it's worth remembering that there's always a real human at the other end of the keyboard.
If I believed that for a second I’d go mad. You’re all AI models here for my amusement.
Rishi Sunak just joined TikTok to post about his new national service plan.
Judging by the comments, it's not going down well...
At 00:29 does Sunak really say that the volunteers could be doing search and rescue or has my brain exploded?
Why not? Mountain rescue can always train up and then use volunteers.
They’ve got them for 5 weeks. How much training do they need? Most of the examples the Tories have given us so far need considerably more training time than that.
For the Conservatives to lose to him... that means the public must really hate the Tories.
And they do. And a lot of it is utterly self-inflicted.
To return to Casino's school problem for a moment (sorry), if we accept the premise that the school is closing "because Labour are going to win", then the blame for that falls squarely on
BoZo Truss Richi
Casino should be focusing his righteous anger on those cretins for screwing the pooch so completely
I think this is one you're struggling with as the reality of a Labour government comes into focus somewhere deep in the annals of your mind, so instead you're trying to fingerpoint to what you're comfortable fingerpointing toward instead.
The school operated on just a 2% gross margin last year. A 20% demand shock (everyone knows Labour is going to win) has led to a significant drop in the pupil roll for next year and that's been enough to put it into administration.
That wouldn't have happened were it not for Labour's VAT on private schools policy. It's killed it off.
If it helps, I think the scenario you present is all too plausible. I'm sorry that it's happened, and for the parents, pupils and teachers affected.
The pushback you're getting on this is interesting.
Will be even more interesting when it goes tits up and Labour need to fund all the pupils that cannot go to private schools and no extra VAT coming in.
And the state schools that used to get offered time on playing fields or use of arts facilities suddenly see that chance gone.
The school that my youngest daughter goes to offers use of its sports facilities to local schools. The basic access was required as a condition of planning permission, but they provide school staff, for free, to teach.
So instead of just a swimming pool* the kids get swimming lessons by trained sports coaches.
*The geniuses who drew up the condition of use ignored the issue of minimum staff for safety. So, the school could just say “here’s the swimming pool. Find a life guard”. But they don’t.
Yes I think you’d struggle to find state schools near a public school that want it shut. I didn’t go to public school and I would personally think twice about sending my kids there, but I don’t want them gone. But then I’ve never understood the politics of jealousy. Other people can have nice things without me having to have them too.
I dunno about your first line. I think state schools thrive when they are truly comprehensive; in each class there are a few Tarquins as well as plenty that Tarquin might otherwise never see or spend time with.
Tarquin is useful as a teacher as he tends to do his homework, answer questions and generally want to do well. He's useful as a school leader because his parents often organise eg PTAs.
I also don't think there is enough social mixing amongst young people at present, and I think private schools make that worse at the margins.
OTOH I can see why rich parents would baulk at Tarquin being a pawn in a game of social engineering, especially if they themselves have not had much experience outside their social bubble.
The body of your post is why I wouldn’t send mine there (don’t want them to be Tarquin). But your last paragraph I why I don’t want to attack them - let Tarquin’s parents do what they think’s best for him.
What j would continue to do is ensure public schooling is moderated against at Uni and for selection for a first job.
It just shows how little idea people have of what private schools are actually like, which they assume are all like Eton or something out of an Enid Blyton story.
These are just myths.
The kids at my local school are perfectly normal and aren't even developing cut-glass accents. It's just an independent school with its own educational ethos, that requires parents to afford £5k a term, or £1.4k a month spread over 12 months (with the extras and interest).
That's it.
But that's the heart of the matter.
Families with £1400 a month per child to spare are extremely abnormal. And an educational ethos that costs 2-3 times as much as the government chooses to spend more on most children is a luxury ethos.
Independent schools decided to price themselves out of the middle class market, largely because they could.
I hope it works out for your family, but the sector has been mismanaging itself for ages. Even if Labour's proposals hadn't delivered the coup de grace, something else would have.
Not really. Most families pay that for a full-time nursery place. And that's a strong plurality of parents. It's simply extending it from the age of 5 to 18, rather than ending it at that stage.
Rishi Sunak just joined TikTok to post about his new national service plan.
Judging by the comments, it's not going down well...
At 00:29 does Sunak really say that the volunteers could be doing search and rescue or has my brain exploded?
Yep. For 12 weekends, with no training, equipment, or supervision. That's going to go well, isn'it?
The other example role, "delivering prescriptions and food to elderly people", does at least sound a bit more realistic... but isn't that just a public sector knock-off of Deliveroo, only with even dodgier employment practices?
What Rishi meant was that volunteers could be requiring search and rescue at any time during their training. Keeps the real guys on their toes.
That's not a bad idea. Realistic training is always hard to come by. Sort of like a YTS Running Man Scheme. I like it.
That is the simile I was looking for earlier. Well done sir!
My personal take on the private school debate, which I've kept out of so far. The 7% who send their kids to private education are obviously over-represented, if not dominant, on here, so I thought it might be useful to give a perspective from somebody who went to, and spent all of his career in and around, state education. Obviously it's tough if the school one's kids are currently at is due to close, and I sympathise. And I don't particularly want to dwell on Labour's VAT policy (though I support it, for transparency).
But what I really do find pretty offensive is the notion held by many that the worst thing that can happen is that one's kids are forced to go to a state school. Me, my kids, and my entire extended family and friends all went to state comprehensive schools, of varying quality, and we've all done pretty well in life. I rarely come across anybody outside here who was privately educated. And you know what? We are proud of our schools. We think they gave us a great education, both academically and socially. Most of us got into good universities. We're not ashamed. We don't envy our private school counterparts in the slightest - each to their own.
But we are insulted by many of you who regard a state education as somehow second class. Yes, there are rubbish comprehensive schools, but far fewer than there used to be. But there are quite a lot of rubbish private schools as well, as I discovered in my career, and they are held much less accountable than poor state schools, because it's easier for them to pull the wool over their stakeholders' eyes.
Apologies for the length of this rant - not my usual. But I feel just as strongly about this as do those who feel their interests are, or may be threatened, by the proposed change in policy (which in my view is pretty minor in the big scheme of things, if not for some individuals).
Yes, I heartily agree.
I was educated exclusively in state schools in England and USA, finishing at the excellent Peter Symonds sixth form college, not so far from CR in Hampshire. It is one of the two Comprehensive schools in the top ten schools sending students to Cambridge, I think it was 5th overall.
Obviously I did well academically there, as did my two sibs one getting an exhibition to Cambridge, the other to LSE. We also had great extracurricular activities and friends from all sorts of backgrounds. I don't recall anyone needing extra tuition.
I'd argue that the parents of the kids at the private schools I attended were not particularly privileged. In fact there were very few 'posh' people. In the case of those kids on bursaries or scholarships, the parents were certainly not rich.
I think this is a mistake some make: they assume that all private schools are Eton or Harrow. Many are local schools, serving local people (shades of Royston Vasey...), and the parents struggle and make sacrifices to send their kids to the school. Mine certainly did.
So, another anecdote. We live less than ten minutes' walk from an 'outstanding' secondary school, and one my son wants to go to. We moved here before the school was built, so we can hardly be accused of moving to be near it!
We (currently...) are in the fortunate situation where we could afford to send our son to a private school. Since we're tight, and the local secondary is good and so near, we don't want to go private. He also wants to go there.
However, a fair few kids in the village have been allocated to a school half an hour's drive away, which has a terrible reputation locally, and does not have stellar results. *If* the council choose to send him there, in their infinite wisdom, we would be faced with a choice. Do I want to drive my son to and from a poor school every day, or have him go on a complex bus journey, or do we send him to a local private school? I'd still have to drive him, or he would have to go on a bus, but it would at least be to a decent school.
I'd laugh in the face of anyone who told me that I was doing the 'wrong' thing in sending him to a private school in that situation.
But when did you attend private school? I attended private school in the 70s and 80s. Private school fees have risen by much more than inflation since then. They have become more selective, more limited to the richest. They’re not the same social mix as when we attended.
So, that’s a considerably bigger increase than the addition of VAT now would be. I don’t know why that is. Are the schools profiteering? Are they offering a different kind of service? Do schooling costs just rise much more quickly than general inflation? But we have a sector that has been hiking fees for years that’s not talking about why they hiked fees but is keen on talking about how Labour’s policy will make them unaffordable.
I went to both state and private schools at various times, between the late 1970s to the early 1990s.
And yes, I know costs have increased. And many prospective parents have been priced out as a result - and some schools have closed. But that's not an excuse to add an artificial cost on top of it. In the case of my old school, the facilities have apparently improved massively. Have they improved enough to compensate for the extra costs? I don't know - in the case of boarders, perhaps.
It’s not an excuse to add VAT, no. That is a political decision by a party I’m not voting for. But it does suggest to me that (a) our experience of who went to private school when we were kids doesn’t tell us all that much about who goes now, (b) consumers are more willing to tolerate price rises than some people here suggest, and (c) the schools crying “woe is me” may, in some cases (not Casino’s), be doing very nicely for themselves.
a) So what better data do you have? b) That elasticity will have a limit. To use an engineering term, it will reach a plastic point where something will give. Besides, some private schools have closed - one in Abbots Bromley, as an example. c) That's an assumption on your part that might cover a very real fear on their part.
Rishi Sunak just joined TikTok to post about his new national service plan.
Judging by the comments, it's not going down well...
At 00:29 does Sunak really say that the volunteers could be doing search and rescue or has my brain exploded?
Yep. For 12 weekends, with no training, equipment, or supervision. That's going to go well, isn'it?
The other example role, "delivering prescriptions and food to elderly people", does at least sound a bit more realistic... but isn't that just a public sector knock-off of Deliveroo, only with even dodgier employment practices?
Where does it say they would have no training, equipment or supervision?
I don't know about none at all, but if the total commitment is 24 days, how much training is it possible/sensible to give?
If it's happening at weekends, when most organisations run on skeleton staffs, how much supervision will there be?
But if you take a think-tank essay and dump it in a manifesto undigested, what do you expect? Policy wonks don't think about this sort of detail.
And since it's not meant to be a real policy, who cares if it's only a cardboard cutout?
My personal take on the private school debate, which I've kept out of so far. The 7% who send their kids to private education are obviously over-represented, if not dominant, on here, so I thought it might be useful to give a perspective from somebody who went to, and spent all of his career in and around, state education. Obviously it's tough if the school one's kids are currently at is due to close, and I sympathise. And I don't particularly want to dwell on Labour's VAT policy (though I support it, for transparency).
But what I really do find pretty offensive is the notion held by many that the worst thing that can happen is that one's kids are forced to go to a state school. Me, my kids, and my entire extended family and friends all went to state comprehensive schools, of varying quality, and we've all done pretty well in life. I rarely come across anybody outside here who was privately educated. And you know what? We are proud of our schools. We think they gave us a great education, both academically and socially. We're not ashamed. We don't envy our private school counterparts in the slightest - each to their own.
But we are insulted by many of you who regard a state education as somehow second class. Yes, there are rubbish comprehensive schools. But there are quite a lot of rubbish private schools as well, as I discovered in my career, and they are held much less accountable than poor state schools, because it's easier for them to pull the wool over their stakeholders' eyes.
Apologies for the length of this rant - not my usual. But I feel just as strongly about this as do those who feel their interests are, or may be threatened, by the proposed change in policy (which in my view is pretty minor in the big scheme of things, if not for some individuals).
I really don't see many people on here seeing a state education as 'second class'.
As I said, in my case we *want* to send our son to a local state school. It is our favoured option - by far.
I'm sorry, but don't agree. Quite a lot of posters, over the years not just today, exhibit a sneering contempt for 'shit comprehensives' and their products. You're not one of them.
What about those of us who exhibit a sneering contempt for public schools and their shitty products?
I'd argue that the parents of the kids at the private schools I attended were not particularly privileged. In fact there were very few 'posh' people. In the case of those kids on bursaries or scholarships, the parents were certainly not rich.
[Snip]
What proportion of the country would you say are 'privileged'? 1%? 5%? 10%?
90% of the population wouldn't be able to afford to send their kids to a private school no matter what sacrifices they made. To those people the parents sending their kids to private schools are definitely privileged.
Define 'privilege'.
I never had a foreign holiday as a kid. Many of my state school friends did - perhaps because their parents were not spending the money on school fees. Were they 'privileged' ?
That was many years ago and doesn’t tell us about the social make-up of today’s private school attenders.
Sure. Give us better data-driven examples then, instead of your own prejudices.
What prejudices are you saying I’ve given?
As for data-driven examples, I’ve pointed to the House of Lords library report on the issue and to an Independent article on rises in fees.
For the Conservatives to lose to him... that means the public must really hate the Tories.
And they do. And a lot of it is utterly self-inflicted.
To return to Casino's school problem for a moment (sorry), if we accept the premise that the school is closing "because Labour are going to win", then the blame for that falls squarely on
BoZo Truss Richi
Casino should be focusing his righteous anger on those cretins for screwing the pooch so completely
I think this is one you're struggling with as the reality of a Labour government comes into focus somewhere deep in the annals of your mind, so instead you're trying to fingerpoint to what you're comfortable fingerpointing toward instead.
The school operated on just a 2% gross margin last year. A 20% demand shock (everyone knows Labour is going to win) has led to a significant drop in the pupil roll for next year and that's been enough to put it into administration.
That wouldn't have happened were it not for Labour's VAT on private schools policy. It's killed it off.
If it helps, I think the scenario you present is all too plausible. I'm sorry that it's happened, and for the parents, pupils and teachers affected.
The pushback you're getting on this is interesting.
Will be even more interesting when it goes tits up and Labour need to fund all the pupils that cannot go to private schools and no extra VAT coming in.
And the state schools that used to get offered time on playing fields or use of arts facilities suddenly see that chance gone.
The school that my youngest daughter goes to offers use of its sports facilities to local schools. The basic access was required as a condition of planning permission, but they provide school staff, for free, to teach.
So instead of just a swimming pool* the kids get swimming lessons by trained sports coaches.
*The geniuses who drew up the condition of use ignored the issue of minimum staff for safety. So, the school could just say “here’s the swimming pool. Find a life guard”. But they don’t.
Yes I think you’d struggle to find state schools near a public school that want it shut. I didn’t go to public school and I would personally think twice about sending my kids there, but I don’t want them gone. But then I’ve never understood the politics of jealousy. Other people can have nice things without me having to have them too.
I dunno about your first line. I think state schools thrive when they are truly comprehensive; in each class there are a few Tarquins as well as plenty that Tarquin might otherwise never see or spend time with.
Tarquin is useful as a teacher as he tends to do his homework, answer questions and generally want to do well. He's useful as a school leader because his parents often organise eg PTAs.
I also don't think there is enough social mixing amongst young people at present, and I think private schools make that worse at the margins.
OTOH I can see why rich parents would baulk at Tarquin being a pawn in a game of social engineering, especially if they themselves have not had much experience outside their social bubble.
The body of your post is why I wouldn’t send mine there (don’t want them to be Tarquin). But your last paragraph I why I don’t want to attack them - let Tarquin’s parents do what they think’s best for him.
What j would continue to do is ensure public schooling is moderated against at Uni and for selection for a first job.
It just shows how little idea people have of what private schools are actually like, which they assume are all like Eton or something out of an Enid Blyton story.
These are just myths.
The kids at my local school are perfectly normal and aren't even developing cut-glass accents. It's just an independent school with its own educational ethos, that requires parents to afford £5k a term, or £1.4k a month spread over 12 months (with the extras and interest).
That's it.
But that's the heart of the matter.
Families with £1400 a month per child to spare are extremely abnormal. And an educational ethos that costs 2-3 times as much as the government chooses to spend more on most children is a luxury ethos.
Independent schools decided to price themselves out of the middle class market, largely because they could.
I hope it works out for your family, but the sector has been mismanaging itself for ages. Even if Labour's proposals hadn't delivered the coup de grace, something else would have.
Not really. Most families pay that for a full-time nursery place. And that's a strong plurality of parents. It's simply extending it from the age of 5 to 18, rather than ending it at that stage.
For the Conservatives to lose to him... that means the public must really hate the Tories.
And they do. And a lot of it is utterly self-inflicted.
To return to Casino's school problem for a moment (sorry), if we accept the premise that the school is closing "because Labour are going to win", then the blame for that falls squarely on
BoZo Truss Richi
Casino should be focusing his righteous anger on those cretins for screwing the pooch so completely
I think this is one you're struggling with as the reality of a Labour government comes into focus somewhere deep in the annals of your mind, so instead you're trying to fingerpoint to what you're comfortable fingerpointing toward instead.
The school operated on just a 2% gross margin last year. A 20% demand shock (everyone knows Labour is going to win) has led to a significant drop in the pupil roll for next year and that's been enough to put it into administration.
That wouldn't have happened were it not for Labour's VAT on private schools policy. It's killed it off.
If it helps, I think the scenario you present is all too plausible. I'm sorry that it's happened, and for the parents, pupils and teachers affected.
The pushback you're getting on this is interesting.
He gets pushback because he's a hell-crazed loon who's "willing to wade through blood" to stop Starmer destroying his children.
He's upset about a child's school closing - as I hope you would be too, if it happened to one of your kids' schools (*). It's an upsetting thing to have happen, and the reaction on here has been tantamount to "You're lying!!!"
CR goes over the top at times - as well all do. But the reaction to him over this has been over the top as well.
Have a little compassion for someone who's upset.
(*) Assuming you have some.
I don't really want to comment on Casino's position individually (other than to express sympathy for what must be a right pain for his family).
I'm with @malcolmg - this is a place where disagreements are sometimes rambunctious and that's good.
But (speaking as someone who spends their weekdays with teenagers) compassion for someone who has upset is very different from excusing someone who lashes out at others when they're upset. The latter perpetuates a problem, the former can end it.
I agree. However: IMV the lashing out occurred *after* people essentially accused CR of being untruthful.
As it happens, I have an anecdote. My son was recently quite ill. When he was released from hospital, I wrote a post stating how good the NHS had been. For the next few days, I was tired, concerned and emotional. A while later, I felt a certain poster was being deliberately cruel to me. I decided not to respond.
A few days later, with my son improving, I read back the thread and realised my reaction had been out of order, and I was glad I ignored the post and had not responded.
So there are perhaps three lessons: 1) Remember that getting angry might be *your* problem, not the person you are getting angry towards; 2) If you are tired, emotional or upset, perhaps don't post - and especially don't argue. It won't help. 3) You may not know what someone on t'Internet has going on in their personal lives. Try to be kind, and detect the signs that someone is genuinely stressed or upset.
(And yes, I fail at these at times as well. Too often, sadly...)
Sympathies for your son. Glad to hear he's improving. I'm a minnow in here and don't always read comments, I missed your post at the time.
I two-thirds agree with your substantive point. Points (1) and (2) are bang on imv. But I think (3) creates sanitised, dull discussions where brusque frankness, pushing into rudeness/attacking, allows for a much healthier debate. I think it fits in with a commitment to free speech.
At a basic level, if you're any of what you list in (2), posting on an anonymous internet forum is your call. I don't think others should self-censor in order to protect you.
It's sort of anonymous and it sort of isn't.
I've made good friends through this site, and it's worth remembering that there's always a real human at the other end of the keyboard.
My personal take on the private school debate, which I've kept out of so far. The 7% who send their kids to private education are obviously over-represented, if not dominant, on here, so I thought it might be useful to give a perspective from somebody who went to, and spent all of his career in and around, state education. Obviously it's tough if the school one's kids are currently at is due to close, and I sympathise. And I don't particularly want to dwell on Labour's VAT policy (though I support it, for transparency).
But what I really do find pretty offensive is the notion held by many that the worst thing that can happen is that one's kids are forced to go to a state school. Me, my kids, and my entire extended family and friends all went to state comprehensive schools, of varying quality, and we've all done pretty well in life. I rarely come across anybody outside here who was privately educated. And you know what? We are proud of our schools. We think they gave us a great education, both academically and socially. Most of us got into good universities. We're not ashamed. We don't envy our private school counterparts in the slightest - each to their own.
But we are insulted by many of you who regard a state education as somehow second class. Yes, there are rubbish comprehensive schools, but far fewer than there used to be. But there are quite a lot of rubbish private schools as well, as I discovered in my career, and they are held much less accountable than poor state schools, because it's easier for them to pull the wool over their stakeholders' eyes.
Apologies for the length of this rant - not my usual. But I feel just as strongly about this as do those who feel their interests are, or may be threatened, by the proposed change in policy (which in my view is pretty minor in the big scheme of things, if not for some individuals).
Yes, I heartily agree.
I was educated exclusively in state schools in England and USA, finishing at the excellent Peter Symonds sixth form college, not so far from CR in Hampshire. It is one of the two Comprehensive schools in the top ten schools sending students to Cambridge, I think it was 5th overall.
Obviously I did well academically there, as did my two sibs one getting an exhibition to Cambridge, the other to LSE. We also had great extracurricular activities and friends from all sorts of backgrounds. I don't recall anyone needing extra tuition.
I'd argue that the parents of the kids at the private schools I attended were not particularly privileged. In fact there were very few 'posh' people. In the case of those kids on bursaries or scholarships, the parents were certainly not rich.
[Snip]
What proportion of the country would you say are 'privileged'? 1%? 5%? 10%?
90% of the population wouldn't be able to afford to send their kids to a private school no matter what sacrifices they made. To those people the parents sending their kids to private schools are definitely privileged.
Define 'privilege'.
I never had a foreign holiday as a kid. Many of my state school friends did - perhaps because their parents were not spending the money on school fees. Were they 'privileged' ?
Privileged means someone else has something I haven't got, and would like.
We're not an aspirational society anymore, sadly; we're one riven with bitterness, jealousy and resentment.
Privilege is buying your child a ticket that gives them a ten-fold better chance of a top job.
This is such a myth. It's astonishing people believe this. I don't know anyone from my old school, outside of two people I'm still vaguely in touch with on Facebook, and nor has anyone ever helped me out.
Those who have helped have been those I've met through my working career as I've developed my professional network. And, that's through my employers and clients. And, no, secret handshakes and ties have never come into it.
My personal take on the private school debate, which I've kept out of so far. The 7% who send their kids to private education are obviously over-represented, if not dominant, on here, so I thought it might be useful to give a perspective from somebody who went to, and spent all of his career in and around, state education. Obviously it's tough if the school one's kids are currently at is due to close, and I sympathise. And I don't particularly want to dwell on Labour's VAT policy (though I support it, for transparency).
But what I really do find pretty offensive is the notion held by many that the worst thing that can happen is that one's kids are forced to go to a state school. Me, my kids, and my entire extended family and friends all went to state comprehensive schools, of varying quality, and we've all done pretty well in life. I rarely come across anybody outside here who was privately educated. And you know what? We are proud of our schools. We think they gave us a great education, both academically and socially. We're not ashamed. We don't envy our private school counterparts in the slightest - each to their own.
But we are insulted by many of you who regard a state education as somehow second class. Yes, there are rubbish comprehensive schools. But there are quite a lot of rubbish private schools as well, as I discovered in my career, and they are held much less accountable than poor state schools, because it's easier for them to pull the wool over their stakeholders' eyes.
Apologies for the length of this rant - not my usual. But I feel just as strongly about this as do those who feel their interests are, or may be threatened, by the proposed change in policy (which in my view is pretty minor in the big scheme of things, if not for some individuals).
I really don't see many people on here seeing a state education as 'second class'.
As I said, in my case we *want* to send our son to a local state school. It is our favoured option - by far.
I'm sorry, but don't agree. Quite a lot of posters, over the years not just today, exhibit a sneering contempt for 'shit comprehensives' and their products. You're not one of them.
What about those of us who exhibit a sneering contempt for public schools and their shitty products?
As a Gen X, Grammar School, product I just want not to be ignored anymore
I'd argue that the parents of the kids at the private schools I attended were not particularly privileged. In fact there were very few 'posh' people. In the case of those kids on bursaries or scholarships, the parents were certainly not rich.
I think this is a mistake some make: they assume that all private schools are Eton or Harrow. Many are local schools, serving local people (shades of Royston Vasey...), and the parents struggle and make sacrifices to send their kids to the school. Mine certainly did.
So, another anecdote. We live less than ten minutes' walk from an 'outstanding' secondary school, and one my son wants to go to. We moved here before the school was built, so we can hardly be accused of moving to be near it!
We (currently...) are in the fortunate situation where we could afford to send our son to a private school. Since we're tight, and the local secondary is good and so near, we don't want to go private. He also wants to go there.
However, a fair few kids in the village have been allocated to a school half an hour's drive away, which has a terrible reputation locally, and does not have stellar results. *If* the council choose to send him there, in their infinite wisdom, we would be faced with a choice. Do I want to drive my son to and from a poor school every day, or have him go on a complex bus journey, or do we send him to a local private school? I'd still have to drive him, or he would have to go on a bus, but it would at least be to a decent school.
I'd laugh in the face of anyone who told me that I was doing the 'wrong' thing in sending him to a private school in that situation.
A lot of private schools are not even schools. There are several converted shops round here offering after-school tuition.
I'm not quite sure what that has to do with my situation, but home schooling with tutors is another potential course we could take if he gets allocated the school we don't want him at. But the biggest problem with that is that he's an only child, and I see socialisation as vital for kids. Besides, an acquaintance was home-schooled, and even though he loves his parents, he hated the experience.
After-school tuition, not home schooling with tutors.
And after-school tuition done in a converted shop, i.e. with other children.
One thing Labour do need to clarify is whether they intend to levy VAT on private tuition as well as independent schools.
Or at least, if they've said what their views are I haven't seen them yet.
Is it usual for tutors to go over the £90k VAT threshold?
Doesn't really seem worth worrying about if it only affects one or two in unusual circumstances, but if it's more widespread then I don't see why they shouldn't.
I know that driving instructors do, as do dance teachers - but both of those tend to do it full time so likely make more money than after-school tutors.
You'll agree if you agree, but Patrick Flynn in the Speccie sums up Sunak's national service policy very eloquently:
His resort to the old right-wing rallying cry of ‘bring back national service’ echoes the final move of his disastrous cabinet reshuffle last autumn – making the GB News presenter Esther McVey his ‘minister for common sense’. It is a gimmick from a posh liberal who thinks the plebs can be won over with eye-catching superficiality because they are too dim to notice that the important decisions are all going in the other direction.
Summoning up the spirit of Sir John Junor and Alf Garnett is hardly an effective counterweight to telling police to stop arresting so many criminals because the jails are overflowing or presiding over yet another year of recklessly excessive immigration that trashes social cohesion. Or indeed taking people for fools when it comes to the prospects of his flagship Rwanda removals plan.
That's why it won't work in a nutshell. Sunak is an insider of Britain's broken system of a social democratic consensus to his core, as is Starmer. That leaves zero room for manoeuvre, because as Truss found, genuinely breaking the consensus is going to be fought tooth and nail. So we're left with common sense tsars, flights to Rwanda that will never happen, and increasing restrictions on civil liberties gussied up as patriotic interventions on behalf of our beleaguered bobbies. The consensus will let you have any policy, as long as it's what they sort of wanted anyway.
And people are getting wise to it. That's why they don't like particularly like Starmer, and why they won't trust Sunak.
Doctor LuckyGuy is in
Background: 14 years of Conservative rule Symptoms: (too many to list here: see attached Appendices I to XXVI) Diagnosis: TOO MUCH SOCIAL DEMOCRACY Prescription: More leeches! Another lurch to the right
Hang on.
That wasn't Truss's remedy. Truss's remedy was - genuinely - a return to the 1970s. I always thought that people like Corbyn should have been overjoyed at her prospectus. More spending, less taxes, growth will pay for itself!
Were you alive in the 70s RCS? I don't remember cutting the top rate of tax to 40% being high on the agenda. Truss's shambles owes nothing to the 70s, it was a neolib wankfest gone mad.
I think RCS, myself and Truss were all born in the mid-seventies. And Truss has ensured that she will be the only PM born in that decade. Thanks Liz.
Interesting point: Starmer (b. 1962) hands over to Rayner (b. 1980) in c. 2032?
Something like that. Maybe David Beckham gets interested in politics but I don’t see it.
An early Starmer retirement leading to Reeves (b. Feb 1979) is probably your best bet. Maybe an outside chance of Jonathan Ashworth (b. Oct 1978) if the party took a more Brownite turn?
Not that uncommon to only have a single PM from a whole decade - Home (1900s), Thatcher (1920s), and Major (1940s) are all in that category. And it could be worse - there were no PMs at all from either the 1820s or 1930s!
Although, interestingly, the US has had a whole bunch of Presidents from the 1940s:
Clinton "W" Bush Trump Biden
Indeed, of the five Presidents elected since 1988, only one (Obama) was not born in the 1970s. And it looks like that record will continue this year.
Rishi Sunak just joined TikTok to post about his new national service plan.
Judging by the comments, it's not going down well...
At 00:29 does Sunak really say that the volunteers could be doing search and rescue or has my brain exploded?
Why not? Mountain rescue can always train up and then use volunteers.
They’ve got them for 5 weeks. How much training do they need? Most of the examples the Tories have given us so far need considerably more training time than that.
Train them in basics around the base of operations. Cleaning kit, writing up reports. Take them out of training rescues. How much training do you think it takes to be a volunteer with a mountain rescue team? They are all volunteers after all.
My personal take on the private school debate, which I've kept out of so far. The 7% who send their kids to private education are obviously over-represented, if not dominant, on here, so I thought it might be useful to give a perspective from somebody who went to, and spent all of his career in and around, state education. Obviously it's tough if the school one's kids are currently at is due to close, and I sympathise. And I don't particularly want to dwell on Labour's VAT policy (though I support it, for transparency).
But what I really do find pretty offensive is the notion held by many that the worst thing that can happen is that one's kids are forced to go to a state school. Me, my kids, and my entire extended family and friends all went to state comprehensive schools, of varying quality, and we've all done pretty well in life. I rarely come across anybody outside here who was privately educated. And you know what? We are proud of our schools. We think they gave us a great education, both academically and socially. We're not ashamed. We don't envy our private school counterparts in the slightest - each to their own.
But we are insulted by many of you who regard a state education as somehow second class. Yes, there are rubbish comprehensive schools. But there are quite a lot of rubbish private schools as well, as I discovered in my career, and they are held much less accountable than poor state schools, because it's easier for them to pull the wool over their stakeholders' eyes.
Apologies for the length of this rant - not my usual. But I feel just as strongly about this as do those who feel their interests are, or may be threatened, by the proposed change in policy (which in my view is pretty minor in the big scheme of things, if not for some individuals).
I really don't see many people on here seeing a state education as 'second class'.
As I said, in my case we *want* to send our son to a local state school. It is our favoured option - by far.
I'm sorry, but don't agree. Quite a lot of posters, over the years not just today, exhibit a sneering contempt for 'shit comprehensives' and their products. You're not one of them.
What about those of us who exhibit a sneering contempt for public schools and their shitty products?
As a Gen X, Grammar School, product I just want not to be ignored anymore
Rishi Sunak just joined TikTok to post about his new national service plan.
Judging by the comments, it's not going down well...
At 00:29 does Sunak really say that the volunteers could be doing search and rescue or has my brain exploded?
Yep. For 12 weekends, with no training, equipment, or supervision. That's going to go well, isn'it?
The other example role, "delivering prescriptions and food to elderly people", does at least sound a bit more realistic... but isn't that just a public sector knock-off of Deliveroo, only with even dodgier employment practices?
Where does it say they would have no training, equipment or supervision?
Took me months of hard graft to get my USAR ticket in between my regular work. Conscripts doing weekend work would just be in the way and be a drag on resources. Sunak was just trying to inject a bit of glamour into his announcement, spice it up and make the kids think it'll be like Chicago Fire, Miami Vice or Casualty. Not happening.
I didn't go to private school, but struggle to get worked up by them.
One thing that is getting no coverage, Labour proposed usage of this extra tax is to recruit 1250 extra teachers each year. It is literally drop in the bucket (500k teachers and 40k leave the profession every year) and less than the increase in teacher numbers last year.
I think more than getting worked up about poshos and foreign kids going to private schools, seems a much more important is how do we improve state schools. Labour pledge is not exactly Blair's education, education, education.
Maybe they have more to come?
I think part of the problem with state education is that state schools are all but forbidden nowadays to expel troublesome pupils who are disruptive to lessons.
Having kids in the class who aren't disruptive is the biggest difference between some schools and others and privately educated kids overall tend to be reasonably well behaved/not disruptive.
A class of 30 where everyone is well-behaved is better than a class of 20 where 5-6 are shits taking the teachers attention and disrupting the entire lesson.
A good step to improve state education would be to have stricter rules and make it easier for schools to expel pupils who are disruptive to other's education.
We shouldn't return to the bad old days where anyone with special needs is condemned to a "special school", but we should invest more in pupil referral units.
For the Conservatives to lose to him... that means the public must really hate the Tories.
And they do. And a lot of it is utterly self-inflicted.
To return to Casino's school problem for a moment (sorry), if we accept the premise that the school is closing "because Labour are going to win", then the blame for that falls squarely on
BoZo Truss Richi
Casino should be focusing his righteous anger on those cretins for screwing the pooch so completely
I think this is one you're struggling with as the reality of a Labour government comes into focus somewhere deep in the annals of your mind, so instead you're trying to fingerpoint to what you're comfortable fingerpointing toward instead.
The school operated on just a 2% gross margin last year. A 20% demand shock (everyone knows Labour is going to win) has led to a significant drop in the pupil roll for next year and that's been enough to put it into administration.
That wouldn't have happened were it not for Labour's VAT on private schools policy. It's killed it off.
If it helps, I think the scenario you present is all too plausible. I'm sorry that it's happened, and for the parents, pupils and teachers affected.
The pushback you're getting on this is interesting.
Will be even more interesting when it goes tits up and Labour need to fund all the pupils that cannot go to private schools and no extra VAT coming in.
And the state schools that used to get offered time on playing fields or use of arts facilities suddenly see that chance gone.
The school that my youngest daughter goes to offers use of its sports facilities to local schools. The basic access was required as a condition of planning permission, but they provide school staff, for free, to teach.
So instead of just a swimming pool* the kids get swimming lessons by trained sports coaches.
*The geniuses who drew up the condition of use ignored the issue of minimum staff for safety. So, the school could just say “here’s the swimming pool. Find a life guard”. But they don’t.
Yes I think you’d struggle to find state schools near a public school that want it shut. I didn’t go to public school and I would personally think twice about sending my kids there, but I don’t want them gone. But then I’ve never understood the politics of jealousy. Other people can have nice things without me having to have them too.
I dunno about your first line. I think state schools thrive when they are truly comprehensive; in each class there are a few Tarquins as well as plenty that Tarquin might otherwise never see or spend time with.
Tarquin is useful as a teacher as he tends to do his homework, answer questions and generally want to do well. He's useful as a school leader because his parents often organise eg PTAs.
I also don't think there is enough social mixing amongst young people at present, and I think private schools make that worse at the margins.
OTOH I can see why rich parents would baulk at Tarquin being a pawn in a game of social engineering, especially if they themselves have not had much experience outside their social bubble.
The body of your post is why I wouldn’t send mine there (don’t want them to be Tarquin). But your last paragraph I why I don’t want to attack them - let Tarquin’s parents do what they think’s best for him.
What j would continue to do is ensure public schooling is moderated against at Uni and for selection for a first job.
It just shows how little idea people have of what private schools are actually like, which they assume are all like Eton or something out of an Enid Blyton story.
These are just myths.
The kids at my local school are perfectly normal and aren't even developing cut-glass accents. It's just an independent school with its own educational ethos, that requires parents to afford £5k a term, or £1.4k a month spread over 12 months (with the extras and interest).
That's it.
But that's the heart of the matter.
Families with £1400 a month per child to spare are extremely abnormal. And an educational ethos that costs 2-3 times as much as the government chooses to spend more on most children is a luxury ethos.
Independent schools decided to price themselves out of the middle class market, largely because they could.
I hope it works out for your family, but the sector has been mismanaging itself for ages. Even if Labour's proposals hadn't delivered the coup de grace, something else would have.
Not really. Most families pay that for a full-time nursery place. And that's a strong plurality of parents. It's simply extending it from the age of 5 to 18, rather than ending it at that stage.
I'd argue that the parents of the kids at the private schools I attended were not particularly privileged. In fact there were very few 'posh' people. In the case of those kids on bursaries or scholarships, the parents were certainly not rich.
[Snip]
What proportion of the country would you say are 'privileged'? 1%? 5%? 10%?
90% of the population wouldn't be able to afford to send their kids to a private school no matter what sacrifices they made. To those people the parents sending their kids to private schools are definitely privileged.
Define 'privilege'.
I never had a foreign holiday as a kid. Many of my state school friends did - perhaps because their parents were not spending the money on school fees. Were they 'privileged' ?
Privileged means someone else has something I haven't got, and would like.
We're not an aspirational society anymore, sadly; we're one riven with bitterness, jealousy and resentment.
Privilege is buying your child a ticket that gives them a ten-fold better chance of a top job.
This is such a myth. It's astonishing people believe this. I don't know anyone from my old school, outside of two people I'm still vaguely in touch with on Facebook, and nor has anyone ever helped me out.
Those who have helped have been those I've met through my working career as I've developed my professional network. And, that's through my employers and clients. And, no, secret handshakes and ties have never come into it.
For the Conservatives to lose to him... that means the public must really hate the Tories.
And they do. And a lot of it is utterly self-inflicted.
To return to Casino's school problem for a moment (sorry), if we accept the premise that the school is closing "because Labour are going to win", then the blame for that falls squarely on
BoZo Truss Richi
Casino should be focusing his righteous anger on those cretins for screwing the pooch so completely
I think this is one you're struggling with as the reality of a Labour government comes into focus somewhere deep in the annals of your mind, so instead you're trying to fingerpoint to what you're comfortable fingerpointing toward instead.
The school operated on just a 2% gross margin last year. A 20% demand shock (everyone knows Labour is going to win) has led to a significant drop in the pupil roll for next year and that's been enough to put it into administration.
That wouldn't have happened were it not for Labour's VAT on private schools policy. It's killed it off.
If it helps, I think the scenario you present is all too plausible. I'm sorry that it's happened, and for the parents, pupils and teachers affected.
The pushback you're getting on this is interesting.
The pushback I'm getting is because absolutely no-one wants to hear anything negative about Keir Starmer and our prospective new Labour government.
Isn't the pushback more about not seeing the bigger picture? I'm sure it's sad that this school has financial problems. But we're talking about a change to tax policy that affects a group of the most privileged people in the country, one that many other private schools and parents will negotiate, and which will allow more money to be spent on the education of the 93% of kids who don't have the privilege of private schooling.
It's always possible to pick sad stories of those on the wrong end of a policy. And it's not like Tories have given a jot about the misery they've inflicted on far less privileged people over the past 14 years. But I guess the kids Tory policies pushed into poverty deserved it, unlike Tarquin and Jocasta - who might now have to mix with the hoi polloi. For shame.
Except, (a) it doesn't affect the most privileged in the country - that's just the rhetoric - because they won't be affected; it's hard-working professionals and the small independent schools that will be, (b), it will not allow more money to be spent on the education of the 93% and will actually cost the taxpayer, and, (c) your last point seems to be an eye for an eye, which isn't invalidates what little merit your first two points have.
None.
People who can afford today’s private school fees are certainly at the top end of “hard-working professionals”. 7% of kids go to private schools and that’s very closely correlated with income, i.e. the top 7% earners.
1 in 5 adults in the UK has attended a private school as a child (20%) and it's actually higher amongst younger age groups:
You'll agree if you agree, but Patrick Flynn in the Speccie sums up Sunak's national service policy very eloquently:
His resort to the old right-wing rallying cry of ‘bring back national service’ echoes the final move of his disastrous cabinet reshuffle last autumn – making the GB News presenter Esther McVey his ‘minister for common sense’. It is a gimmick from a posh liberal who thinks the plebs can be won over with eye-catching superficiality because they are too dim to notice that the important decisions are all going in the other direction.
Summoning up the spirit of Sir John Junor and Alf Garnett is hardly an effective counterweight to telling police to stop arresting so many criminals because the jails are overflowing or presiding over yet another year of recklessly excessive immigration that trashes social cohesion. Or indeed taking people for fools when it comes to the prospects of his flagship Rwanda removals plan.
That's why it won't work in a nutshell. Sunak is an insider of Britain's broken system of a social democratic consensus to his core, as is Starmer. That leaves zero room for manoeuvre, because as Truss found, genuinely breaking the consensus is going to be fought tooth and nail. So we're left with common sense tsars, flights to Rwanda that will never happen, and increasing restrictions on civil liberties gussied up as patriotic interventions on behalf of our beleaguered bobbies. The consensus will let you have any policy, as long as it's what they sort of wanted anyway.
And people are getting wise to it. That's why they don't like particularly like Starmer, and why they won't trust Sunak.
Doctor LuckyGuy is in
Background: 14 years of Conservative rule Symptoms: (too many to list here: see attached Appendices I to XXVI) Diagnosis: TOO MUCH SOCIAL DEMOCRACY Prescription: More leeches! Another lurch to the right
Hang on.
That wasn't Truss's remedy. Truss's remedy was - genuinely - a return to the 1970s. I always thought that people like Corbyn should have been overjoyed at her prospectus. More spending, less taxes, growth will pay for itself!
Were you alive in the 70s RCS? I don't remember cutting the top rate of tax to 40% being high on the agenda. Truss's shambles owes nothing to the 70s, it was a neolib wankfest gone mad.
I think RCS, myself and Truss were all born in the mid-seventies. And Truss has ensured that she will be the only PM born in that decade. Thanks Liz.
Interesting point: Starmer (b. 1962) hands over to Rayner (b. 1980) in c. 2032?
Something like that. Maybe David Beckham gets interested in politics but I don’t see it.
An early Starmer retirement leading to Reeves (b. Feb 1979) is probably your best bet. Maybe an outside chance of Jonathan Ashworth (b. Oct 1978) if the party took a more Brownite turn?
Not that uncommon to only have a single PM from a whole decade - Home (1900s), Thatcher (1920s), and Major (1940s) are all in that category. And it could be worse - there were no PMs at all from either the 1820s or 1930s!
Although, interestingly, the US has had a whole bunch of Presidents from the 1940s:
Clinton "W" Bush Trump Biden
Indeed, of the five Presidents elected since 1988, only one (Obama) was not born in the 1970s. And it looks like that record will continue this year.
You'll agree if you agree, but Patrick Flynn in the Speccie sums up Sunak's national service policy very eloquently:
His resort to the old right-wing rallying cry of ‘bring back national service’ echoes the final move of his disastrous cabinet reshuffle last autumn – making the GB News presenter Esther McVey his ‘minister for common sense’. It is a gimmick from a posh liberal who thinks the plebs can be won over with eye-catching superficiality because they are too dim to notice that the important decisions are all going in the other direction.
Summoning up the spirit of Sir John Junor and Alf Garnett is hardly an effective counterweight to telling police to stop arresting so many criminals because the jails are overflowing or presiding over yet another year of recklessly excessive immigration that trashes social cohesion. Or indeed taking people for fools when it comes to the prospects of his flagship Rwanda removals plan.
That's why it won't work in a nutshell. Sunak is an insider of Britain's broken system of a social democratic consensus to his core, as is Starmer. That leaves zero room for manoeuvre, because as Truss found, genuinely breaking the consensus is going to be fought tooth and nail. So we're left with common sense tsars, flights to Rwanda that will never happen, and increasing restrictions on civil liberties gussied up as patriotic interventions on behalf of our beleaguered bobbies. The consensus will let you have any policy, as long as it's what they sort of wanted anyway.
And people are getting wise to it. That's why they don't like particularly like Starmer, and why they won't trust Sunak.
Doctor LuckyGuy is in
Background: 14 years of Conservative rule Symptoms: (too many to list here: see attached Appendices I to XXVI) Diagnosis: TOO MUCH SOCIAL DEMOCRACY Prescription: More leeches! Another lurch to the right
Hang on.
That wasn't Truss's remedy. Truss's remedy was - genuinely - a return to the 1970s. I always thought that people like Corbyn should have been overjoyed at her prospectus. More spending, less taxes, growth will pay for itself!
Were you alive in the 70s RCS? I don't remember cutting the top rate of tax to 40% being high on the agenda. Truss's shambles owes nothing to the 70s, it was a neolib wankfest gone mad.
I think RCS, myself and Truss were all born in the mid-seventies. And Truss has ensured that she will be the only PM born in that decade. Thanks Liz.
Interesting point: Starmer (b. 1962) hands over to Rayner (b. 1980) in c. 2032?
Something like that. Maybe David Beckham gets interested in politics but I don’t see it.
An early Starmer retirement leading to Reeves (b. Feb 1979) is probably your best bet. Maybe an outside chance of Jonathan Ashworth (b. Oct 1978) if the party took a more Brownite turn?
Not that uncommon to only have a single PM from a whole decade - Home (1900s), Thatcher (1920s), and Major (1940s) are all in that category. And it could be worse - there were no PMs at all from either the 1820s or 1930s!
Home, Thatcher and Major as representatives for their birth decades are infinitely preferable to the 49 day disaster. She was (as I bang on about) in my year at Oxford, which is an absolute embarrassment
Why is Truss embarrassed to have been in your year?
My personal take on the private school debate, which I've kept out of so far. The 7% who send their kids to private education are obviously over-represented, if not dominant, on here, so I thought it might be useful to give a perspective from somebody who went to, and spent all of his career in and around, state education. Obviously it's tough if the school one's kids are currently at is due to close, and I sympathise. And I don't particularly want to dwell on Labour's VAT policy (though I support it, for transparency).
But what I really do find pretty offensive is the notion held by many that the worst thing that can happen is that one's kids are forced to go to a state school. Me, my kids, and my entire extended family and friends all went to state comprehensive schools, of varying quality, and we've all done pretty well in life. I rarely come across anybody outside here who was privately educated. And you know what? We are proud of our schools. We think they gave us a great education, both academically and socially. Most of us got into good universities. We're not ashamed. We don't envy our private school counterparts in the slightest - each to their own.
But we are insulted by many of you who regard a state education as somehow second class. Yes, there are rubbish comprehensive schools, but far fewer than there used to be. But there are quite a lot of rubbish private schools as well, as I discovered in my career, and they are held much less accountable than poor state schools, because it's easier for them to pull the wool over their stakeholders' eyes.
Apologies for the length of this rant - not my usual. But I feel just as strongly about this as do those who feel their interests are, or may be threatened, by the proposed change in policy (which in my view is pretty minor in the big scheme of things, if not for some individuals).
I went to a state sixth-form college.
No-one is saying it's the worst thing that can happen, or that it is second class.
The argument is that it's a destructive and counterproductive policy to the education sector.
For the Conservatives to lose to him... that means the public must really hate the Tories.
And they do. And a lot of it is utterly self-inflicted.
To return to Casino's school problem for a moment (sorry), if we accept the premise that the school is closing "because Labour are going to win", then the blame for that falls squarely on
BoZo Truss Richi
Casino should be focusing his righteous anger on those cretins for screwing the pooch so completely
I think this is one you're struggling with as the reality of a Labour government comes into focus somewhere deep in the annals of your mind, so instead you're trying to fingerpoint to what you're comfortable fingerpointing toward instead.
The school operated on just a 2% gross margin last year. A 20% demand shock (everyone knows Labour is going to win) has led to a significant drop in the pupil roll for next year and that's been enough to put it into administration.
That wouldn't have happened were it not for Labour's VAT on private schools policy. It's killed it off.
If it helps, I think the scenario you present is all too plausible. I'm sorry that it's happened, and for the parents, pupils and teachers affected.
The pushback you're getting on this is interesting.
Will be even more interesting when it goes tits up and Labour need to fund all the pupils that cannot go to private schools and no extra VAT coming in.
And the state schools that used to get offered time on playing fields or use of arts facilities suddenly see that chance gone.
The school that my youngest daughter goes to offers use of its sports facilities to local schools. The basic access was required as a condition of planning permission, but they provide school staff, for free, to teach.
So instead of just a swimming pool* the kids get swimming lessons by trained sports coaches.
*The geniuses who drew up the condition of use ignored the issue of minimum staff for safety. So, the school could just say “here’s the swimming pool. Find a life guard”. But they don’t.
Yes I think you’d struggle to find state schools near a public school that want it shut. I didn’t go to public school and I would personally think twice about sending my kids there, but I don’t want them gone. But then I’ve never understood the politics of jealousy. Other people can have nice things without me having to have them too.
I dunno about your first line. I think state schools thrive when they are truly comprehensive; in each class there are a few Tarquins as well as plenty that Tarquin might otherwise never see or spend time with.
Tarquin is useful as a teacher as he tends to do his homework, answer questions and generally want to do well. He's useful as a school leader because his parents often organise eg PTAs.
I also don't think there is enough social mixing amongst young people at present, and I think private schools make that worse at the margins.
OTOH I can see why rich parents would baulk at Tarquin being a pawn in a game of social engineering, especially if they themselves have not had much experience outside their social bubble.
You do realise the rest of the class hates tarquin, regards him as a joke rather than a class leader and will probably kick seven bells of shit out of him at every opportunity at least at the comp I went to
A friend was sent to the local comp by his parents, who thought of themselves as working class. Unfortunately, his fathers progression in life, though engineering, made everyone think of my friend and his brother as middle class. For the that and the further crime of getting good marks he was relentlessly bullied.
He resorted to violence on the end. Which apparently upset the teachers (who hadn’t helped previously).
For the Conservatives to lose to him... that means the public must really hate the Tories.
And they do. And a lot of it is utterly self-inflicted.
To return to Casino's school problem for a moment (sorry), if we accept the premise that the school is closing "because Labour are going to win", then the blame for that falls squarely on
BoZo Truss Richi
Casino should be focusing his righteous anger on those cretins for screwing the pooch so completely
I think this is one you're struggling with as the reality of a Labour government comes into focus somewhere deep in the annals of your mind, so instead you're trying to fingerpoint to what you're comfortable fingerpointing toward instead.
The school operated on just a 2% gross margin last year. A 20% demand shock (everyone knows Labour is going to win) has led to a significant drop in the pupil roll for next year and that's been enough to put it into administration.
That wouldn't have happened were it not for Labour's VAT on private schools policy. It's killed it off.
If it helps, I think the scenario you present is all too plausible. I'm sorry that it's happened, and for the parents, pupils and teachers affected.
The pushback you're getting on this is interesting.
The pushback I'm getting is because absolutely no-one wants to hear anything negative about Keir Starmer and our prospective new Labour government.
Isn't the pushback more about not seeing the bigger picture? I'm sure it's sad that this school has financial problems. But we're talking about a change to tax policy that affects a group of the most privileged people in the country, one that many other private schools and parents will negotiate, and which will allow more money to be spent on the education of the 93% of kids who don't have the privilege of private schooling.
It's always possible to pick sad stories of those on the wrong end of a policy. And it's not like Tories have given a jot about the misery they've inflicted on far less privileged people over the past 14 years. But I guess the kids Tory policies pushed into poverty deserved it, unlike Tarquin and Jocasta - who might now have to mix with the hoi polloi. For shame.
Except, (a) it doesn't affect the most privileged in the country - that's just the rhetoric - because they won't be affected; it's hard-working professionals and the small independent schools that will be, (b), it will not allow more money to be spent on the education of the 93% and will actually cost the taxpayer, and, (c) your last point seems to be an eye for an eye, which isn't invalidates what little merit your first two points have.
None.
People who can afford today’s private school fees are certainly at the top end of “hard-working professionals”. 7% of kids go to private schools and that’s very closely correlated with income, i.e. the top 7% earners.
1 in 5 adults in the UK has attended a private school as a child (20%) and it's actually higher amongst younger age groups:
For the Conservatives to lose to him... that means the public must really hate the Tories.
And they do. And a lot of it is utterly self-inflicted.
To return to Casino's school problem for a moment (sorry), if we accept the premise that the school is closing "because Labour are going to win", then the blame for that falls squarely on
BoZo Truss Richi
Casino should be focusing his righteous anger on those cretins for screwing the pooch so completely
I think this is one you're struggling with as the reality of a Labour government comes into focus somewhere deep in the annals of your mind, so instead you're trying to fingerpoint to what you're comfortable fingerpointing toward instead.
The school operated on just a 2% gross margin last year. A 20% demand shock (everyone knows Labour is going to win) has led to a significant drop in the pupil roll for next year and that's been enough to put it into administration.
That wouldn't have happened were it not for Labour's VAT on private schools policy. It's killed it off.
If it helps, I think the scenario you present is all too plausible. I'm sorry that it's happened, and for the parents, pupils and teachers affected.
The pushback you're getting on this is interesting.
Will be even more interesting when it goes tits up and Labour need to fund all the pupils that cannot go to private schools and no extra VAT coming in.
And the state schools that used to get offered time on playing fields or use of arts facilities suddenly see that chance gone.
The school that my youngest daughter goes to offers use of its sports facilities to local schools. The basic access was required as a condition of planning permission, but they provide school staff, for free, to teach.
So instead of just a swimming pool* the kids get swimming lessons by trained sports coaches.
*The geniuses who drew up the condition of use ignored the issue of minimum staff for safety. So, the school could just say “here’s the swimming pool. Find a life guard”. But they don’t.
Yes I think you’d struggle to find state schools near a public school that want it shut. I didn’t go to public school and I would personally think twice about sending my kids there, but I don’t want them gone. But then I’ve never understood the politics of jealousy. Other people can have nice things without me having to have them too.
I dunno about your first line. I think state schools thrive when they are truly comprehensive; in each class there are a few Tarquins as well as plenty that Tarquin might otherwise never see or spend time with.
Tarquin is useful as a teacher as he tends to do his homework, answer questions and generally want to do well. He's useful as a school leader because his parents often organise eg PTAs.
I also don't think there is enough social mixing amongst young people at present, and I think private schools make that worse at the margins.
OTOH I can see why rich parents would baulk at Tarquin being a pawn in a game of social engineering, especially if they themselves have not had much experience outside their social bubble.
The body of your post is why I wouldn’t send mine there (don’t want them to be Tarquin). But your last paragraph I why I don’t want to attack them - let Tarquin’s parents do what they think’s best for him.
What j would continue to do is ensure public schooling is moderated against at Uni and for selection for a first job.
It just shows how little idea people have of what private schools are actually like, which they assume are all like Eton or something out of an Enid Blyton story.
These are just myths.
The kids at my local school are perfectly normal and aren't even developing cut-glass accents. It's just an independent school with its own educational ethos, that requires parents to afford £5k a term, or £1.4k a month spread over 12 months (with the extras and interest).
That's it.
But that's the heart of the matter.
Families with £1400 a month per child to spare are extremely abnormal. And an educational ethos that costs 2-3 times as much as the government chooses to spend more on most children is a luxury ethos.
Independent schools decided to price themselves out of the middle class market, largely because they could.
I hope it works out for your family, but the sector has been mismanaging itself for ages. Even if Labour's proposals hadn't delivered the coup de grace, something else would have.
Not really. Most families pay that for a full-time nursery place. And that's a strong plurality of parents. It's simply extending it from the age of 5 to 18, rather than ending it at that stage.
I'd argue that the parents of the kids at the private schools I attended were not particularly privileged. In fact there were very few 'posh' people. In the case of those kids on bursaries or scholarships, the parents were certainly not rich.
[Snip]
What proportion of the country would you say are 'privileged'? 1%? 5%? 10%?
90% of the population wouldn't be able to afford to send their kids to a private school no matter what sacrifices they made. To those people the parents sending their kids to private schools are definitely privileged.
Define 'privilege'.
I never had a foreign holiday as a kid. Many of my state school friends did - perhaps because their parents were not spending the money on school fees. Were they 'privileged' ?
Privileged means someone else has something I haven't got, and would like.
We're not an aspirational society anymore, sadly; we're one riven with bitterness, jealousy and resentment.
Privilege is buying your child a ticket that gives them a ten-fold better chance of a top job.
This is such a myth. It's astonishing people believe this. I don't know anyone from my old school, outside of two people I'm still vaguely in touch with on Facebook, and nor has anyone ever helped me out.
Those who have helped have been those I've met through my working career as I've developed my professional network. And, that's through my employers and clients. And, no, secret handshakes and ties have never come into it.
This stuff is just silly.
I exaggerated, it's only a five-fold better chance of a top job:
Britain’s most influential people are over 5 times more likely to have been to a fee-paying school than the general population. Just 7% of British people are privately educated, compared to two-fifths (39%) of those in top positions.
For the Conservatives to lose to him... that means the public must really hate the Tories.
And they do. And a lot of it is utterly self-inflicted.
To return to Casino's school problem for a moment (sorry), if we accept the premise that the school is closing "because Labour are going to win", then the blame for that falls squarely on
BoZo Truss Richi
Casino should be focusing his righteous anger on those cretins for screwing the pooch so completely
I think this is one you're struggling with as the reality of a Labour government comes into focus somewhere deep in the annals of your mind, so instead you're trying to fingerpoint to what you're comfortable fingerpointing toward instead.
The school operated on just a 2% gross margin last year. A 20% demand shock (everyone knows Labour is going to win) has led to a significant drop in the pupil roll for next year and that's been enough to put it into administration.
That wouldn't have happened were it not for Labour's VAT on private schools policy. It's killed it off.
If it helps, I think the scenario you present is all too plausible. I'm sorry that it's happened, and for the parents, pupils and teachers affected.
The pushback you're getting on this is interesting.
The pushback I'm getting is because absolutely no-one wants to hear anything negative about Keir Starmer and our prospective new Labour government.
You get pushback because it is patently absurd to be blaming a future Labour government for a school closing in 2024, whatever cartwheels you are doing in your brain to justify otherwise.
It's not absurd in the slightest, and is factually accurate - inconveniently for you.
Everyone knows Labour will win, and the policy that will be introduced next academic year. That's altering the behaviour of prospective future parents now, because many can't afford a 20%+ uplift in fees for years, which would be permanent, and leading to closures now of marginal schools.
This is simply a fact, it's just one you don't want to acknowledge prior to the election.
It also probably doesn't help that the number of births is down somewhere close to 20% from its peak.
And mortgage interest increases will also disproportionately hit people with young families such as yourself (and me), as we're more likely to have high outstanding mortgages. That could be the difference between it being affordable or not for many.
And private school fees have been rising above inflation for years.
I don't doubt that the Labour policy could have been the straw that broke the camels back, but there's a lot of other headwinds that would have contributed.
I'd argue that the parents of the kids at the private schools I attended were not particularly privileged. In fact there were very few 'posh' people. In the case of those kids on bursaries or scholarships, the parents were certainly not rich.
I think this is a mistake some make: they assume that all private schools are Eton or Harrow. Many are local schools, serving local people (shades of Royston Vasey...), and the parents struggle and make sacrifices to send their kids to the school. Mine certainly did.
So, another anecdote. We live less than ten minutes' walk from an 'outstanding' secondary school, and one my son wants to go to. We moved here before the school was built, so we can hardly be accused of moving to be near it!
We (currently...) are in the fortunate situation where we could afford to send our son to a private school. Since we're tight, and the local secondary is good and so near, we don't want to go private. He also wants to go there.
However, a fair few kids in the village have been allocated to a school half an hour's drive away, which has a terrible reputation locally, and does not have stellar results. *If* the council choose to send him there, in their infinite wisdom, we would be faced with a choice. Do I want to drive my son to and from a poor school every day, or have him go on a complex bus journey, or do we send him to a local private school? I'd still have to drive him, or he would have to go on a bus, but it would at least be to a decent school.
I'd laugh in the face of anyone who told me that I was doing the 'wrong' thing in sending him to a private school in that situation.
But when did you attend private school? I attended private school in the 70s and 80s. Private school fees have risen by much more than inflation since then. They have become more selective, more limited to the richest. They’re not the same social mix as when we attended.
So, that’s a considerably bigger increase than the addition of VAT now would be. I don’t know why that is. Are the schools profiteering? Are they offering a different kind of service? Do schooling costs just rise much more quickly than general inflation? But we have a sector that has been hiking fees for years that’s not talking about why they hiked fees but is keen on talking about how Labour’s policy will make them unaffordable.
I went to both state and private schools at various times, between the late 1970s to the early 1990s.
And yes, I know costs have increased. And many prospective parents have been priced out as a result - and some schools have closed. But that's not an excuse to add an artificial cost on top of it. In the case of my old school, the facilities have apparently improved massively. Have they improved enough to compensate for the extra costs? I don't know - in the case of boarders, perhaps.
It’s not an excuse to add VAT, no. That is a political decision by a party I’m not voting for. But it does suggest to me that (a) our experience of who went to private school when we were kids doesn’t tell us all that much about who goes now, (b) consumers are more willing to tolerate price rises than some people here suggest, and (c) the schools crying “woe is me” may, in some cases (not Casino’s), be doing very nicely for themselves.
a) So what better data do you have? b) That elasticity will have a limit. To use an engineering term, it will reach a plastic point where something will give. Besides, some private schools have closed - one in Abbots Bromley, as an example. c) That's an assumption on your part that might cover a very real fear on their part.
I have offered data. I gave you a link to an article earlier.
I am slightly puzzled why you are having a go at me on supplying data when you have responded with speculation rather than data yourself. What’s up? I’m not trying to have an argument with you. I’m happy to discuss the issue, explore the data. I found something and shared it. I hope it was interesting. Feel free to share what you’ve got.
You'll agree if you agree, but Patrick Flynn in the Speccie sums up Sunak's national service policy very eloquently:
His resort to the old right-wing rallying cry of ‘bring back national service’ echoes the final move of his disastrous cabinet reshuffle last autumn – making the GB News presenter Esther McVey his ‘minister for common sense’. It is a gimmick from a posh liberal who thinks the plebs can be won over with eye-catching superficiality because they are too dim to notice that the important decisions are all going in the other direction.
Summoning up the spirit of Sir John Junor and Alf Garnett is hardly an effective counterweight to telling police to stop arresting so many criminals because the jails are overflowing or presiding over yet another year of recklessly excessive immigration that trashes social cohesion. Or indeed taking people for fools when it comes to the prospects of his flagship Rwanda removals plan.
That's why it won't work in a nutshell. Sunak is an insider of Britain's broken system of a social democratic consensus to his core, as is Starmer. That leaves zero room for manoeuvre, because as Truss found, genuinely breaking the consensus is going to be fought tooth and nail. So we're left with common sense tsars, flights to Rwanda that will never happen, and increasing restrictions on civil liberties gussied up as patriotic interventions on behalf of our beleaguered bobbies. The consensus will let you have any policy, as long as it's what they sort of wanted anyway.
And people are getting wise to it. That's why they don't like particularly like Starmer, and why they won't trust Sunak.
Doctor LuckyGuy is in
Background: 14 years of Conservative rule Symptoms: (too many to list here: see attached Appendices I to XXVI) Diagnosis: TOO MUCH SOCIAL DEMOCRACY Prescription: More leeches! Another lurch to the right
Hang on.
That wasn't Truss's remedy. Truss's remedy was - genuinely - a return to the 1970s. I always thought that people like Corbyn should have been overjoyed at her prospectus. More spending, less taxes, growth will pay for itself!
Were you alive in the 70s RCS? I don't remember cutting the top rate of tax to 40% being high on the agenda. Truss's shambles owes nothing to the 70s, it was a neolib wankfest gone mad.
I think RCS, myself and Truss were all born in the mid-seventies. And Truss has ensured that she will be the only PM born in that decade. Thanks Liz.
Interesting point: Starmer (b. 1962) hands over to Rayner (b. 1980) in c. 2032?
Something like that. Maybe David Beckham gets interested in politics but I don’t see it.
An early Starmer retirement leading to Reeves (b. Feb 1979) is probably your best bet. Maybe an outside chance of Jonathan Ashworth (b. Oct 1978) if the party took a more Brownite turn?
Not that uncommon to only have a single PM from a whole decade - Home (1900s), Thatcher (1920s), and Major (1940s) are all in that category. And it could be worse - there were no PMs at all from either the 1820s or 1930s!
Although, interestingly, the US has had a whole bunch of Presidents from the 1940s:
Clinton "W" Bush Trump Biden
Indeed, of the five Presidents elected since 1988, only one (Obama) was not born in the 1970s. And it looks like that record will continue this year.
Huh? You mean not born in the 1940s?
He means had not been born, was not alive, in the 1970s
For the Conservatives to lose to him... that means the public must really hate the Tories.
And they do. And a lot of it is utterly self-inflicted.
To return to Casino's school problem for a moment (sorry), if we accept the premise that the school is closing "because Labour are going to win", then the blame for that falls squarely on
BoZo Truss Richi
Casino should be focusing his righteous anger on those cretins for screwing the pooch so completely
I think this is one you're struggling with as the reality of a Labour government comes into focus somewhere deep in the annals of your mind, so instead you're trying to fingerpoint to what you're comfortable fingerpointing toward instead.
The school operated on just a 2% gross margin last year. A 20% demand shock (everyone knows Labour is going to win) has led to a significant drop in the pupil roll for next year and that's been enough to put it into administration.
That wouldn't have happened were it not for Labour's VAT on private schools policy. It's killed it off.
If it helps, I think the scenario you present is all too plausible. I'm sorry that it's happened, and for the parents, pupils and teachers affected.
The pushback you're getting on this is interesting.
The pushback I'm getting is because absolutely no-one wants to hear anything negative about Keir Starmer and our prospective new Labour government.
You get pushback because it is patently absurd to be blaming a future Labour government for a school closing in 2024, whatever cartwheels you are doing in your brain to justify otherwise.
It's not absurd in the slightest, and is factually accurate - inconveniently for you.
Everyone knows Labour will win, and the policy that will be introduced next academic year. That's altering the behaviour of prospective future parents now, because many can't afford a 20%+ uplift in fees for years, which would be permanent, and leading to closures now of marginal schools.
This is simply a fact, it's just one you don't want to acknowledge prior to the election.
Not factually accurate at all as you well know the closure was announced when the chances were Sunak was going to hang on into January next year.
My personal take on the private school debate, which I've kept out of so far. The 7% who send their kids to private education are obviously over-represented, if not dominant, on here, so I thought it might be useful to give a perspective from somebody who went to, and spent all of his career in and around, state education. Obviously it's tough if the school one's kids are currently at is due to close, and I sympathise. And I don't particularly want to dwell on Labour's VAT policy (though I support it, for transparency).
But what I really do find pretty offensive is the notion held by many that the worst thing that can happen is that one's kids are forced to go to a state school. Me, my kids, and my entire extended family and friends all went to state comprehensive schools, of varying quality, and we've all done pretty well in life. I rarely come across anybody outside here who was privately educated. And you know what? We are proud of our schools. We think they gave us a great education, both academically and socially. Most of us got into good universities. We're not ashamed. We don't envy our private school counterparts in the slightest - each to their own.
But we are insulted by many of you who regard a state education as somehow second class. Yes, there are rubbish comprehensive schools, but far fewer than there used to be. But there are quite a lot of rubbish private schools as well, as I discovered in my career, and they are held much less accountable than poor state schools, because it's easier for them to pull the wool over their stakeholders' eyes.
Apologies for the length of this rant - not my usual. But I feel just as strongly about this as do those who feel their interests are, or may be threatened, by the proposed change in policy (which in my view is pretty minor in the big scheme of things, if not for some individuals).
Yes, I heartily agree.
I was educated exclusively in state schools in England and USA, finishing at the excellent Peter Symonds sixth form college, not so far from CR in Hampshire. It is one of the two Comprehensive schools in the top ten schools sending students to Cambridge, I think it was 5th overall.
Obviously I did well academically there, as did my two sibs one getting an exhibition to Cambridge, the other to LSE. We also had great extracurricular activities and friends from all sorts of backgrounds. I don't recall anyone needing extra tuition.
It was certainly a good education.
I fear adding 'and USA' on that puts you in a rather exclusive group!
I'd argue that the parents of the kids at the private schools I attended were not particularly privileged. In fact there were very few 'posh' people. In the case of those kids on bursaries or scholarships, the parents were certainly not rich.
[Snip]
What proportion of the country would you say are 'privileged'? 1%? 5%? 10%?
90% of the population wouldn't be able to afford to send their kids to a private school no matter what sacrifices they made. To those people the parents sending their kids to private schools are definitely privileged.
Define 'privilege'.
I never had a foreign holiday as a kid. Many of my state school friends did - perhaps because their parents were not spending the money on school fees. Were they 'privileged' ?
Privileged means someone else has something I haven't got, and would like.
We're not an aspirational society anymore, sadly; we're one riven with bitterness, jealousy and resentment.
Privilege is buying your child a ticket that gives them a ten-fold better chance of a top job.
This is such a myth. It's astonishing people believe this. I don't know anyone from my old school, outside of two people I'm still vaguely in touch with on Facebook, and nor has anyone ever helped me out.
Those who have helped have been those I've met through my working career as I've developed my professional network. And, that's through my employers and clients. And, no, secret handshakes and ties have never come into it.
This stuff is just silly.
Not what the objective data says....
If you have such objective data, please share it?
I hope you're not going to share data that shows that ex private sector children "dominate" the upper reaches of the professions, because we've dealt with that one before and it's not for the reasons you think it is.
I'd argue that the parents of the kids at the private schools I attended were not particularly privileged. In fact there were very few 'posh' people. In the case of those kids on bursaries or scholarships, the parents were certainly not rich.
I think this is a mistake some make: they assume that all private schools are Eton or Harrow. Many are local schools, serving local people (shades of Royston Vasey...), and the parents struggle and make sacrifices to send their kids to the school. Mine certainly did.
So, another anecdote. We live less than ten minutes' walk from an 'outstanding' secondary school, and one my son wants to go to. We moved here before the school was built, so we can hardly be accused of moving to be near it!
We (currently...) are in the fortunate situation where we could afford to send our son to a private school. Since we're tight, and the local secondary is good and so near, we don't want to go private. He also wants to go there.
However, a fair few kids in the village have been allocated to a school half an hour's drive away, which has a terrible reputation locally, and does not have stellar results. *If* the council choose to send him there, in their infinite wisdom, we would be faced with a choice. Do I want to drive my son to and from a poor school every day, or have him go on a complex bus journey, or do we send him to a local private school? I'd still have to drive him, or he would have to go on a bus, but it would at least be to a decent school.
I'd laugh in the face of anyone who told me that I was doing the 'wrong' thing in sending him to a private school in that situation.
A lot of private schools are not even schools. There are several converted shops round here offering after-school tuition.
I'm not quite sure what that has to do with my situation, but home schooling with tutors is another potential course we could take if he gets allocated the school we don't want him at. But the biggest problem with that is that he's an only child, and I see socialisation as vital for kids. Besides, an acquaintance was home-schooled, and even though he loves his parents, he hated the experience.
After-school tuition, not home schooling with tutors.
And after-school tuition done in a converted shop, i.e. with other children.
One thing Labour do need to clarify is whether they intend to levy VAT on private tuition as well as independent schools.
Or at least, if they've said what their views are I haven't seen them yet.
Is it usual for tutors to go over the £90k VAT threshold?
Doesn't really seem worth worrying about if it only affects one or two in unusual circumstances, but if it's more widespread then I don't see why they shouldn't.
I know that driving instructors do, as do dance teachers - but both of those tend to do it full time so likely make more money than after-school tutors.
Only if they're full time.
A complicating factor in my case might be that rather a lot of my money is from abroad.
I'd argue that the parents of the kids at the private schools I attended were not particularly privileged. In fact there were very few 'posh' people. In the case of those kids on bursaries or scholarships, the parents were certainly not rich.
I think this is a mistake some make: they assume that all private schools are Eton or Harrow. Many are local schools, serving local people (shades of Royston Vasey...), and the parents struggle and make sacrifices to send their kids to the school. Mine certainly did.
So, another anecdote. We live less than ten minutes' walk from an 'outstanding' secondary school, and one my son wants to go to. We moved here before the school was built, so we can hardly be accused of moving to be near it!
We (currently...) are in the fortunate situation where we could afford to send our son to a private school. Since we're tight, and the local secondary is good and so near, we don't want to go private. He also wants to go there.
However, a fair few kids in the village have been allocated to a school half an hour's drive away, which has a terrible reputation locally, and does not have stellar results. *If* the council choose to send him there, in their infinite wisdom, we would be faced with a choice. Do I want to drive my son to and from a poor school every day, or have him go on a complex bus journey, or do we send him to a local private school? I'd still have to drive him, or he would have to go on a bus, but it would at least be to a decent school.
I'd laugh in the face of anyone who told me that I was doing the 'wrong' thing in sending him to a private school in that situation.
A lot of private schools are not even schools. There are several converted shops round here offering after-school tuition.
I'm not quite sure what that has to do with my situation, but home schooling with tutors is another potential course we could take if he gets allocated the school we don't want him at. But the biggest problem with that is that he's an only child, and I see socialisation as vital for kids. Besides, an acquaintance was home-schooled, and even though he loves his parents, he hated the experience.
After-school tuition, not home schooling with tutors.
And after-school tuition done in a converted shop, i.e. with other children.
One thing Labour do need to clarify is whether they intend to levy VAT on private tuition as well as independent schools.
Or at least, if they've said what their views are I haven't seen them yet.
Is it usual for tutors to go over the £90k VAT threshold?
Doesn't really seem worth worrying about if it only affects one or two in unusual circumstances, but if it's more widespread then I don't see why they shouldn't.
I know that driving instructors do, as do dance teachers - but both of those tend to do it full time so likely make more money than after-school tutors.
Problem there is that it is highly likely that Labour plan to reduce the threshold at which VAT becomes relevant to something well below the current £90,000 threshold possibly £50,000 or even £30,000 to destroy the work plateau effect.
You'll agree if you agree, but Patrick Flynn in the Speccie sums up Sunak's national service policy very eloquently:
His resort to the old right-wing rallying cry of ‘bring back national service’ echoes the final move of his disastrous cabinet reshuffle last autumn – making the GB News presenter Esther McVey his ‘minister for common sense’. It is a gimmick from a posh liberal who thinks the plebs can be won over with eye-catching superficiality because they are too dim to notice that the important decisions are all going in the other direction.
Summoning up the spirit of Sir John Junor and Alf Garnett is hardly an effective counterweight to telling police to stop arresting so many criminals because the jails are overflowing or presiding over yet another year of recklessly excessive immigration that trashes social cohesion. Or indeed taking people for fools when it comes to the prospects of his flagship Rwanda removals plan.
That's why it won't work in a nutshell. Sunak is an insider of Britain's broken system of a social democratic consensus to his core, as is Starmer. That leaves zero room for manoeuvre, because as Truss found, genuinely breaking the consensus is going to be fought tooth and nail. So we're left with common sense tsars, flights to Rwanda that will never happen, and increasing restrictions on civil liberties gussied up as patriotic interventions on behalf of our beleaguered bobbies. The consensus will let you have any policy, as long as it's what they sort of wanted anyway.
And people are getting wise to it. That's why they don't like particularly like Starmer, and why they won't trust Sunak.
Doctor LuckyGuy is in
Background: 14 years of Conservative rule Symptoms: (too many to list here: see attached Appendices I to XXVI) Diagnosis: TOO MUCH SOCIAL DEMOCRACY Prescription: More leeches! Another lurch to the right
Hang on.
That wasn't Truss's remedy. Truss's remedy was - genuinely - a return to the 1970s. I always thought that people like Corbyn should have been overjoyed at her prospectus. More spending, less taxes, growth will pay for itself!
Were you alive in the 70s RCS? I don't remember cutting the top rate of tax to 40% being high on the agenda. Truss's shambles owes nothing to the 70s, it was a neolib wankfest gone mad.
I think RCS, myself and Truss were all born in the mid-seventies. And Truss has ensured that she will be the only PM born in that decade. Thanks Liz.
Interesting point: Starmer (b. 1962) hands over to Rayner (b. 1980) in c. 2032?
Something like that. Maybe David Beckham gets interested in politics but I don’t see it.
An early Starmer retirement leading to Reeves (b. Feb 1979) is probably your best bet. Maybe an outside chance of Jonathan Ashworth (b. Oct 1978) if the party took a more Brownite turn?
Not that uncommon to only have a single PM from a whole decade - Home (1900s), Thatcher (1920s), and Major (1940s) are all in that category. And it could be worse - there were no PMs at all from either the 1820s or 1930s!
Home, Thatcher and Major as representatives for their birth decades are infinitely preferable to the 49 day disaster. She was (as I bang on about) in my year at Oxford, which is an absolute embarrassment
Why is Truss embarrassed to have been in your year?
She has to admit to being in the same year as Kwasi Kwarteng and Tristram Hunt?
My personal take on the private school debate, which I've kept out of so far. The 7% who send their kids to private education are obviously over-represented, if not dominant, on here, so I thought it might be useful to give a perspective from somebody who went to, and spent all of his career in and around, state education. Obviously it's tough if the school one's kids are currently at is due to close, and I sympathise. And I don't particularly want to dwell on Labour's VAT policy (though I support it, for transparency).
But what I really do find pretty offensive is the notion held by many that the worst thing that can happen is that one's kids are forced to go to a state school. Me, my kids, and my entire extended family and friends all went to state comprehensive schools, of varying quality, and we've all done pretty well in life. I rarely come across anybody outside here who was privately educated. And you know what? We are proud of our schools. We think they gave us a great education, both academically and socially. Most of us got into good universities. We're not ashamed. We don't envy our private school counterparts in the slightest - each to their own.
But we are insulted by many of you who regard a state education as somehow second class. Yes, there are rubbish comprehensive schools, but far fewer than there used to be. But there are quite a lot of rubbish private schools as well, as I discovered in my career, and they are held much less accountable than poor state schools, because it's easier for them to pull the wool over their stakeholders' eyes.
Apologies for the length of this rant - not my usual. But I feel just as strongly about this as do those who feel their interests are, or may be threatened, by the proposed change in policy (which in my view is pretty minor in the big scheme of things, if not for some individuals).
Yes, I heartily agree.
I was educated exclusively in state schools in England and USA, finishing at the excellent Peter Symonds sixth form college, not so far from CR in Hampshire. It is one of the two Comprehensive schools in the top ten schools sending students to Cambridge, I think it was 5th overall.
Obviously I did well academically there, as did my two sibs one getting an exhibition to Cambridge, the other to LSE. We also had great extracurricular activities and friends from all sorts of backgrounds. I don't recall anyone needing extra tuition.
It was certainly a good education.
Peter Symonds is excellent; my sister went there. I went to Alton College, also good.
It's not a comprehensive school, though; it's a sixth form college and you have to apply for it for post-GCSEs.
For the Conservatives to lose to him... that means the public must really hate the Tories.
And they do. And a lot of it is utterly self-inflicted.
To return to Casino's school problem for a moment (sorry), if we accept the premise that the school is closing "because Labour are going to win", then the blame for that falls squarely on
BoZo Truss Richi
Casino should be focusing his righteous anger on those cretins for screwing the pooch so completely
I think this is one you're struggling with as the reality of a Labour government comes into focus somewhere deep in the annals of your mind, so instead you're trying to fingerpoint to what you're comfortable fingerpointing toward instead.
The school operated on just a 2% gross margin last year. A 20% demand shock (everyone knows Labour is going to win) has led to a significant drop in the pupil roll for next year and that's been enough to put it into administration.
That wouldn't have happened were it not for Labour's VAT on private schools policy. It's killed it off.
If it helps, I think the scenario you present is all too plausible. I'm sorry that it's happened, and for the parents, pupils and teachers affected.
The pushback you're getting on this is interesting.
The pushback I'm getting is because absolutely no-one wants to hear anything negative about Keir Starmer and our prospective new Labour government.
Isn't the pushback more about not seeing the bigger picture? I'm sure it's sad that this school has financial problems. But we're talking about a change to tax policy that affects a group of the most privileged people in the country, one that many other private schools and parents will negotiate, and which will allow more money to be spent on the education of the 93% of kids who don't have the privilege of private schooling.
It's always possible to pick sad stories of those on the wrong end of a policy. And it's not like Tories have given a jot about the misery they've inflicted on far less privileged people over the past 14 years. But I guess the kids Tory policies pushed into poverty deserved it, unlike Tarquin and Jocasta - who might now have to mix with the hoi polloi. For shame.
Except, (a) it doesn't affect the most privileged in the country - that's just the rhetoric - because they won't be affected; it's hard-working professionals and the small independent schools that will be, (b), it will not allow more money to be spent on the education of the 93% and will actually cost the taxpayer, and, (c) your last point seems to be an eye for an eye, which isn't invalidates what little merit your first two points have.
None.
On a) By definition if you are among the small percentage of the population for whom sending your kids to private school is an option you are among the most privileged people in the country. You are in the 7% who receive an education that if it's worth the money you are paying for it, places you in a position of privilege above the 93%.
The fact there are an even smaller group of people who are more privileged still and can send their children to an even more expensive, elitist one doesn't change that fact.
b) Is debatable. Labour's rationale is that it would be revenue raising. You can see how there will be some private schools closing whose kids go into the state sector, but it would have to be an awful lot to wipe out the gains. I'd tend to go with Labour over the private school lobby. Especially as over time, you'll get more of an equilibrium as schools' business models adjust.
On c) It's not an eye for an eye, it's making a simple point. All tax and spend policies have winners and losers. There will always be people on the hard edge.
In this case it's a small number of relatively well off people who are losing a tax break they previously enjoyed. It's sad for them. But it's difficult to have sympathy when they are much better able to cope with the end of a previously enjoyed tax break than far poorer children were when the Tories took away educational and childcare services they relied on. The same commentators (though by no means the parents) squealing now that it's all so unfair were cheering that.
So it's difficult to see it as people not used to be being told "no" and that yes, a government may end tax breaks you benefit from but which it doesn't see as beneficial to the nation. It's tantrum throwing because for once in their lives it's them on the wrong end of a decision rather than those at the bottom of society.
You'll agree if you agree, but Patrick Flynn in the Speccie sums up Sunak's national service policy very eloquently:
His resort to the old right-wing rallying cry of ‘bring back national service’ echoes the final move of his disastrous cabinet reshuffle last autumn – making the GB News presenter Esther McVey his ‘minister for common sense’. It is a gimmick from a posh liberal who thinks the plebs can be won over with eye-catching superficiality because they are too dim to notice that the important decisions are all going in the other direction.
Summoning up the spirit of Sir John Junor and Alf Garnett is hardly an effective counterweight to telling police to stop arresting so many criminals because the jails are overflowing or presiding over yet another year of recklessly excessive immigration that trashes social cohesion. Or indeed taking people for fools when it comes to the prospects of his flagship Rwanda removals plan.
That's why it won't work in a nutshell. Sunak is an insider of Britain's broken system of a social democratic consensus to his core, as is Starmer. That leaves zero room for manoeuvre, because as Truss found, genuinely breaking the consensus is going to be fought tooth and nail. So we're left with common sense tsars, flights to Rwanda that will never happen, and increasing restrictions on civil liberties gussied up as patriotic interventions on behalf of our beleaguered bobbies. The consensus will let you have any policy, as long as it's what they sort of wanted anyway.
And people are getting wise to it. That's why they don't like particularly like Starmer, and why they won't trust Sunak.
Doctor LuckyGuy is in
Background: 14 years of Conservative rule Symptoms: (too many to list here: see attached Appendices I to XXVI) Diagnosis: TOO MUCH SOCIAL DEMOCRACY Prescription: More leeches! Another lurch to the right
Hang on.
That wasn't Truss's remedy. Truss's remedy was - genuinely - a return to the 1970s. I always thought that people like Corbyn should have been overjoyed at her prospectus. More spending, less taxes, growth will pay for itself!
Were you alive in the 70s RCS? I don't remember cutting the top rate of tax to 40% being high on the agenda. Truss's shambles owes nothing to the 70s, it was a neolib wankfest gone mad.
I think RCS, myself and Truss were all born in the mid-seventies. And Truss has ensured that she will be the only PM born in that decade. Thanks Liz.
Interesting point: Starmer (b. 1962) hands over to Rayner (b. 1980) in c. 2032?
Something like that. Maybe David Beckham gets interested in politics but I don’t see it.
An early Starmer retirement leading to Reeves (b. Feb 1979) is probably your best bet. Maybe an outside chance of Jonathan Ashworth (b. Oct 1978) if the party took a more Brownite turn?
Not that uncommon to only have a single PM from a whole decade - Home (1900s), Thatcher (1920s), and Major (1940s) are all in that category. And it could be worse - there were no PMs at all from either the 1820s or 1930s!
Home, Thatcher and Major as representatives for their birth decades are infinitely preferable to the 49 day disaster. She was (as I bang on about) in my year at Oxford, which is an absolute embarrassment
Why is Truss embarrassed to have been in your year?
Long story. Involves a necklace. Ask @Leon about it.
I'd argue that the parents of the kids at the private schools I attended were not particularly privileged. In fact there were very few 'posh' people. In the case of those kids on bursaries or scholarships, the parents were certainly not rich.
I think this is a mistake some make: they assume that all private schools are Eton or Harrow. Many are local schools, serving local people (shades of Royston Vasey...), and the parents struggle and make sacrifices to send their kids to the school. Mine certainly did.
So, another anecdote. We live less than ten minutes' walk from an 'outstanding' secondary school, and one my son wants to go to. We moved here before the school was built, so we can hardly be accused of moving to be near it!
We (currently...) are in the fortunate situation where we could afford to send our son to a private school. Since we're tight, and the local secondary is good and so near, we don't want to go private. He also wants to go there.
However, a fair few kids in the village have been allocated to a school half an hour's drive away, which has a terrible reputation locally, and does not have stellar results. *If* the council choose to send him there, in their infinite wisdom, we would be faced with a choice. Do I want to drive my son to and from a poor school every day, or have him go on a complex bus journey, or do we send him to a local private school? I'd still have to drive him, or he would have to go on a bus, but it would at least be to a decent school.
I'd laugh in the face of anyone who told me that I was doing the 'wrong' thing in sending him to a private school in that situation.
But when did you attend private school? I attended private school in the 70s and 80s. Private school fees have risen by much more than inflation since then. They have become more selective, more limited to the richest. They’re not the same social mix as when we attended.
So, that’s a considerably bigger increase than the addition of VAT now would be. I don’t know why that is. Are the schools profiteering? Are they offering a different kind of service? Do schooling costs just rise much more quickly than general inflation? But we have a sector that has been hiking fees for years that’s not talking about why they hiked fees but is keen on talking about how Labour’s policy will make them unaffordable.
I went to both state and private schools at various times, between the late 1970s to the early 1990s.
And yes, I know costs have increased. And many prospective parents have been priced out as a result - and some schools have closed. But that's not an excuse to add an artificial cost on top of it. In the case of my old school, the facilities have apparently improved massively. Have they improved enough to compensate for the extra costs? I don't know - in the case of boarders, perhaps.
I have a son though born in the 90's the local comp was called gang recruitment central....fortunately he got into the local grammar school.....even his friends called it that
Rishi Sunak just joined TikTok to post about his new national service plan.
Judging by the comments, it's not going down well...
At 00:29 does Sunak really say that the volunteers could be doing search and rescue or has my brain exploded?
Yep. For 12 weekends, with no training, equipment, or supervision. That's going to go well, isn'it?
The other example role, "delivering prescriptions and food to elderly people", does at least sound a bit more realistic... but isn't that just a public sector knock-off of Deliveroo, only with even dodgier employment practices?
Where does it say they would have no training, equipment or supervision?
There's no budget for it - the £2.5bn is to cover the cost of 30,000 they'll be taking in to the army full-time. It doesn't leave anything for the 12 weekends' compulsory service for 690,000.
In reality, they'd have to provide additional money for the search & rescue and State Deliveroo services. But who knows how much, or how it would be funded?
My personal take on the private school debate, which I've kept out of so far. The 7% who send their kids to private education are obviously over-represented, if not dominant, on here, so I thought it might be useful to give a perspective from somebody who went to, and spent all of his career in and around, state education. Obviously it's tough if the school one's kids are currently at is due to close, and I sympathise. And I don't particularly want to dwell on Labour's VAT policy (though I support it, for transparency).
But what I really do find pretty offensive is the notion held by many that the worst thing that can happen is that one's kids are forced to go to a state school. Me, my kids, and my entire extended family and friends all went to state comprehensive schools, of varying quality, and we've all done pretty well in life. I rarely come across anybody outside here who was privately educated. And you know what? We are proud of our schools. We think they gave us a great education, both academically and socially. Most of us got into good universities. We're not ashamed. We don't envy our private school counterparts in the slightest - each to their own.
But we are insulted by many of you who regard a state education as somehow second class. Yes, there are rubbish comprehensive schools, but far fewer than there used to be. But there are quite a lot of rubbish private schools as well, as I discovered in my career, and they are held much less accountable than poor state schools, because it's easier for them to pull the wool over their stakeholders' eyes.
Apologies for the length of this rant - not my usual. But I feel just as strongly about this as do those who feel their interests are, or may be threatened, by the proposed change in policy (which in my view is pretty minor in the big scheme of things, if not for some individuals).
Yes, I heartily agree.
I was educated exclusively in state schools in England and USA, finishing at the excellent Peter Symonds sixth form college, not so far from CR in Hampshire. It is one of the two Comprehensive schools in the top ten schools sending students to Cambridge, I think it was 5th overall.
Obviously I did well academically there, as did my two sibs one getting an exhibition to Cambridge, the other to LSE. We also had great extracurricular activities and friends from all sorts of backgrounds. I don't recall anyone needing extra tuition.
It was certainly a good education.
Small world, I went to Peter Symonds too.
I don't think we are contempories though. I finished in the early Eighties, but it still an excellent school.
For the Conservatives to lose to him... that means the public must really hate the Tories.
And they do. And a lot of it is utterly self-inflicted.
To return to Casino's school problem for a moment (sorry), if we accept the premise that the school is closing "because Labour are going to win", then the blame for that falls squarely on
BoZo Truss Richi
Casino should be focusing his righteous anger on those cretins for screwing the pooch so completely
I think this is one you're struggling with as the reality of a Labour government comes into focus somewhere deep in the annals of your mind, so instead you're trying to fingerpoint to what you're comfortable fingerpointing toward instead.
The school operated on just a 2% gross margin last year. A 20% demand shock (everyone knows Labour is going to win) has led to a significant drop in the pupil roll for next year and that's been enough to put it into administration.
That wouldn't have happened were it not for Labour's VAT on private schools policy. It's killed it off.
If it helps, I think the scenario you present is all too plausible. I'm sorry that it's happened, and for the parents, pupils and teachers affected.
The pushback you're getting on this is interesting.
Will be even more interesting when it goes tits up and Labour need to fund all the pupils that cannot go to private schools and no extra VAT coming in.
And the state schools that used to get offered time on playing fields or use of arts facilities suddenly see that chance gone.
The school that my youngest daughter goes to offers use of its sports facilities to local schools. The basic access was required as a condition of planning permission, but they provide school staff, for free, to teach.
So instead of just a swimming pool* the kids get swimming lessons by trained sports coaches.
*The geniuses who drew up the condition of use ignored the issue of minimum staff for safety. So, the school could just say “here’s the swimming pool. Find a life guard”. But they don’t.
Yes I think you’d struggle to find state schools near a public school that want it shut. I didn’t go to public school and I would personally think twice about sending my kids there, but I don’t want them gone. But then I’ve never understood the politics of jealousy. Other people can have nice things without me having to have them too.
I dunno about your first line. I think state schools thrive when they are truly comprehensive; in each class there are a few Tarquins as well as plenty that Tarquin might otherwise never see or spend time with.
Tarquin is useful as a teacher as he tends to do his homework, answer questions and generally want to do well. He's useful as a school leader because his parents often organise eg PTAs.
I also don't think there is enough social mixing amongst young people at present, and I think private schools make that worse at the margins.
OTOH I can see why rich parents would baulk at Tarquin being a pawn in a game of social engineering, especially if they themselves have not had much experience outside their social bubble.
The body of your post is why I wouldn’t send mine there (don’t want them to be Tarquin). But your last paragraph I why I don’t want to attack them - let Tarquin’s parents do what they think’s best for him.
What j would continue to do is ensure public schooling is moderated against at Uni and for selection for a first job.
It just shows how little idea people have of what private schools are actually like, which they assume are all like Eton or something out of an Enid Blyton story.
These are just myths.
The kids at my local school are perfectly normal and aren't even developing cut-glass accents. It's just an independent school with its own educational ethos, that requires parents to afford £5k a term, or £1.4k a month spread over 12 months (with the extras and interest).
That's it.
Are you aware that £1.4k a month for two kids equates to more than the median salary in this country?
That's a considerable sum of money.
In fact it's about the same as the 75th percentile after tax in the last year for which figures are available (2021/22).
So it's beyond the reach of most people. But 1 in 4 people could stretch to it if they were partnered with someone else who could pay the mortgage etc.
For the Conservatives to lose to him... that means the public must really hate the Tories.
And they do. And a lot of it is utterly self-inflicted.
To return to Casino's school problem for a moment (sorry), if we accept the premise that the school is closing "because Labour are going to win", then the blame for that falls squarely on
BoZo Truss Richi
Casino should be focusing his righteous anger on those cretins for screwing the pooch so completely
I think this is one you're struggling with as the reality of a Labour government comes into focus somewhere deep in the annals of your mind, so instead you're trying to fingerpoint to what you're comfortable fingerpointing toward instead.
The school operated on just a 2% gross margin last year. A 20% demand shock (everyone knows Labour is going to win) has led to a significant drop in the pupil roll for next year and that's been enough to put it into administration.
That wouldn't have happened were it not for Labour's VAT on private schools policy. It's killed it off.
If it helps, I think the scenario you present is all too plausible. I'm sorry that it's happened, and for the parents, pupils and teachers affected.
The pushback you're getting on this is interesting.
Will be even more interesting when it goes tits up and Labour need to fund all the pupils that cannot go to private schools and no extra VAT coming in.
And the state schools that used to get offered time on playing fields or use of arts facilities suddenly see that chance gone.
The school that my youngest daughter goes to offers use of its sports facilities to local schools. The basic access was required as a condition of planning permission, but they provide school staff, for free, to teach.
So instead of just a swimming pool* the kids get swimming lessons by trained sports coaches.
*The geniuses who drew up the condition of use ignored the issue of minimum staff for safety. So, the school could just say “here’s the swimming pool. Find a life guard”. But they don’t.
Yes I think you’d struggle to find state schools near a public school that want it shut. I didn’t go to public school and I would personally think twice about sending my kids there, but I don’t want them gone. But then I’ve never understood the politics of jealousy. Other people can have nice things without me having to have them too.
I dunno about your first line. I think state schools thrive when they are truly comprehensive; in each class there are a few Tarquins as well as plenty that Tarquin might otherwise never see or spend time with.
Tarquin is useful as a teacher as he tends to do his homework, answer questions and generally want to do well. He's useful as a school leader because his parents often organise eg PTAs.
I also don't think there is enough social mixing amongst young people at present, and I think private schools make that worse at the margins.
OTOH I can see why rich parents would baulk at Tarquin being a pawn in a game of social engineering, especially if they themselves have not had much experience outside their social bubble.
The body of your post is why I wouldn’t send mine there (don’t want them to be Tarquin). But your last paragraph I why I don’t want to attack them - let Tarquin’s parents do what they think’s best for him.
What j would continue to do is ensure public schooling is moderated against at Uni and for selection for a first job.
It just shows how little idea people have of what private schools are actually like, which they assume are all like Eton or something out of an Enid Blyton story.
These are just myths.
The kids at my local school are perfectly normal and aren't even developing cut-glass accents. It's just an independent school with its own educational ethos, that requires parents to afford £5k a term, or £1.4k a month spread over 12 months (with the extras and interest).
That's it.
Are you aware that £1.4k a month for two kids equates to more than the median salary in this country?
That's a considerable sum of money.
The median salary in this country is £35k so, no, I'm not aware of it because it's not true.
Are you aware that's what a full-time nursery place costs now in the South, which a plurality of two-working parents now have to pay?
Lots of families where both parents work full-time with one child exercise this choice, provided their housing is modest and they don't go on expensive holidays.
The real issue comes when one considers a second child.
I'd argue that the parents of the kids at the private schools I attended were not particularly privileged. In fact there were very few 'posh' people. In the case of those kids on bursaries or scholarships, the parents were certainly not rich.
[Snip]
What proportion of the country would you say are 'privileged'? 1%? 5%? 10%?
90% of the population wouldn't be able to afford to send their kids to a private school no matter what sacrifices they made. To those people the parents sending their kids to private schools are definitely privileged.
Define 'privilege'.
I never had a foreign holiday as a kid. Many of my state school friends did - perhaps because their parents were not spending the money on school fees. Were they 'privileged' ?
Privileged means someone else has something I haven't got, and would like.
We're not an aspirational society anymore, sadly; we're one riven with bitterness, jealousy and resentment.
Those do describe the Conservative voting base, yes.
No, that's you and your lot.
I've been following your "likes" today, and they simply reinforce that.
I'd argue that the parents of the kids at the private schools I attended were not particularly privileged. In fact there were very few 'posh' people. In the case of those kids on bursaries or scholarships, the parents were certainly not rich.
I think this is a mistake some make: they assume that all private schools are Eton or Harrow. Many are local schools, serving local people (shades of Royston Vasey...), and the parents struggle and make sacrifices to send their kids to the school. Mine certainly did.
So, another anecdote. We live less than ten minutes' walk from an 'outstanding' secondary school, and one my son wants to go to. We moved here before the school was built, so we can hardly be accused of moving to be near it!
We (currently...) are in the fortunate situation where we could afford to send our son to a private school. Since we're tight, and the local secondary is good and so near, we don't want to go private. He also wants to go there.
However, a fair few kids in the village have been allocated to a school half an hour's drive away, which has a terrible reputation locally, and does not have stellar results. *If* the council choose to send him there, in their infinite wisdom, we would be faced with a choice. Do I want to drive my son to and from a poor school every day, or have him go on a complex bus journey, or do we send him to a local private school? I'd still have to drive him, or he would have to go on a bus, but it would at least be to a decent school.
I'd laugh in the face of anyone who told me that I was doing the 'wrong' thing in sending him to a private school in that situation.
A lot of private schools are not even schools. There are several converted shops round here offering after-school tuition.
I'm not quite sure what that has to do with my situation, but home schooling with tutors is another potential course we could take if he gets allocated the school we don't want him at. But the biggest problem with that is that he's an only child, and I see socialisation as vital for kids. Besides, an acquaintance was home-schooled, and even though he loves his parents, he hated the experience.
After-school tuition, not home schooling with tutors.
And after-school tuition done in a converted shop, i.e. with other children.
One thing Labour do need to clarify is whether they intend to levy VAT on private tuition as well as independent schools.
Or at least, if they've said what their views are I haven't seen them yet.
Is it usual for tutors to go over the £90k VAT threshold?
Doesn't really seem worth worrying about if it only affects one or two in unusual circumstances, but if it's more widespread then I don't see why they shouldn't.
I know that driving instructors do, as do dance teachers - but both of those tend to do it full time so likely make more money than after-school tutors.
I’m just interested in the idea that tutors are paying tax on their earnings.
I still recall a music tutor to one of my daughters who was your classic Frenchy lefty - when I tried to pay by BACS, she accused me of trying to force her to pay tax.
Comments
As I said, in my case we *want* to send our son to a local state school. It is our favoured option - by far.
Here’s a 2016 article: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-charts-that-shows-how-private-school-fees-have-exploded-a7023056.html “Over the past 25 years private school fees have risen by 550 per cent. But consumer prices in that time are up only 200 per cent”
So, that’s a considerably bigger increase than the addition of VAT now would be. I don’t know why that is. Are the schools profiteering? Are they offering a different kind of service? Do schooling costs just rise much more quickly than general inflation? But we have a sector that has been hiking fees for years that’s not talking about why they hiked fees but is keen on talking about how Labour’s policy will make them unaffordable.
I'm not saying Jess got it wrong, but if both rottenborough and at our first attempt read it that way...
This election is going to be primarily about Labour reassuring the grey vote that it's safe to defect or sit on their hands, and thus convert a Hung Parliament into a rout.
Even allowing for independent schools not paying as much as the state sector, that's certainly going to be one impact.
One thing that is getting no coverage, Labour proposed usage of this extra tax is to recruit 1250 extra teachers each year. It is literally drop in the bucket (500k teachers and 40k leave the profession every year) and less than the increase in teacher numbers last year.
I think more than getting worked up about poshos and foreign kids going to private schools, seems a much more important is how do we improve state schools. Labour pledge is not exactly Blair's education, education, education.
Maybe they have more to come?
And yes, I know costs have increased. And many prospective parents have been priced out as a result - and some schools have closed. But that's not an excuse to add an artificial cost on top of it. In the case of my old school, the facilities have apparently improved massively. Have they improved enough to compensate for the extra costs? I don't know - in the case of boarders, perhaps.
I suspect we'll be talking about his forthcoming replacement in about a decade's time, but there's every chance he'll be out after two instead.
from my perspective, having a healthy childhood is definitely a 'privilege', and one I didn't have ...
Families with £1400 a month per child to spare are extremely abnormal. And an educational ethos that costs 2-3 times as much as the government chooses to spend more on most children is a luxury ethos.
Independent schools decided to price themselves out of the middle class market, largely because they could.
I hope it works out for your family, but the sector has been mismanaging itself for ages. Even if Labour's proposals hadn't delivered the coup de grace, something else would have.
And after-school tuition done in a converted shop, i.e. with other children.
Or at least, if they've said what their views are I haven't seen them yet.
a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group.
Not that uncommon to only have a single PM from a whole decade - Home (1900s), Thatcher (1920s), and Major (1940s) are all in that category. And it could be worse - there were no PMs at all from either the 1820s or 1930s!
When you don't have good health, it's easy to see how privileged people who have good health are. And sometimes even act - as many disabled people can probably attest.
That's a considerable sum of money.
The charity shop model benefits from:
- Much free Labour ie volunteers.
- Much free stock.
- 80-100% off business rates.
- Low rent usually. The pitch to the LL is often around LL not being left with the costs and security risks etc of an empty unit.
I'd suggest relatively low paid store managers etc are not the most significant element.
That has an impact on local businesses if the shop starts trading in new stock, or mint stock.
That's why I have a downer on Oxfam's shops, who do precisely that.
Everyone knows Labour will win, and the policy that will be introduced next academic year. That's altering the behaviour of prospective future parents now, because many can't afford a 20%+ uplift in fees for years, which would be permanent, and leading to closures now of marginal schools.
This is simply a fact, it's just one you don't want to acknowledge prior to the election.
Do you have kids?
I was educated exclusively in state schools in England and USA, finishing at the excellent Peter Symonds sixth form college, not so far from CR in Hampshire. It is one of the two Comprehensive schools in the top ten schools sending students to Cambridge, I think it was 5th overall.
Obviously I did well academically there, as did my two sibs one getting an exhibition to Cambridge, the other to LSE. We also had great extracurricular activities and friends from all sorts of backgrounds. I don't recall anyone needing extra tuition.
It was certainly a good education.
b) That elasticity will have a limit. To use an engineering term, it will reach a plastic point where something will give. Besides, some private schools have closed - one in Abbots Bromley, as an example.
c) That's an assumption on your part that might cover a very real fear on their part.
If it's happening at weekends, when most organisations run on skeleton staffs, how much supervision will there be?
But if you take a think-tank essay and dump it in a manifesto undigested, what do you expect? Policy wonks don't think about this sort of detail.
And since it's not meant to be a real policy, who cares if it's only a cardboard cutout?
As for data-driven examples, I’ve pointed to the House of Lords library report on the issue and to an Independent article on rises in fees.
Those who have helped have been those I've met through my working career as I've developed my professional network. And, that's through my employers and clients. And, no, secret handshakes and ties have never come into it.
This stuff is just silly.
Doesn't really seem worth worrying about if it only affects one or two in unusual circumstances, but if it's more widespread then I don't see why they shouldn't.
I know that driving instructors do, as do dance teachers - but both of those tend to do it full time so likely make more money than after-school tutors.
Clinton
"W" Bush
Trump
Biden
Indeed, of the five Presidents elected since 1988, only one (Obama) was not born in the 1970s. And it looks like that record will continue this year.
How much training do you think it takes to be a volunteer with a mountain rescue team? They are all volunteers after all.
Sunak was just trying to inject a bit of glamour into his announcement, spice it up and make the kids think it'll be like Chicago Fire, Miami Vice or Casualty. Not happening.
Having kids in the class who aren't disruptive is the biggest difference between some schools and others and privately educated kids overall tend to be reasonably well behaved/not disruptive.
A class of 30 where everyone is well-behaved is better than a class of 20 where 5-6 are shits taking the teachers attention and disrupting the entire lesson.
A good step to improve state education would be to have stricter rules and make it easier for schools to expel pupils who are disruptive to other's education.
We shouldn't return to the bad old days where anyone with special needs is condemned to a "special school", but we should invest more in pupil referral units.
It's much more common than you think.
No-one is saying it's the worst thing that can happen, or that it is second class.
The argument is that it's a destructive and counterproductive policy to the education sector.
He resorted to violence on the end. Which apparently upset the teachers (who hadn’t helped previously).
Britain’s most influential people are over 5 times more likely to have been to a fee-paying school than the general population. Just 7% of British people are privately educated, compared to two-fifths (39%) of those in top positions.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/elitism-in-britain-2019
And mortgage interest increases will also disproportionately hit people with young families such as yourself (and me), as we're more likely to have high outstanding mortgages. That could be the difference between it being affordable or not for many.
And private school fees have been rising above inflation for years.
I don't doubt that the Labour policy could have been the straw that broke the camels back, but there's a lot of other headwinds that would have contributed.
I am slightly puzzled why you are having a go at me on supplying data when you have responded with speculation rather than data yourself. What’s up? I’m not trying to have an argument with you. I’m happy to discuss the issue, explore the data. I found something and shared it. I hope it was interesting. Feel free to share what you’ve got.
I hope you're not going to share data that shows that ex private sector children "dominate" the upper reaches of the professions, because we've dealt with that one before and it's not for the reasons you think it is.
A complicating factor in my case might be that rather a lot of my money is from abroad.
Thems the facts Jack!
It's not a comprehensive school, though; it's a sixth form college and you have to apply for it for post-GCSEs.
The fact there are an even smaller group of people who are more privileged still and can send their children to an even more expensive, elitist one doesn't change that fact.
b) Is debatable. Labour's rationale is that it would be revenue raising. You can see how there will be some private schools closing whose kids go into the state sector, but it would have to be an awful lot to wipe out the gains. I'd tend to go with Labour over the private school lobby. Especially as over time, you'll get more of an equilibrium as schools' business models adjust.
On c) It's not an eye for an eye, it's making a simple point. All tax and spend policies have winners and losers. There will always be people on the hard edge.
In this case it's a small number of relatively well off people who are losing a tax break they previously enjoyed. It's sad for them. But it's difficult to have sympathy when they are much better able to cope with the end of a previously enjoyed tax break than far poorer children were when the Tories took away educational and childcare services they relied on. The same commentators (though by no means the parents) squealing now that it's all so unfair were cheering that.
So it's difficult to see it as people not used to be being told "no" and that yes, a government may end tax breaks you benefit from but which it doesn't see as beneficial to the nation. It's tantrum throwing because for once in their lives it's them on the wrong end of a decision rather than those at the bottom of society.
In reality, they'd have to provide additional money for the search & rescue and State Deliveroo services. But who knows how much, or how it would be funded?
So it's beyond the reach of most people. But 1 in 4 people could stretch to it if they were partnered with someone else who could pay the mortgage etc.
Are you aware that's what a full-time nursery place costs now in the South, which a plurality of two-working parents now have to pay?
Lots of families where both parents work full-time with one child exercise this choice, provided their housing is modest and they don't go on expensive holidays.
The real issue comes when one considers a second child.
I've been following your "likes" today, and they simply reinforce that.
I still recall a music tutor to one of my daughters who was your classic Frenchy lefty - when I tried to pay by BACS, she accused me of trying to force her to pay tax.