A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.
A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.
I think most parents would scrimp and save to let a kid finish at a school they are already at. Its simply too disruptive to do anything else. The real impact will be on those who are never started there and will feed in over the next decade.
Good morning
A private school in Bangor announced it's closer due to vat and other ffinancial changes just as some of it's pupils were going into their exams causing anger and tears
Our son, who works in the sector but not at this school, was incredulous that the school were so insensitive
Thursday before half term - granted it’s not the greatest time but your suggestion of keeping quiet for another month until the exams are over wouldn’t work.
It’s also the appropriate time to let staff know given them a whole half term to find another job in September.
There's also the trading while insolvent angle and informing staff at the first opportunity of looming redundancies.
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.
A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.
I think most parents would scrimp and save to let a kid finish at a school they are already at. Its simply too disruptive to do anything else. The real impact will be on those who are never started there and will feed in over the next decade.
That's what I thought too but for some people it's not just possible, one parent I know owns a few restaurants, he's getting absolutely pummelled there (thanks Rachel) and there's only so much you can juggle particularly if you've got lots of kids.
I've said it many times but one of the main reasons I am successful in life was having a private education.
It shouldn't really need pointing out, but that private schools lead to good outcomes for those able to afford them isn't really an argument for private schools and against grammar schools. Casino's argument is rather better.
My private education gave me a better life full matches TSE’s political viewpoint.
It’s why states in American allow children of poor parents to work far more hours than in the UK (at the expense of their education attainment). The rich want a underclass who can only do cheap manual work
France stopped two thirds of migrant boats bound for UK last month
A higher proportion of illegal crossings were stopped last month, which ministers said showed the value of April’s £660m deal to pay for more beach patrols
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.
A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.
I think most parents would scrimp and save to let a kid finish at a school they are already at. Its simply too disruptive to do anything else. The real impact will be on those who are never started there and will feed in over the next decade.
Good morning
A private school in Bangor announced it's closer due to vat and other ffinancial changes just as some of it's pupils were going into their exams causing anger and tears
Our son, who works in the sector but not at this school, was incredulous that the school were so insensitive
France stopped two thirds of migrant boats bound for UK last month
A higher proportion of illegal crossings were stopped last month, which ministers said showed the value of April’s £660m deal to pay for more beach patrols
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.
A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.
I think most parents would scrimp and save to let a kid finish at a school they are already at. Its simply too disruptive to do anything else. The real impact will be on those who are never started there and will feed in over the next decade.
Good morning
A private school in Bangor announced it's closer due to vat and other ffinancial changes just as some of it's pupils were going into their exams causing anger and tears
Our son, who works in the sector but not at this school, was incredulous that the school were so insensitive
Thursday before half term - granted it’s not the greatest time but your suggestion of keeping quiet for another month until the exams are over wouldn’t work.
It’s also the appropriate time to let staff know given them a whole half term to find another job in September.
There's also the trading while insolvent angle and informing staff at the first opportunity of looming redundancies.
I went looking at the date of the announcement and thought well they couldn’t have left it any longer. Granted they probably should have done it earlier but I bet the final straw was 3-4 parents withdrawing earlier that week (again as late as possible while still meeting contract notice periods).
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.
A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.
I think most parents would scrimp and save to let a kid finish at a school they are already at. Its simply too disruptive to do anything else. The real impact will be on those who are never started there and will feed in over the next decade.
Good morning
A private school in Bangor announced it's closer due to vat and other ffinancial changes just as some of it's pupils were going into their exams causing anger and tears
Our son, who works in the sector but not at this school, was incredulous that the school were so insensitive
Thursday before half term - granted it’s not the greatest time but your suggestion of keeping quiet for another month until the exams are over wouldn’t work.
It’s also the appropriate time to let staff know given them a whole half term to find another job in September.
They were going into their exams and told before and that really angered a lot of pupils and parents
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.
A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.
I think most parents would scrimp and save to let a kid finish at a school they are already at. Its simply too disruptive to do anything else. The real impact will be on those who are never started there and will feed in over the next decade.
Good morning
A private school in Bangor announced it's closer due to vat and other ffinancial changes just as some of it's pupils were going into their exams causing anger and tears
Our son, who works in the sector but not at this school, was incredulous that the school were so insensitive
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.
A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.
I think most parents would scrimp and save to let a kid finish at a school they are already at. Its simply too disruptive to do anything else. The real impact will be on those who are never started there and will feed in over the next decade.
That's what I thought too but for some people it's not just possible, one parent I know owns a few restaurants, he's getting absolutely pummelled there (thanks Rachel) and there's only so much you can juggle particularly if you've got lots of kids.
I've said it many times but one of the main reasons I am successful in life was having a private education.
I very much doubt that's true in your case TSE, but throughout my career I met quite a few 'high-flyers' who were utter numpties straight off the private school > Oxbridge > management consultants conveyer who knew f*ck all about anything beyond their own sense of entitlement to tell others what to do. They are a drain on the country.
I took on a graduate who was not privately educated and he was absolutely useless and quite the worst appointment I ever made
France stopped two thirds of migrant boats bound for UK last month
A higher proportion of illegal crossings were stopped last month, which ministers said showed the value of April’s £660m deal to pay for more beach patrols
Wouldn't it be easier to let 660 migrants cross then give them a million quid each to go back home?
Duh! And stop all the other migrants how exactly?
We aren't stopping all the other migrants now.
Just a reminder about terminology. Boat people will be migrants but half or more will then be classed as refugees - a legal definition and confirmation of their acceptance as such as HMG. Note that although it can take up to 4 years to get a decision, the vast majority are resolved quickly.
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.
A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.
I think most parents would scrimp and save to let a kid finish at a school they are already at. Its simply too disruptive to do anything else. The real impact will be on those who are never started there and will feed in over the next decade.
That's what I thought too but for some people it's not just possible, one parent I know owns a few restaurants, he's getting absolutely pummelled there (thanks Rachel) and there's only so much you can juggle particularly if you've got lots of kids.
I've said it many times but one of the main reasons I am successful in life was having a private education.
I very much doubt that's true in your case TSE, but throughout my career I met quite a few 'high-flyers' who were utter numpties straight off the private school > Oxbridge > management consultants conveyer who knew f*ck all about anything beyond their own sense of entitlement to tell others what to do. They are a drain on the country.
Sounds like they're well qualified for what they are paid to do in that case. Management Consultants business model is tell experienced people they're doing it all wrong and charge huge fees for so telling them. You need a lot of arrogance and confidence in your lack of knowledge to pull it off.
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.
A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.
I think most parents would scrimp and save to let a kid finish at a school they are already at. Its simply too disruptive to do anything else. The real impact will be on those who are never started there and will feed in over the next decade.
That's what I thought too but for some people it's not just possible, one parent I know owns a few restaurants, he's getting absolutely pummelled there (thanks Rachel) and there's only so much you can juggle particularly if you've got lots of kids.
I've said it many times but one of the main reasons I am successful in life was having a private education.
I very much doubt that's true in your case TSE, but throughout my career I met quite a few 'high-flyers' who were utter numpties straight off the private school > Oxbridge > management consultants conveyer who knew f*ck all about anything beyond their own sense of entitlement to tell others what to do. They are a drain on the country.
I took on a graduate who was not privately educated and he was absolutely useless and quite the worst appointment I ever made
That seems like a very strong argument in favour of changing the system where most kids going to private schools come from rich families.
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.
A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.
I think most parents would scrimp and save to let a kid finish at a school they are already at. Its simply too disruptive to do anything else. The real impact will be on those who are never started there and will feed in over the next decade.
That's what I thought too but for some people it's not just possible, one parent I know owns a few restaurants, he's getting absolutely pummelled there (thanks Rachel) and there's only so much you can juggle particularly if you've got lots of kids.
I've said it many times but one of the main reasons I am successful in life was having a private education.
I very much doubt that's true in your case TSE, but throughout my career I met quite a few 'high-flyers' who were utter numpties straight off the private school > Oxbridge > management consultants conveyer who knew f*ck all about anything beyond their own sense of entitlement to tell others what to do. They are a drain on the country.
I took on a graduate who was not privately educated and he was absolutely useless and quite the worst appointment I ever made
That’s very much a you screwed up your interviewing then.
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.
A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.
I think most parents would scrimp and save to let a kid finish at a school they are already at. Its simply too disruptive to do anything else. The real impact will be on those who are never started there and will feed in over the next decade.
That's what I thought too but for some people it's not just possible, one parent I know owns a few restaurants, he's getting absolutely pummelled there (thanks Rachel) and there's only so much you can juggle particularly if you've got lots of kids.
I've said it many times but one of the main reasons I am successful in life was having a private education.
I very much doubt that's true in your case TSE, but throughout my career I met quite a few 'high-flyers' who were utter numpties straight off the private school > Oxbridge > management consultants conveyer who knew f*ck all about anything beyond their own sense of entitlement to tell others what to do. They are a drain on the country.
I took on a graduate who was not privately educated and he was absolutely useless and quite the worst appointment I ever made
Boris was privately educated. Liz Truss was state educated. We need a third way!
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.
A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.
I think most parents would scrimp and save to let a kid finish at a school they are already at. Its simply too disruptive to do anything else. The real impact will be on those who are never started there and will feed in over the next decade.
Good morning
A private school in Bangor announced it's closer due to vat and other ffinancial changes just as some of it's pupils were going into their exams causing anger and tears
Our son, who works in the sector but not at this school, was incredulous that the school were so insensitive
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.
A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.
I think most parents would scrimp and save to let a kid finish at a school they are already at. Its simply too disruptive to do anything else. The real impact will be on those who are never started there and will feed in over the next decade.
Good morning
A private school in Bangor announced it's closer due to vat and other ffinancial changes just as some of it's pupils were going into their exams causing anger and tears
Our son, who works in the sector but not at this school, was incredulous that the school were so insensitive
Thursday before half term - granted it’s not the greatest time but your suggestion of keeping quiet for another month until the exams are over wouldn’t work.
It’s also the appropriate time to let staff know given them a whole half term to find another job in September.
They were going into their exams and told before and that really angered a lot of pupils and parents
Also - when our local private school closed down it was transformed into a Academy school with all the pupils moving with it and boarding provided until the last boarding child moved out (they started selling those houses last year().
Then I look at the location and grounds of St Gerard’s and the real story came out. That’s a large amount of prime(ish) real estate that could take a lot of housing. So no surprise they preferred to close it down - someone’s pension is truly sorted
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.
A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.
I think most parents would scrimp and save to let a kid finish at a school they are already at. Its simply too disruptive to do anything else. The real impact will be on those who are never started there and will feed in over the next decade.
That's what I thought too but for some people it's not just possible, one parent I know owns a few restaurants, he's getting absolutely pummelled there (thanks Rachel) and there's only so much you can juggle particularly if you've got lots of kids.
I've said it many times but one of the main reasons I am successful in life was having a private education.
I very much doubt that's true in your case TSE, but throughout my career I met quite a few 'high-flyers' who were utter numpties straight off the private school > Oxbridge > management consultants conveyer who knew f*ck all about anything beyond their own sense of entitlement to tell others what to do. They are a drain on the country.
I took on a graduate who was not privately educated and he was absolutely useless and quite the worst appointment I ever made
That’s very much a you screwed up your interviewing then.
Problem is private schools will create debate.
Thanks for that, but then I always was a generous employer who treated staff to the point they still are friends even 17 years after I retired
There was nothing in his interview that suggested he was unsuitable for his role
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.
A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.
I think most parents would scrimp and save to let a kid finish at a school they are already at. Its simply too disruptive to do anything else. The real impact will be on those who are never started there and will feed in over the next decade.
That's what I thought too but for some people it's not just possible, one parent I know owns a few restaurants, he's getting absolutely pummelled there (thanks Rachel) and there's only so much you can juggle particularly if you've got lots of kids.
I've said it many times but one of the main reasons I am successful in life was having a private education.
I very much doubt that's true in your case TSE, but throughout my career I met quite a few 'high-flyers' who were utter numpties straight off the private school > Oxbridge > management consultants conveyer who knew f*ck all about anything beyond their own sense of entitlement to tell others what to do. They are a drain on the country.
I took on a graduate who was not privately educated and he was absolutely useless and quite the worst appointment I ever made
How extraordinary! Are you saying you managed a long business career without coming across a highly competent state educated graduate? In my case it's most of my colleagues.
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.
A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.
I think most parents would scrimp and save to let a kid finish at a school they are already at. Its simply too disruptive to do anything else. The real impact will be on those who are never started there and will feed in over the next decade.
Good morning
A private school in Bangor announced it's closer due to vat and other ffinancial changes just as some of it's pupils were going into their exams causing anger and tears
Our son, who works in the sector but not at this school, was incredulous that the school were so insensitive
Thursday before half term - granted it’s not the greatest time but your suggestion of keeping quiet for another month until the exams are over wouldn’t work.
It’s also the appropriate time to let staff know given them a whole half term to find another job in September.
There's also the trading while insolvent angle and informing staff at the first opportunity of looming redundancies.
I went looking at the date of the announcement and thought well they couldn’t have left it any longer. Granted they probably should have done it earlier but I bet the final straw was 3-4 parents withdrawing earlier that week (again as late as possible while still meeting contract notice periods).
Can I just say it was not the announcement that caused the anger but the time of day as pupils were going into their exam
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.
A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.
I think most parents would scrimp and save to let a kid finish at a school they are already at. Its simply too disruptive to do anything else. The real impact will be on those who are never started there and will feed in over the next decade.
Good morning
A private school in Bangor announced it's closer due to vat and other ffinancial changes just as some of it's pupils were going into their exams causing anger and tears
Our son, who works in the sector but not at this school, was incredulous that the school were so insensitive
What's the line from Decline and Fall? "Very much a school"?
Private Schools have benefitted from unfair perks
Private Schools have in many cases seen this as a cash cow.
Private Schools are only being asked to pay fair VAT
Its a shame pupils suffer. It's a shame teachers suffer.
Reduction in childbirth impacts.
This is down to inept management and financial planning.
Your last point is probably the key one for me.
If a business has so little left in reserve, and is running so close to collapse, that it has to close this quickly, it's not really been a viable business for some time.
And I'm sure the VAT imposition hasn't helped- but it's also the case that the public sector frontline tends to be much better at cutting its coat, because it has less cloth to play with.
Great to see the Commons are bringing back an identical Assisted Dying law to that which was passed last term. Good!
Hopefully the Commons passes it, and the Lords can stop dicking around and act like adults and either choose reasonable amendments that the Commons accepts to improve the bill, or the Parliament Act sees it go through unamended since the elected chamber has passed it twice by that point.
It's a Private Mermbers Bill and not part of the Government's Manifesto - the Parliament Act doesn't apply...
Parliament Act has bugger all to do with Government Manifesto's.
Salisbury Convention does not apply. Parliament Act does.
Not trying to get into a debate on the substance of the Bill. You and I disagree.
However I do have concerns about the use of the Parliament Act. There were some real practical concerns about the Bill and meaningful improvements made in the Lords (ignoring those you define as wrecking amendments). But the parliament act requires that it be passed unchanged.
That’s a real issue. It was poorly drafted originally and the supporters walked back from many of the promises they made to get through the second reading. I seem to remember you complaining about the dangerous dogs act as being poor legislation - why should substandard legislation about such an important topic be forced through when they can’t convince a majority of both house?
That doesn't mean the bill can't be amended before it's passed into law. It does mean that the Lords can't table and pass amendments to it; only make suggestions for its improvement before sending it back to the Commons.
Quite what that might mean for the final bill if the Commons votes for it is anyone's guess, and it's clearly not how a government should push through such controversial legislation.
But it's not accurate to say the law has to be enacted unchanged.
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.
A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.
I think most parents would scrimp and save to let a kid finish at a school they are already at. Its simply too disruptive to do anything else. The real impact will be on those who are never started there and will feed in over the next decade.
That's what I thought too but for some people it's not just possible, one parent I know owns a few restaurants, he's getting absolutely pummelled there (thanks Rachel) and there's only so much you can juggle particularly if you've got lots of kids.
I've said it many times but one of the main reasons I am successful in life was having a private education.
I very much doubt that's true in your case TSE, but throughout my career I met quite a few 'high-flyers' who were utter numpties straight off the private school > Oxbridge > management consultants conveyer who knew f*ck all about anything beyond their own sense of entitlement to tell others what to do. They are a drain on the country.
I took on a graduate who was not privately educated and he was absolutely useless and quite the worst appointment I ever made
Boris was privately educated. Liz Truss was state educated. We need a third way!
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.
A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.
I think most parents would scrimp and save to let a kid finish at a school they are already at. Its simply too disruptive to do anything else. The real impact will be on those who are never started there and will feed in over the next decade.
That's what I thought too but for some people it's not just possible, one parent I know owns a few restaurants, he's getting absolutely pummelled there (thanks Rachel) and there's only so much you can juggle particularly if you've got lots of kids.
I've said it many times but one of the main reasons I am successful in life was having a private education.
I very much doubt that's true in your case TSE, but throughout my career I met quite a few 'high-flyers' who were utter numpties straight off the private school > Oxbridge > management consultants conveyer who knew f*ck all about anything beyond their own sense of entitlement to tell others what to do. They are a drain on the country.
I took on a graduate who was not privately educated and he was absolutely useless and quite the worst appointment I ever made
Boris was privately educated. Liz Truss was state educated. We need a third way!
Not educated at all. Feral street kid.
So not in Sandy's good books then? Hope you've been sterilised.
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.
A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.
I think most parents would scrimp and save to let a kid finish at a school they are already at. Its simply too disruptive to do anything else. The real impact will be on those who are never started there and will feed in over the next decade.
That's what I thought too but for some people it's not just possible, one parent I know owns a few restaurants, he's getting absolutely pummelled there (thanks Rachel) and there's only so much you can juggle particularly if you've got lots of kids.
I've said it many times but one of the main reasons I am successful in life was having a private education.
I very much doubt that's true in your case TSE, but throughout my career I met quite a few 'high-flyers' who were utter numpties straight off the private school > Oxbridge > management consultants conveyer who knew f*ck all about anything beyond their own sense of entitlement to tell others what to do. They are a drain on the country.
I took on a graduate who was not privately educated and he was absolutely useless and quite the worst appointment I ever made
And 93% of the population were written off. Just like that.
Rupert Lowe must be so jealous, he only wants millions to go.
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.
A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.
I think most parents would scrimp and save to let a kid finish at a school they are already at. Its simply too disruptive to do anything else. The real impact will be on those who are never started there and will feed in over the next decade.
That's what I thought too but for some people it's not just possible, one parent I know owns a few restaurants, he's getting absolutely pummelled there (thanks Rachel) and there's only so much you can juggle particularly if you've got lots of kids.
I've said it many times but one of the main reasons I am successful in life was having a private education.
I very much doubt that's true in your case TSE, but throughout my career I met quite a few 'high-flyers' who were utter numpties straight off the private school > Oxbridge > management consultants conveyer who knew f*ck all about anything beyond their own sense of entitlement to tell others what to do. They are a drain on the country.
I took on a graduate who was not privately educated and he was absolutely useless and quite the worst appointment I ever made
Boris was privately educated. Liz Truss was state educated. We need a third way!
Not educated at all. Feral street kid.
Ramsay MacDonald left school at 15, and it would not surprise me if one or two of our aristocratic prime ministers were home-schooled. Like our dear, late Queen, come to think of it.
Back on the education debate. Has anyone asked the kids their views? They have skin in this particular game.
Should we really be discussing children's skin? And surely the number of children who have switched between sectors in either direction is small, and even fewer will be qualified to make sound evaluations.
One of the main headlines in Haartz is a request to remove US refueling aircraft from Tel Aviv airport. Has Israel finally decided that enough is enough and want the US to withdraw? No refueling. No bombers.
Apparently the main issue is that the planes are blocking up the place, and 2.4mn tickets for holiday flights will be cancelled. Now we know the real reason for the Peace Deal.
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.
A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.
I think most parents would scrimp and save to let a kid finish at a school they are already at. Its simply too disruptive to do anything else. The real impact will be on those who are never started there and will feed in over the next decade.
That's what I thought too but for some people it's not just possible, one parent I know owns a few restaurants, he's getting absolutely pummelled there (thanks Rachel) and there's only so much you can juggle particularly if you've got lots of kids.
I've said it many times but one of the main reasons I am successful in life was having a private education.
I very much doubt that's true in your case TSE, but throughout my career I met quite a few 'high-flyers' who were utter numpties straight off the private school > Oxbridge > management consultants conveyer who knew f*ck all about anything beyond their own sense of entitlement to tell others what to do. They are a drain on the country.
I took on a graduate who was not privately educated and he was absolutely useless and quite the worst appointment I ever made
That seems like a very strong argument in favour of changing the system where most kids going to private schools come from rich families.
The Free School in Hammersmith gets criticised (and its excellent results derided) because it “lacks diversity”
The fun bit is - *diversity is measured by entitlement to free school meals*. The lower “diversity” is caused by middle class parents sending their children there - which was the whole point.
I asked one of the critics, if a school where 100% of the children were eligible for free school meals would “lack diversity”.
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.
A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.
I think most parents would scrimp and save to let a kid finish at a school they are already at. Its simply too disruptive to do anything else. The real impact will be on those who are never started there and will feed in over the next decade.
That's what I thought too but for some people it's not just possible, one parent I know owns a few restaurants, he's getting absolutely pummelled there (thanks Rachel) and there's only so much you can juggle particularly if you've got lots of kids.
I've said it many times but one of the main reasons I am successful in life was having a private education.
I very much doubt that's true in your case TSE, but throughout my career I met quite a few 'high-flyers' who were utter numpties straight off the private school > Oxbridge > management consultants conveyer who knew f*ck all about anything beyond their own sense of entitlement to tell others what to do. They are a drain on the country.
I took on a graduate who was not privately educated and he was absolutely useless and quite the worst appointment I ever made
Boris was privately educated. Liz Truss was state educated. We need a third way!
Not educated at all. Feral street kid.
So not in Sandy's good books then? Hope you've been sterilised.
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.
A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.
I think most parents would scrimp and save to let a kid finish at a school they are already at. Its simply too disruptive to do anything else. The real impact will be on those who are never started there and will feed in over the next decade.
That's what I thought too but for some people it's not just possible, one parent I know owns a few restaurants, he's getting absolutely pummelled there (thanks Rachel) and there's only so much you can juggle particularly if you've got lots of kids.
I've said it many times but one of the main reasons I am successful in life was having a private education.
I very much doubt that's true in your case TSE, but throughout my career I met quite a few 'high-flyers' who were utter numpties straight off the private school > Oxbridge > management consultants conveyer who knew f*ck all about anything beyond their own sense of entitlement to tell others what to do. They are a drain on the country.
I took on a graduate who was not privately educated and he was absolutely useless and quite the worst appointment I ever made
And 93% of the population were written off. Just like that.
Rupert Lowe must be so jealous, he only wants millions to go.
That is not the point I was making
Private or public educated children can equally be unsuitable for employment but most are not
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.
A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.
I think most parents would scrimp and save to let a kid finish at a school they are already at. Its simply too disruptive to do anything else. The real impact will be on those who are never started there and will feed in over the next decade.
That's what I thought too but for some people it's not just possible, one parent I know owns a few restaurants, he's getting absolutely pummelled there (thanks Rachel) and there's only so much you can juggle particularly if you've got lots of kids.
I've said it many times but one of the main reasons I am successful in life was having a private education.
I very much doubt that's true in your case TSE, but throughout my career I met quite a few 'high-flyers' who were utter numpties straight off the private school > Oxbridge > management consultants conveyer who knew f*ck all about anything beyond their own sense of entitlement to tell others what to do. They are a drain on the country.
I took on a graduate who was not privately educated and he was absolutely useless and quite the worst appointment I ever made
And 93% of the population were written off. Just like that.
Rupert Lowe must be so jealous, he only wants millions to go.
Stop the clocks! The Daily Mail has found a rich bigot it considers *too* right-wing. They must be really worried about Rupert Lowe biting big chunks out of Farage's base.
- Restore most have done well over the weekend in Makerfield
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.
A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.
I think most parents would scrimp and save to let a kid finish at a school they are already at. Its simply too disruptive to do anything else. The real impact will be on those who are never started there and will feed in over the next decade.
That's what I thought too but for some people it's not just possible, one parent I know owns a few restaurants, he's getting absolutely pummelled there (thanks Rachel) and there's only so much you can juggle particularly if you've got lots of kids.
I've said it many times but one of the main reasons I am successful in life was having a private education.
I very much doubt that's true in your case TSE, but throughout my career I met quite a few 'high-flyers' who were utter numpties straight off the private school > Oxbridge > management consultants conveyer who knew f*ck all about anything beyond their own sense of entitlement to tell others what to do. They are a drain on the country.
I took on a graduate who was not privately educated and he was absolutely useless and quite the worst appointment I ever made
And 93% of the population were written off. Just like that.
Rupert Lowe must be so jealous, he only wants millions to go.
That is not the point I was making
Private or public educated children can equally be unsuitable for employment but most are not
You are going to have to write very clearly exactly what you thought you were saying as so far you are coming out as an elitist snob
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Good morning everyone.
A serious question. How much of that c. £12k is money that is being spent anyway? Do you have an idea of the marginal number?
For example, they will not need extra heating in the school for two more children.
Clearly it is more complex than that, and I am aware of the things my parents could not have because they sent me to an independent school for 10 years.
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.
A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.
I think most parents would scrimp and save to let a kid finish at a school they are already at. Its simply too disruptive to do anything else. The real impact will be on those who are never started there and will feed in over the next decade.
That's what I thought too but for some people it's not just possible, one parent I know owns a few restaurants, he's getting absolutely pummelled there (thanks Rachel) and there's only so much you can juggle particularly if you've got lots of kids.
I've said it many times but one of the main reasons I am successful in life was having a private education.
I very much doubt that's true in your case TSE, but throughout my career I met quite a few 'high-flyers' who were utter numpties straight off the private school > Oxbridge > management consultants conveyer who knew f*ck all about anything beyond their own sense of entitlement to tell others what to do. They are a drain on the country.
I took on a graduate who was not privately educated and he was absolutely useless and quite the worst appointment I ever made
And 93% of the population were written off. Just like that.
Rupert Lowe must be so jealous, he only wants millions to go.
Stop the clocks! The Daily Mail has found a rich bigot it considers *too* right-wing. They must be really worried about Rupert Lowe biting big chunks out of Farage's base.
- Restore most have done well over the weekend in Makerfield
The mail are having a breakdown over Lowe and really cannot see Farage is not much better
They seem desperate to stop Burnham winning, but hopefully they will not see that outcome
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.
A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.
I think most parents would scrimp and save to let a kid finish at a school they are already at. Its simply too disruptive to do anything else. The real impact will be on those who are never started there and will feed in over the next decade.
Good morning
A private school in Bangor announced it's closer due to vat and other ffinancial changes just as some of it's pupils were going into their exams causing anger and tears
Our son, who works in the sector but not at this school, was incredulous that the school were so insensitive
What's the line from Decline and Fall? "Very much a school"?
Private Schools have benefitted from unfair perks
Private Schools have in many cases seen this as a cash cow.
Private Schools are only being asked to pay fair VAT
Its a shame pupils suffer. It's a shame teachers suffer.
Reduction in childbirth impacts.
This is down to inept management and financial planning.
Your last point is probably the key one for me.
If a business has so little left in reserve, and is running so close to collapse, that it has to close this quickly, it's not really been a viable business for some time.
And I'm sure the VAT imposition hasn't helped- but it's also the case that the public sector frontline tends to be much better at cutting its coat, because it has less cloth to play with.
Ah, the “Any business that goes under from tax increases, energy costs, minimum wage increases, regulatory burden etc etc is a zombie business and better off dead” argument.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Good morning everyone.
A serious question. Is that a sunk cost fallacy in part - how much of that c. £12k is money that is being spent anyway? Do you have an idea of the marginal number?
For example, they will not need extra heating in the school for two more children.
Schools get a pot of money per child but there will be a central pot of money first then say £3000 per child (will need to hunt down a funding formula to see accurate figures).
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.
A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.
I think most parents would scrimp and save to let a kid finish at a school they are already at. Its simply too disruptive to do anything else. The real impact will be on those who are never started there and will feed in over the next decade.
Good morning
A private school in Bangor announced it's closer due to vat and other ffinancial changes just as some of it's pupils were going into their exams causing anger and tears
Our son, who works in the sector but not at this school, was incredulous that the school were so insensitive
What's the line from Decline and Fall? "Very much a school"?
Private Schools have benefitted from unfair perks
Private Schools have in many cases seen this as a cash cow.
Private Schools are only being asked to pay fair VAT
Its a shame pupils suffer. It's a shame teachers suffer.
Reduction in childbirth impacts.
This is down to inept management and financial planning.
Your last point is probably the key one for me.
If a business has so little left in reserve, and is running so close to collapse, that it has to close this quickly, it's not really been a viable business for some time.
And I'm sure the VAT imposition hasn't helped- but it's also the case that the public sector frontline tends to be much better at cutting its coat, because it has less cloth to play with.
Ah, the “Any business that goes under from tax increases, energy costs, minimum wage increases, regulatory burden etc etc is a zombie business and better off dead” argument.
They will be using this a lot over the next few years as Government policy forces tens of thousands of businesses into closing. Its the perfect excuse. Blaming the victim for the crime.
Starmer banning social media for under 16s. A bit of a shame he is discovering how to be decisive so late in the day.
I did wonder why I saw some very strange adverts on the football from TikTok and Instragram last night talking about content management tools - the adverts made the stop gambling ones make sense
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Good morning everyone.
A serious question. How much of that c. £12k is money that is being spent anyway? Do you have an idea of the marginal number?
For example, they will not need extra heating in the school for two more children.
Clearly it is more complex than that, and I am aware of the things my parents could not have because they sent me to an independent school for 10 years.
The marginal cost of adding 2 kids is very small. A few extra books etc.
The state funds schools per pupil though, so the school will benefit a lot from the additional resource.
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.
A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.
I think most parents would scrimp and save to let a kid finish at a school they are already at. Its simply too disruptive to do anything else. The real impact will be on those who are never started there and will feed in over the next decade.
Good morning
A private school in Bangor announced it's closer due to vat and other ffinancial changes just as some of it's pupils were going into their exams causing anger and tears
Our son, who works in the sector but not at this school, was incredulous that the school were so insensitive
What's the line from Decline and Fall? "Very much a school"?
Private Schools have benefitted from unfair perks
Private Schools have in many cases seen this as a cash cow.
Private Schools are only being asked to pay fair VAT
Its a shame pupils suffer. It's a shame teachers suffer.
Reduction in childbirth impacts.
This is down to inept management and financial planning.
All VAT on private schools has done is forced some smaller private schools to close and reduced the scholarships and bursaries private schools can offer, making them even more exclusive and reducing further opportunity. It is yet another wickedness from this useless Labour government, much like removing assisted places or starting the process of closing grammars was from previous Labour governments
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.
A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.
I think most parents would scrimp and save to let a kid finish at a school they are already at. Its simply too disruptive to do anything else. The real impact will be on those who are never started there and will feed in over the next decade.
That's what I thought too but for some people it's not just possible, one parent I know owns a few restaurants, he's getting absolutely pummelled there (thanks Rachel) and there's only so much you can juggle particularly if you've got lots of kids.
I've said it many times but one of the main reasons I am successful in life was having a private education.
I very much doubt that's true in your case TSE, but throughout my career I met quite a few 'high-flyers' who were utter numpties straight off the private school > Oxbridge > management consultants conveyer who knew f*ck all about anything beyond their own sense of entitlement to tell others what to do. They are a drain on the country.
I took on a graduate who was not privately educated and he was absolutely useless and quite the worst appointment I ever made
Boris was privately educated. Liz Truss was state educated. We need a third way!
Not educated at all. Feral street kid.
So not in Sandy's good books then? Hope you've been sterilised.
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.
A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.
I think most parents would scrimp and save to let a kid finish at a school they are already at. Its simply too disruptive to do anything else. The real impact will be on those who are never started there and will feed in over the next decade.
That's what I thought too but for some people it's not just possible, one parent I know owns a few restaurants, he's getting absolutely pummelled there (thanks Rachel) and there's only so much you can juggle particularly if you've got lots of kids.
I've said it many times but one of the main reasons I am successful in life was having a private education.
I very much doubt that's true in your case TSE, but throughout my career I met quite a few 'high-flyers' who were utter numpties straight off the private school > Oxbridge > management consultants conveyer who knew f*ck all about anything beyond their own sense of entitlement to tell others what to do. They are a drain on the country.
I took on a graduate who was not privately educated and he was absolutely useless and quite the worst appointment I ever made
And 93% of the population were written off. Just like that.
Rupert Lowe must be so jealous, he only wants millions to go.
That is not the point I was making
Private or public educated children can equally be unsuitable for employment but most are not
You are going to have to write very clearly exactly what you thought you were saying as so far you are coming out as an elitist snob
Well that is a first because nobody who knows me would ever suggest anything like that
I have no problem with private schooling and seeing many ordinary parents make extraordinary sacrifices to pay the cost
The only ones not affected by the vat increases are the wealthy which in itself is making the sector more elitist which is a big negative
I have to say that my point was that private education bad, public good, is a far more nuanced debate
The gist of his argument: that he and others have and always will fail to close the gap in educational outcomes between rich and poor. “I’ve spent much of my career trying to reduce the gap in exam results between children from low-income families and everyone else. In government I helped introduce extra funding via the “pupil premium”. After leaving I worked for Teach First, whose mission is to get great teachers where they’re most needed. I’ve been a trustee of numerous education charities all targeting the same goal. None of it worked”
Whilst average attainment has improved the gap between rich and poor remains and has increased since 2020: “the history of education in England has been one of steady increases in opportunity combined with a determined effort by the wealthiest to maintain their advantage”.
The gist of his argument: that he and others have and always will fail to close the gap in educational outcomes between rich and poor. “I’ve spent much of my career trying to reduce the gap in exam results between children from low-income families and everyone else. In government I helped introduce extra funding via the “pupil premium”. After leaving I worked for Teach First, whose mission is to get great teachers where they’re most needed. I’ve been a trustee of numerous education charities all targeting the same goal. None of it worked”
Whilst average attainment has improved the gap between rich and poor remains and has increased since 2020: “the history of education in England has been one of steady increases in opportunity combined with a determined effort by the wealthiest to maintain their advantage”.
Many teachers have commented that they can tell the trajectory of children at the nursery stage. Parents who read to their children vs those that don't etc.
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.
A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.
I think most parents would scrimp and save to let a kid finish at a school they are already at. Its simply too disruptive to do anything else. The real impact will be on those who are never started there and will feed in over the next decade.
That's what I thought too but for some people it's not just possible, one parent I know owns a few restaurants, he's getting absolutely pummelled there (thanks Rachel) and there's only so much you can juggle particularly if you've got lots of kids.
I've said it many times but one of the main reasons I am successful in life was having a private education.
It shouldn't really need pointing out, but that private schools lead to good outcomes for those able to afford them isn't really an argument for private schools and against grammar schools. Casino's argument is rather better.
Of course it is, otherwise you may as well say Marks and Spencer providing high quality food for those who can afford it isn't an argument for shopping there.
We need more choice in education, removed VAT on private education again, restored assisted places, more free schools and parents having the opportunity to ballot to open new grammar schools not just close them
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Both of my boys have done very well academically from a RC High School.
I don't believe you are paying for academic excellence, you are paying for a supreme confidence and a network you no longer generally find at state schools, although it existed back in my day.
And this is no joke. If you do make the leap, find a local school that plays rugby in at least one of the first two academic terms. This will tell you an awful lot about how the headteacher rolls. Team sports, particularly rugby and cricket are very important metrics in my old fashioned view.
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Good morning everyone.
A serious question. How much of that c. £12k is money that is being spent anyway? Do you have an idea of the marginal number?
For example, they will not need extra heating in the school for two more children.
Clearly it is more complex than that, and I am aware of the things my parents could not have because they sent me to an independent school for 10 years.
The marginal cost of adding 2 kids is very small. A few extra books etc.
The state funds schools per pupil though, so the school will benefit a lot from the additional resource.
The other fallacy, above, is the classic OR fail of "This marginal cost/load on the organisation can be met with no increase in resources".
Yeah, 2 more kids in the corner of the class might not seem like extra work to some. But state schools are deliberately run at 99%+ capacity. And teachers will bloody notice 2 more kids.
If15 parents in the whole catchment area do the same - a whole new class is required.
The gist of his argument: that he and others have and always will fail to close the gap in educational outcomes between rich and poor. “I’ve spent much of my career trying to reduce the gap in exam results between children from low-income families and everyone else. In government I helped introduce extra funding via the “pupil premium”. After leaving I worked for Teach First, whose mission is to get great teachers where they’re most needed. I’ve been a trustee of numerous education charities all targeting the same goal. None of it worked”
Whilst average attainment has improved the gap between rich and poor remains and has increased since 2020: “the history of education in England has been one of steady increases in opportunity combined with a determined effort by the wealthiest to maintain their advantage”.
Many teachers have commented that they can tell the trajectory of children at the nursery stage. Parents who read to their children vs those that don't etc.
Surestart was an essential project and also almost the first thing Osborne cut. Having said that now go and read the last sentence of Sam’s quote
a determined effort by the wealthiest to maintain their advantage”.
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Good morning everyone.
A serious question. How much of that c. £12k is money that is being spent anyway? Do you have an idea of the marginal number?
For example, they will not need extra heating in the school for two more children.
Clearly it is more complex than that, and I am aware of the things my parents could not have because they sent me to an independent school for 10 years.
Falling school rolls in the state sector make that an interesting question.
The Iran 'deal'. So what's to stop either side reneging on it? This US administration places little store in agreements made with other countries, whether 'signed' or not. And Iran isn't exactly 'word is my bond' either. I wouldn't be calling this over until the Straits are open, there's been a period of no strikes, and America has physically withdrawn.
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.
A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.
I think most parents would scrimp and save to let a kid finish at a school they are already at. Its simply too disruptive to do anything else. The real impact will be on those who are never started there and will feed in over the next decade.
That's what I thought too but for some people it's not just possible, one parent I know owns a few restaurants, he's getting absolutely pummelled there (thanks Rachel) and there's only so much you can juggle particularly if you've got lots of kids.
I've said it many times but one of the main reasons I am successful in life was having a private education.
I very much doubt that's true in your case TSE, but throughout my career I met quite a few 'high-flyers' who were utter numpties straight off the private school > Oxbridge > management consultants conveyer who knew f*ck all about anything beyond their own sense of entitlement to tell others what to do. They are a drain on the country.
I took on a graduate who was not privately educated and he was absolutely useless and quite the worst appointment I ever made
And 93% of the population were written off. Just like that.
Rupert Lowe must be so jealous, he only wants millions to go.
That is not the point I was making
Private or public educated children can equally be unsuitable for employment but most are not
It did read exactly as "I once, and only once, ever employed a state educated candidate and he was awful. I never did that again, it was private school people all the way after that." Which would perhaps be the most extraordinarily bigoted statement ever made in the 20+ year history of PB.
And you followed it up with "I'm a great boss. (All those clubbable chaps acted clubbably for years after I employed them)."
RIP Roy Jenkins. Sad news. He was one of my favourite Labour politicians.
About a quarter of a century after the event, but nonetheless a great loss.
He wrote a column in the Speccie about his delightful retirement home in a small Peak District village. As a paean to traditional English rural life it combined all the best elements of Postman Pat and Fireman Sam. Rather different from Sparkbrook.
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Both of my boys have done very well academically from a RC High School.
I don't believe you are paying for academic excellence, you are paying for a supreme confidence and a network you no longer generally find at state schools, although it existed back in my day.
And this is no joke. If you do make the leap, find a local school that plays rugby in at least one of the first two academic terms. This will tell you an awful lot about how the headteacher rolls. Team sports, particularly rugby and cricket are very important metrics in my old fashioned view.
Exactly, most employers want good team players too and team sports helps with that. Academic excellence alone unless you want to be an academic or say a commercial barrister isn't the only thing to getting a good career
The gist of his argument: that he and others have and always will fail to close the gap in educational outcomes between rich and poor. “I’ve spent much of my career trying to reduce the gap in exam results between children from low-income families and everyone else. In government I helped introduce extra funding via the “pupil premium”. After leaving I worked for Teach First, whose mission is to get great teachers where they’re most needed. I’ve been a trustee of numerous education charities all targeting the same goal. None of it worked”
Whilst average attainment has improved the gap between rich and poor remains and has increased since 2020: “the history of education in England has been one of steady increases in opportunity combined with a determined effort by the wealthiest to maintain their advantage”.
Key paragraph there 'Politicians like to talk about school systems as if their sole purpose was to give all young people the necessary skills and knowledge to succeed in life. This is a universal goal that, in theory, everyone can benefit equally from. But in reality much of the system is focused on ranking children to help sixth forms, universities, and employers select recruits. By definition, the benefits here cannot be universal as the aim is to create a hierarchy. Because this ranking process is so critical to future income and status, wealthier parents will, rationally, invest huge sums to ensure their children do well. That means however much the average performance in the system improves, the gap will always be sustained.'
The GB News bungalows are quite agitated about Mr Milliband:
In Germany the NAZIS had lots of Gauleiters like Millipede, they caused havoc and deaths, he is going to bring about scores of deaths this next winter, time he was actually PRACTICING what HE preaches, his carbon footprint is shocking.
His carbon footprint is enormous. In his private life as well as his public life. There is something deeply unsettling about the psychology of someone who wants other people to give up their tumble dryers and underfloor heating, yet lives an enormously privileged life largely at the expense of the same taxpayers he would like to have lower living standards. It's the reason why the public despise politicians.
Thanks for the reply.
The "personal carbon footprint 12x larger than average" stuff seems to be around a pretence that Ed Milliband's carbon footprint as a Government Minister is somehow "personal"; it is not personal. That's how they got to their "12 times bigger than average" nonsense. It's a spurious comparison, which is what I expect from UK media on the right, or perhaps more generally.
The only data I could get on Miliband's private life carbon footprint would be to look at the energy efficiency of his house in Kentish Town, which if he is serious should be in Band C for the basic structure, and perhaps a B if he has solar etc. One reason I treat Emma Nicholson (flew to London 1st Class to make a green speech) with a measure of contempt is that her London house has a poor EPC number; she is not doing the basics. If you have more data, I would like to see it.
The GB News and Telegraph talking points on the Miliband stuff are a series of fairy stories, on a level with Boris Johnson's reporting from Brussels. UFH or towel rails or tumble dryers being banned, or wanting people to abandon their current ones - NOPE, though it makes sense to not use your tumble dryer if you want to save on electricity bills as things like washing lines are out there.
It's just about normal market regulation, and things like the UFH setups being able to work at a flow temperature of 55C max are to make sure that installations are functional; it is a common error to overestimate the heating capacity of small emitter areas. We start by improving the efficiency of new products in the marketplace.
The poor ones get regulated out as we progress. Something as simple as double glazing is no different - there is constant improvement. My policy has always been to install the highest quality I can without using exotic products, and the high end 2G I was installing just 12-14 years ago is now below minimum standard.
In a way it is encouraging that the populist far right having nothing to offer but barrel scrapings and manufactured outrage; all they have is a bullshit firehose to keep the gullibles down the rabbit hole. It's a harbinger that before long they will go pop, just as they did in the 1930s, 1950s, the 1970s, and the 2000s.
Thanks for your reply.
I think what you are describing as vicious calumnies are in fact just normal rhetoric. I know that David Milliband is not sending the rozzers round to confiscate peoples' dryers. What he is doing is introducing an intrusive and in my view unwarranted ban on the sale of the most effective forms of tumble dryer - those that work well in a garage - those that are quicker. It may make sense to save the energy - if that is so, the market will sort it out. If it isn't so, it's frankly none of Milliband's business. The same goes for the banning of underfloor heating systems that use 'too much' energy. 1. Fuck off you Stalinist little weasel, 2. I don't think 'giving up' is a particularly outrageous way to describe something being banned from sale. The net outcome will eventually be the same. ... Was travelling to multiple cities in Brazil to highlight our climate leadership a particularly good use of carbon or money? Was a private jet (one way, he slummed it in Business the other way) to NYC for 'New York Climate Week' with over 100 civil servants from the deparment also in attendence? These things are at the Minister's discretion.
I had a bit of a dig into this on Sunday afternoon. Most of Miliband's changes are the latest changes in Building Regulations, which evolution has been a continuous process since they were introduced in 1965. This process and insulation schemes etc are key reasons why the average UK household energy use is down by around 20% since 2010, which is also a 20% reduction in the bills we would otherwise be paying.
Things such as the 55C flow temperature for wet UFH is to make sure that installed systems are functional; if not developers will go for what they can sell at max profit, even if it is not fully effective. That is desirable, just as we regulate flow temperatures of heating systems condensing gas boilers, because if flow temperature for those goes above 55-56C the gas boiler stops condensing, and efficiency falls by 5-10%. This is just normal.
The Telegraph and GBN headlines about 'banning UFH' are imaginary. I think we are well beyond the point where installed directly electric (as opposed to wet) UFH will damage the market value of a dwelling, and be an albatross, outside special circumstances. Some requirements around controllability are imo just fine, as it gives an installation which will be more useable rather than ignored due to cost after a few years.
The changes around tumbler dryers are also something I can't get excited about. The price differences are becoming minimal, and the more expensive to run traditional types have afaics no advantages left, including the traditional claims of working in sheds and being quicker. The electricity company have the advantage of receiving about £100 a year more for the same amount of drying. They have essentially vanished from Which? Bets Buy lists. Perhaps people who buy one now need ritually to burn a £50 note twice a year, to remember the quality of the decision.
We need to balance the wider benefits of energy efficiency improvement against the individualist demand to make silly decisions. It means we need a smaller grid, or the existing one continues to be sufficient. My solar installation means I import 1-2 MWh less electricity each year, and export more, for no change in lifestyle; that saves, and makes, me money and reduces the load on the grid locally.
Nonsense is what I expect from Richard Tice; it's what he does. I'm more interested in Kemi & Clare Coutinho trying to pivot all of this into a culture war effectively on both energy efficiency and net zero *, without distinguishing the two. Conservative values are supposed to be rational, and I think this will undermine their political recovery.
* If it was Blair I might think that he was baiting the rump conservatives into doing this to marginalise themselves, but I do not see the SKS Labour Party as being capable of that.
One year ago today, a barrel of West Texas Intermediate went for $70.29 - this morning it's $80.43.
Whoever "won" or "lost" the actual conflict, thr truth is we will likely see some further respite on petrol and diesel prices as Hormuz reopens and ships start moving again.
Fallingn fuel prices will be a nice inheritance for a Burnham Government and should ensure some form of "bounce" as we move through the summer - the news on migrant boat crossings is also encouraging.
All in all, a good start to the week for the Government.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.
A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.
I think most parents would scrimp and save to let a kid finish at a school they are already at. Its simply too disruptive to do anything else. The real impact will be on those who are never started there and will feed in over the next decade.
That's what I thought too but for some people it's not just possible, one parent I know owns a few restaurants, he's getting absolutely pummelled there (thanks Rachel) and there's only so much you can juggle particularly if you've got lots of kids.
I've said it many times but one of the main reasons I am successful in life was having a private education.
I very much doubt that's true in your case TSE, but throughout my career I met quite a few 'high-flyers' who were utter numpties straight off the private school > Oxbridge > management consultants conveyer who knew f*ck all about anything beyond their own sense of entitlement to tell others what to do. They are a drain on the country.
I took on a graduate who was not privately educated and he was absolutely useless and quite the worst appointment I ever made
That’s very much a you screwed up your interviewing then.
Problem is private schools will create debate.
Thanks for that, but then I always was a generous employer who treated staff to the point they still are friends even 17 years after I retired
There was nothing in his interview that suggested he was unsuitable for his role
Interviews are generally a pretty poor test of someone's ability to do a job.
The gist of his argument: that he and others have and always will fail to close the gap in educational outcomes between rich and poor. “I’ve spent much of my career trying to reduce the gap in exam results between children from low-income families and everyone else. In government I helped introduce extra funding via the “pupil premium”. After leaving I worked for Teach First, whose mission is to get great teachers where they’re most needed. I’ve been a trustee of numerous education charities all targeting the same goal. None of it worked”
Whilst average attainment has improved the gap between rich and poor remains and has increased since 2020: “the history of education in England has been one of steady increases in opportunity combined with a determined effort by the wealthiest to maintain their advantage”.
Key paragraph there 'Politicians like to talk about school systems as if their sole purpose was to give all young people the necessary skills and knowledge to succeed in life. This is a universal goal that, in theory, everyone can benefit equally from. But in reality much of the system is focused on ranking children to help sixth forms, universities, and employers select recruits. By definition, the benefits here cannot be universal as the aim is to create a hierarchy. Because this ranking process is so critical to future income and status, wealthier parents will, rationally, invest huge sums to ensure their children do well. That means however much the average performance in the system improves, the gap will always be sustained.'
So true.
See my earlier comment about wealthy parents sending their children, nominally, to state schools, while using private tuition at 6th form.
The private tuition as the main method of schooling is a reversion to the norm *before* the Public Schools were founded back in the day - the really aristocratic were home schooled by tutors.
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Both of my boys have done very well academically from a RC High School.
I don't believe you are paying for academic excellence, you are paying for a supreme confidence and a network you no longer generally find at state schools, although it existed back in my day.
And this is no joke. If you do make the leap, find a local school that plays rugby in at least one of the first two academic terms. This will tell you an awful lot about how the headteacher rolls. Team sports, particularly rugby and cricket are very important metrics in my old fashioned view.
Exactly, most employers want good team players too and team sports helps with that. Academic excellence alone unless you want to be an academic or say a commercial barrister isn't the only thing to getting a good career
A sub thread about the merits or otherwise of private and grammar schools which not started by @HYUFD or @Mexicanpete , now there is a first.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
That’s not the full picture.
The social tariff gives you the basic package so if you’re on full fibre you move onto the 50 to 150 Mbps package rather the top tier packages of 900 to 1600 Mbps.
It’s useful if you’re 3 months into a 24 month package and you can downgrade without penalty.
RIP Roy Jenkins. Sad news. He was one of my favourite Labour politicians.
About a quarter of a century after the event, but nonetheless a great loss.
He wrote a column in the Speccie about his delightful retirement home in a small Peak District village. As a paean to traditional English rural life it combined all the best elements of Postman Pat and Fireman Sam. Rather different from Sparkbrook.
The Iran 'deal'. So what's to stop either side reneging on it? This US administration places little store in agreements made with other countries, whether 'signed' or not. And Iran isn't exactly 'word is my bond' either. I wouldn't be calling this over until the Straits are open, there's been a period of no strikes, and America has physically withdrawn.
Especially given the Israeli regime will be doing its utmost to scupper this deal.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
That’s not the full picture.
The social tariff gives you the basic package so if you’re on full fibre you move onto the 50 to 150 Mbps package rather the top tier packages of 900 to 1600 Mbps.
It’s useful if you’re 3 months into a 24 month package and you can downgrade without penalty.
50Mbps is more than nearly everyone needs - unless you are running several video conferences in the same house while the kids try to download the entire internet.
The upselling of faster and faster connections - which aren't actually used - is a great money spinner for the ISPs.
Great to see the Commons are bringing back an identical Assisted Dying law to that which was passed last term. Good!
Hopefully the Commons passes it, and the Lords can stop dicking around and act like adults and either choose reasonable amendments that the Commons accepts to improve the bill, or the Parliament Act sees it go through unamended since the elected chamber has passed it twice by that point.
It's a Private Mermbers Bill and not part of the Government's Manifesto - the Parliament Act doesn't apply...
Parliament Act has bugger all to do with Government Manifesto's.
Salisbury Convention does not apply. Parliament Act does.
Yep. Parliament Act applies to all 'public bills'. That can be Government or Private.
This is the Bill which gives a central role to psychiatrists whose professional body has said that, while neutral on the principle, they do not support this Bill. And which every other professional organisation looking at it - from every disabled charity to the former head of the NHS, the Chief Coroner, palliative care specialists, those dealing with anorexia, domestic violence and coercive behaviour, the anti-suicide Tsar etc etc - has said they do not support and/or the Bill as drafted is unsafe.
Meanwhile my local hospice has to raise money through plant sales because government won't fund the sector properly. But, hey, it's only grannies like me - as per Henry Marsh - or the poor (as per Lord Falconer) - who'll get bumped off so that important people like him get what they want. So who cares.
There was a time when Labour saw its mission as alleviating poverty not using it as a reason to offer suicide from a health service. They may as well call it the Useless Mouths (Abolition Of) Law.
I actually agree with you on this. I was simply making a point of law since I know many are not clear on this. If it gets to that point and Starmer wants to force this through, the Parliament Act does apply and, for better or worse, the Lords cannot stop him
Listening to the MP who has reintroduced it, I think she envisages the Parliament Act power as a bargaining chip - fine to amend the Bill in the Lords to improve it, but impose another artificial block and the original gets forced through. Seems a reasonable approach given the Lords willingness to talk it out.
RIP Roy Jenkins. Sad news. He was one of my favourite Labour politicians.
About a quarter of a century after the event, but nonetheless a great loss.
He wrote a column in the Speccie about his delightful retirement home in a small Peak District village. As a paean to traditional English rural life it combined all the best elements of Postman Pat and Fireman Sam. Rather different from Sparkbrook.
What is it about Peak District villages? Matthew Paris did the same, and I will say no more about him.
As did Baron Morris of Castle Morris, former Labour Cabinet Minister, who was Labour education spokesman in the Lords some time in the Roy Hattersley period.
He came up with the immortal quote "I have bought a small manor house in Derbyshire to decline and die in." That was in a Church Times column in I think the early 1990s, and was in the village of Foolow - near Tideswell. He died in 2001.
I had a separate report from a friend, who was the Deputy Duck Warden of Foolow, which involved letting the village ducks our of their duck house in the morning, and putting them back in in the evening, about Lady Morris being the Duck Warden. That seemed to be an arrangement of a titular head, and a deputy who did the work,
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.
A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.
I think most parents would scrimp and save to let a kid finish at a school they are already at. Its simply too disruptive to do anything else. The real impact will be on those who are never started there and will feed in over the next decade.
That's what I thought too but for some people it's not just possible, one parent I know owns a few restaurants, he's getting absolutely pummelled there (thanks Rachel) and there's only so much you can juggle particularly if you've got lots of kids.
I've said it many times but one of the main reasons I am successful in life was having a private education.
I very much doubt that's true in your case TSE, but throughout my career I met quite a few 'high-flyers' who were utter numpties straight off the private school > Oxbridge > management consultants conveyer who knew f*ck all about anything beyond their own sense of entitlement to tell others what to do. They are a drain on the country.
I took on a graduate who was not privately educated and he was absolutely useless and quite the worst appointment I ever made
And 93% of the population were written off. Just like that.
Rupert Lowe must be so jealous, he only wants millions to go.
That is not the point I was making
Private or public educated children can equally be unsuitable for employment but most are not
It did read exactly as "I once, and only once, ever employed a state educated candidate and he was awful. I never did that again, it was private school people all the way after that." Which would perhaps be the most extraordinarily bigoted statement ever made in the 20+ year history of PB.
And you followed it up with "I'm a great boss. (All those clubbable chaps acted clubbably for years after I employed them)."
I'm happy for you to clarify.
Apart from the one graduate I did not employ any private educated staff in my 2 very successful businesses
The number one qualification was that they liked people and had an outgoing and helpful personna
I left school at 16 with 5 O levels, and went on to study naval architecture, then entered the insurance industry, then Edinburgh City police before taking over a newsagents and grocers business with my parents when I was 22. We then sold that business, my parents retired, and then I went on to another people facing business employing 15 ordinary hard working lovely employees
So to sum up, I only employed one graduate who was unsuited to his work, but the argument private educated bad, public good is simply far more nuanced
The GB News bungalows are quite agitated about Mr Milliband:
In Germany the NAZIS had lots of Gauleiters like Millipede, they caused havoc and deaths, he is going to bring about scores of deaths this next winter, time he was actually PRACTICING what HE preaches, his carbon footprint is shocking.
His carbon footprint is enormous. In his private life as well as his public life. There is something deeply unsettling about the psychology of someone who wants other people to give up their tumble dryers and underfloor heating, yet lives an enormously privileged life largely at the expense of the same taxpayers he would like to have lower living standards. It's the reason why the public despise politicians.
Thanks for the reply.
The "personal carbon footprint 12x larger than average" stuff seems to be around a pretence that Ed Milliband's carbon footprint as a Government Minister is somehow "personal"; it is not personal. That's how they got to their "12 times bigger than average" nonsense. It's a spurious comparison, which is what I expect from UK media on the right, or perhaps more generally.
The only data I could get on Miliband's private life carbon footprint would be to look at the energy efficiency of his house in Kentish Town, which if he is serious should be in Band C for the basic structure, and perhaps a B if he has solar etc. One reason I treat Emma Nicholson (flew to London 1st Class to make a green speech) with a measure of contempt is that her London house has a poor EPC number; she is not doing the basics. If you have more data, I would like to see it.
The GB News and Telegraph talking points on the Miliband stuff are a series of fairy stories, on a level with Boris Johnson's reporting from Brussels. UFH or towel rails or tumble dryers being banned, or wanting people to abandon their current ones - NOPE, though it makes sense to not use your tumble dryer if you want to save on electricity bills as things like washing lines are out there.
It's just about normal market regulation, and things like the UFH setups being able to work at a flow temperature of 55C max are to make sure that installations are functional; it is a common error to overestimate the heating capacity of small emitter areas. We start by improving the efficiency of new products in the marketplace.
The poor ones get regulated out as we progress. Something as simple as double glazing is no different - there is constant improvement. My policy has always been to install the highest quality I can without using exotic products, and the high end 2G I was installing just 12-14 years ago is now below minimum standard.
In a way it is encouraging that the populist far right having nothing to offer but barrel scrapings and manufactured outrage; all they have is a bullshit firehose to keep the gullibles down the rabbit hole. It's a harbinger that before long they will go pop, just as they did in the 1930s, 1950s, the 1970s, and the 2000s.
Thanks for your reply.
I think what you are describing as vicious calumnies are in fact just normal rhetoric. I know that David Milliband is not sending the rozzers round to confiscate peoples' dryers. What he is doing is introducing an intrusive and in my view unwarranted ban on the sale of the most effective forms of tumble dryer - those that work well in a garage - those that are quicker. It may make sense to save the energy - if that is so, the market will sort it out. If it isn't so, it's frankly none of Milliband's business. The same goes for the banning of underfloor heating systems that use 'too much' energy. 1. Fuck off you Stalinist little weasel, 2. I don't think 'giving up' is a particularly outrageous way to describe something being banned from sale. The net outcome will eventually be the same. ... Was travelling to multiple cities in Brazil to highlight our climate leadership a particularly good use of carbon or money? Was a private jet (one way, he slummed it in Business the other way) to NYC for 'New York Climate Week' with over 100 civil servants from the deparment also in attendence? These things are at the Minister's discretion.
I had a bit of a dig into this on Sunday afternoon. Most of Miliband's changes are the latest changes in Building Regulations, which evolution has been a continuous process since they were introduced in 1965. This process and insulation schemes etc are key reasons why the average UK household energy use is down by around 20% since 2010, which is also a 20% reduction in the bills we would otherwise be paying.
Things such as the 55C flow temperature for wet UFH is to make sure that installed systems are functional; if not developers will go for what they can sell at max profit, even if it is not fully effective. That is desirable, just as we regulate flow temperatures of heating systems condensing gas boilers, because if flow temperature for those goes above 55-56C the gas boiler stops condensing, and efficiency falls by 5-10%. This is just normal.
The Telegraph and GBN headlines about 'banning UFH' are imaginary. I think we are well beyond the point where installed directly electric (as opposed to wet) UFH will damage the market value of a dwelling, and be an albatross, outside special circumstances. Some requirements around controllability are imo just fine, as it gives an installation which will be more useable rather than ignored due to cost after a few years.
The changes around tumbler dryers are also something I can't get excited about. The price differences are becoming minimal, and the more expensive to run traditional types have afaics no advantages left, including the traditional claims of working in sheds and being quicker. The electricity company have the advantage of receiving about £100 a year more for the same amount of drying. They have essentially vanished from Which? Bets Buy lists. Perhaps people who buy one now need ritually to burn a £50 note twice a year, to remember the quality of the decision.
We need to balance the wider benefits of energy efficiency improvement against the individualist demand to make silly decisions. It means we need a smaller grid, or the existing one continues to be sufficient. My solar installation means I import 1-2 MWh less electricity each year, and export more, for no change in lifestyle; that saves, and makes, me money and reduces the load on the grid locally.
Nonsense is what I expect from Richard Tice; it's what he does. I'm more interested in Kemi & Clare Coutinho trying to pivot all of this into a culture war effectively on both energy efficiency and net zero *, without distinguishing the two. Conservative values are supposed to be rational, and I think this will undermine their political recovery.
* If it was Blair I might think that he was baiting the rump conservatives into doing this to marginalise themselves, but I do not see the SKS Labour Party as being capable of that.
The irony is because I have a plugin hybrid (and therefore an EV tariff) I’ve never been able to get the maths to work with solar so just have batteries I charge up overnight
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.
A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.
I think most parents would scrimp and save to let a kid finish at a school they are already at. Its simply too disruptive to do anything else. The real impact will be on those who are never started there and will feed in over the next decade.
That's what I thought too but for some people it's not just possible, one parent I know owns a few restaurants, he's getting absolutely pummelled there (thanks Rachel) and there's only so much you can juggle particularly if you've got lots of kids.
I've said it many times but one of the main reasons I am successful in life was having a private education.
I very much doubt that's true in your case TSE, but throughout my career I met quite a few 'high-flyers' who were utter numpties straight off the private school > Oxbridge > management consultants conveyer who knew f*ck all about anything beyond their own sense of entitlement to tell others what to do. They are a drain on the country.
I took on a graduate who was not privately educated and he was absolutely useless and quite the worst appointment I ever made
And 93% of the population were written off. Just like that.
Rupert Lowe must be so jealous, he only wants millions to go.
That is not the point I was making
Private or public educated children can equally be unsuitable for employment but most are not
You are going to have to write very clearly exactly what you thought you were saying as so far you are coming out as an elitist snob
Well that is a first because nobody who knows me would ever suggest anything like that
I have no problem with private schooling and seeing many ordinary parents make extraordinary sacrifices to pay the cost
The only ones not affected by the vat increases are the wealthy which in itself is making the sector more elitist which is a big negative
I have to say that my point was that private education bad, public good, is a far more nuanced debate
Average UK private school fees are £20k p.a. The median household income of households with children is about £46k. Not many "ordinary parents" (with respect to income) are paying for a child to go to private school.
(I went to a private school, then very briefly a state school in the US, then another private school. Our household income was above median for lots of that, but below median for a bit.)
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
That’s not the full picture.
The social tariff gives you the basic package so if you’re on full fibre you move onto the 50 to 150 Mbps package rather the top tier packages of 900 to 1600 Mbps.
It’s useful if you’re 3 months into a 24 month package and you can downgrade without penalty.
50Mbps is more than nearly everyone needs - unless you are running several video conferences in the same house while the kids try to download the entire internet.
The upselling of faster and faster connections - which aren't actually used - is a great money spinner for the ISPs.
It's all about haggling, EE offered me 500 Mbps for £35 a month, and I managed to get 1.6 Gbps for £33.99.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
That’s not the full picture.
The social tariff gives you the basic package so if you’re on full fibre you move onto the 50 to 150 Mbps package rather the top tier packages of 900 to 1600 Mbps.
It’s useful if you’re 3 months into a 24 month package and you can downgrade without penalty.
50Mbps is more than nearly everyone needs - unless you are running several video conferences in the same house while the kids try to download the entire internet.
The upselling of faster and faster connections - which aren't actually used - is a great money spinner for the ISPs.
The amount of date used by Youtubers can be startling. I saw a video recently by Evan Edinger about how he was recently poleaxed on holiday by internet service, and was unable to download the 1.2 Gigabytes of video files he had accumulated.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Great to see the Commons are bringing back an identical Assisted Dying law to that which was passed last term. Good!
Hopefully the Commons passes it, and the Lords can stop dicking around and act like adults and either choose reasonable amendments that the Commons accepts to improve the bill, or the Parliament Act sees it go through unamended since the elected chamber has passed it twice by that point.
It's a Private Mermbers Bill and not part of the Government's Manifesto - the Parliament Act doesn't apply...
Parliament Act has bugger all to do with Government Manifesto's.
Salisbury Convention does not apply. Parliament Act does.
Not trying to get into a debate on the substance of the Bill. You and I disagree.
However I do have concerns about the use of the Parliament Act. There were some real practical concerns about the Bill and meaningful improvements made in the Lords (ignoring those you define as wrecking amendments). But the parliament act requires that it be passed unchanged.
That’s a real issue. It was poorly drafted originally and the supporters walked back from many of the promises they made to get through the second reading. I seem to remember you complaining about the dangerous dogs act as being poor legislation - why should substandard legislation about such an important topic be forced through when they can’t convince a majority of both house?
Because the elected house is the only house that matters.
The Lords face a choice - be reasonable and propose sensible amendments, that the Commons can accept (and accept defeat if the Commons rejects their amendments) - or they can act like dicks and be ignored and the Commons passed alone.
So far they have chosen to act like dicks. That's their choice. If so, the Parliament Act quite rightly confirms the supremacy of the elected chamber, as it has done for well over a century now.
Don't be a dick.
PS we won't agree on the substance, you're right, but I reject that it is poorly drafted. Or moreover I think any poor drafting is it is overly safeguarded and that there are far too many restrictions that should not be there - ie the lack of any option for a living will, the 6 month requirement, etc - I would prefer a much more liberal one. However either way, the Commons has passed it. Either amend it and send it back to the Commons to review, which the Lords had a year to do, or see it passed altogether if the Commons votes that way.
The gist of his argument: that he and others have and always will fail to close the gap in educational outcomes between rich and poor. “I’ve spent much of my career trying to reduce the gap in exam results between children from low-income families and everyone else. In government I helped introduce extra funding via the “pupil premium”. After leaving I worked for Teach First, whose mission is to get great teachers where they’re most needed. I’ve been a trustee of numerous education charities all targeting the same goal. None of it worked”
Whilst average attainment has improved the gap between rich and poor remains and has increased since 2020: “the history of education in England has been one of steady increases in opportunity combined with a determined effort by the wealthiest to maintain their advantage”.
Key paragraph there 'Politicians like to talk about school systems as if their sole purpose was to give all young people the necessary skills and knowledge to succeed in life. This is a universal goal that, in theory, everyone can benefit equally from. But in reality much of the system is focused on ranking children to help sixth forms, universities, and employers select recruits. By definition, the benefits here cannot be universal as the aim is to create a hierarchy. Because this ranking process is so critical to future income and status, wealthier parents will, rationally, invest huge sums to ensure their children do well. That means however much the average performance in the system improves, the gap will always be sustained.'
Later in the article, Freedman poses the question: if we can’t close the gap in a system where the wealthy will always prevail, then how do we make the gap matter less? Ideas include banning sixth forms from being selective and ensuring that jobs only set academic requirements that are provably necessary. Food for thought.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
That’s not the full picture.
The social tariff gives you the basic package so if you’re on full fibre you move onto the 50 to 150 Mbps package rather the top tier packages of 900 to 1600 Mbps.
It’s useful if you’re 3 months into a 24 month package and you can downgrade without penalty.
50Mbps is more than nearly everyone needs - unless you are running several video conferences in the same house while the kids try to download the entire internet.
The upselling of faster and faster connections - which aren't actually used - is a great money spinner for the ISPs.
The amount of date used by Youtubers can be startling. I saw a video recently by Evan Edinger about how he was recently poleaxed on holiday by internet service, and was unable to download the 1.2 Gigabytes of video files he had accumulated.
That is a LOT.
The curve is quite interesting - nearly everyone uses very little, but there is a tail of mega consumers of bandwidth
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
That’s not the full picture.
The social tariff gives you the basic package so if you’re on full fibre you move onto the 50 to 150 Mbps package rather the top tier packages of 900 to 1600 Mbps.
It’s useful if you’re 3 months into a 24 month package and you can downgrade without penalty.
50Mbps is more than nearly everyone needs - unless you are running several video conferences in the same house while the kids try to download the entire internet.
The upselling of faster and faster connections - which aren't actually used - is a great money spinner for the ISPs.
It's all about haggling, EE offered me 500 Mbps for £35 a month, and I managed to get 1.6 Gbps for £33.99.
I have 1Gb up and down (Openreach are unwilling to do symmetric uploads even though their newer infrastructure is capable) for £19
First day of Royal Ascot today, an event that sticks in my mind.
I had a small role in the redevelopment two decades ago now, as IT contractor to the caterers. I was the guy who made sure all of those fancy touch screen tills worked properly, and could proces credit cards, something that was very new at the time.
There exists a photo of me, aged 28, with a radio earpiece in one ear, a phone earpiece in the other, and a keyboard under my arm, wearing a morning suit because the staff still have to comply with the dress code in the Royal Enlcosure.
That Champagne bar in the concourse, it turned over £100k a day two decades ago when a bottle was £50 or £60, God only knows what it makes today.
Last job before I moved to Dubai, headhunted by the Ascot guy who’d moved the year before.
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Good morning everyone.
A serious question. Is that a sunk cost fallacy in part - how much of that c. £12k is money that is being spent anyway? Do you have an idea of the marginal number?
For example, they will not need extra heating in the school for two more children.
Schools get a pot of money per child but there will be a central pot of money first then say £3000 per child (will need to hunt down a funding formula to see accurate figures).
So it is as much about how the funding system is organised.
Starmer banning social media for under 16s. A bit of a shame he is discovering how to be decisive so late in the day.
Where to start with the social media ban? Another policy announced outside of Parliament, despite the Speaker's condemnation of this practice only last week. Presumably 16 is the bound chosen because to avoid the paradox of letting 16-year-olds vote but not look at the interwebs. Livestreaming is to be included – so no PBers will want the hypocrisy of watching the World Cup Final on iplayer!
But in light of this morning's discussion of schools, the social media ban ignores the vast amount of educational material on YouTube in particular – no doubt because proponents are ignorant of it.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
That’s not the full picture.
The social tariff gives you the basic package so if you’re on full fibre you move onto the 50 to 150 Mbps package rather the top tier packages of 900 to 1600 Mbps.
It’s useful if you’re 3 months into a 24 month package and you can downgrade without penalty.
50Mbps is more than nearly everyone needs - unless you are running several video conferences in the same house while the kids try to download the entire internet.
The upselling of faster and faster connections - which aren't actually used - is a great money spinner for the ISPs.
It's all about haggling, EE offered me 500 Mbps for £35 a month, and I managed to get 1.6 Gbps for £33.99.
Given that you won't use a tithe of that, a good deal for them :-)
First day of Royal Ascot today, an event that sticks in my mind.
I had a small role in the redevelopment two decades ago now, as IT contractor to the caterers. I was the guy who made sure all of those fancy touch screen tills worked properly, and could proces credit cards, something that was very new at the time.
There exists a photo of me, aged 28, with a radio earpiece in one ear, a phone earpiece in the other, and a keyboard under my arm, wearing a morning suit because the staff still have to comply with the dress code in the Royal Enlcosure.
That Champagne bar in the concourse, it turned over £100k a day two decades ago when a bottle was £50 or £60, God only knows what it makes today.
First day of Royal Ascot today, an event that sticks in my mind.
I had a small role in the redevelopment two decades ago now, as IT contractor to the caterers. I was the guy who made sure all of those fancy touch screen tills worked properly, and could proces credit cards, something that was very new at the time.
There exists a photo of me, aged 28, with a radio earpiece in one ear, a phone earpiece in the other, and a keyboard under my arm, wearing a morning suit because the staff still have to comply with the dress code in the Royal Enlcosure.
That Champagne bar in the concourse, it turned over £100k a day two decades ago when a bottle was £50 or £60, God only knows what it makes today.
Actually starts tomorrow but yes a huge event and the logistics are frightening.
Demand is very strong with Saturday a complete sell out and most of the main enclosures sold out tomorrow and Thursday.
It's not for me though the quality of the horses and the racing is unmatched.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
That’s not the full picture.
The social tariff gives you the basic package so if you’re on full fibre you move onto the 50 to 150 Mbps package rather the top tier packages of 900 to 1600 Mbps.
It’s useful if you’re 3 months into a 24 month package and you can downgrade without penalty.
50Mbps is more than nearly everyone needs - unless you are running several video conferences in the same house while the kids try to download the entire internet.
The upselling of faster and faster connections - which aren't actually used - is a great money spinner for the ISPs.
The number of times I’ve tried to convince customers that the higher tiers of speed are totally irrelevant to their actual internet usage is crazy. Any usage beyond 50Mbps is unusual for a family home, even with half a dozen people watching video simultaneously.
It is only fairly recently that providers can even compete on speed as previously it was limited by line length for most people.
Even if your speed is identical on FTTP, latency and reliability is much better. I would suggest everyone migrates.
How long before Starlink has a de facto monopoly on the internet, or at least a dominant market position? Why invest billions in undersea cables when you can just point at the sky.
Comments
It’s why states in American allow children of poor parents to work far more hours than in the UK (at the expense of their education attainment). The rich want a underclass who can only do cheap manual work
https://x.com/jonwheatleyrb1/status/2066128386909471001
Both sectors can be well and badly run, but I doubt the 30 teachers thrown out of their jobs blame their employers
Once again the school left it to the last possible second to announce the closure.
Source: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10590/
Problem is private schools will create debate.
Private Schools have in many cases seen this as a cash cow.
Private Schools are only being asked to pay fair VAT
Its a shame pupils suffer. It's a shame teachers suffer.
Reduction in childbirth impacts.
This is down to inept management and financial planning.
Then I look at the location and grounds of St Gerard’s and the real story came out. That’s a large amount of prime(ish) real estate that could take a lot of housing. So no surprise they preferred to close it down - someone’s pension is truly sorted
There was nothing in his interview that suggested he was unsuitable for his role
It could have been done later that day
If a business has so little left in reserve, and is running so close to collapse, that it has to close this quickly, it's not really been a viable business for some time.
And I'm sure the VAT imposition hasn't helped- but it's also the case that the public sector frontline tends to be much better at cutting its coat, because it has less cloth to play with.
Quite what that might mean for the final bill if the Commons votes for it is anyone's guess, and it's clearly not how a government should push through such controversial legislation.
But it's not accurate to say the law has to be enacted unchanged.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5573804#Comment_5573804
Rupert Lowe must be so jealous, he only wants millions to go.
Apparently the main issue is that the planes are blocking up the place, and 2.4mn tickets for holiday flights will be cancelled. Now we know the real reason for the Peace Deal.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/travel/2026-06-14/ty-article/.premium/minister-seeks-removal-of-u-s-planes-from-israels-airport-amid-haredi-pressure/0000019e-c64e-dd5e-a19f-c66fe3620000
The fun bit is - *diversity is measured by entitlement to free school meals*. The lower “diversity” is caused by middle class parents sending their children there - which was the whole point.
I asked one of the critics, if a school where 100% of the children were eligible for free school meals would “lack diversity”.
Private or public educated children can equally be unsuitable for employment but most are not
https://bsky.app/profile/mrjamesob.bsky.social/post/3mocsiki63k2x
Stop the clocks! The Daily Mail has found a rich bigot it considers *too* right-wing. They must be really worried about Rupert Lowe biting big chunks out of Farage's base.
- Restore most have done well over the weekend in Makerfield
A serious question. How much of that c. £12k is money that is being spent anyway? Do you have an idea of the marginal number?
For example, they will not need extra heating in the school for two more children.
Clearly it is more complex than that, and I am aware of the things my parents could not have because they sent me to an independent school for 10 years.
They seem desperate to stop Burnham winning, but hopefully they will not see that outcome
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gyplpyj00o
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
A bit of a shame he is discovering how to be decisive so late in the day.
The state funds schools per pupil though, so the school will benefit a lot from the additional resource.
I have no problem with private schooling and seeing many ordinary parents make extraordinary sacrifices to pay the cost
The only ones not affected by the vat increases are the wealthy which in itself is making the sector more elitist which is a big negative
I have to say that my point was that private education bad, public good, is a far more nuanced debate
Given the way that it seems to have driven some of them mad(der)…
Given the way that it seems to have driven some of them mad(der)…
https://open.substack.com/pub/samf/p/the-gap-that-never-closes?r=1meubq&utm_medium=ios
The gist of his argument: that he and others have and always will fail to close the gap in educational outcomes between rich and poor. “I’ve spent much of my career trying to reduce the gap in exam results between children from low-income families and everyone else. In government I helped introduce extra funding via the “pupil premium”. After leaving I worked for Teach First, whose mission is to get great teachers where they’re most needed. I’ve been a trustee of numerous education charities all targeting the same goal. None of it worked”
Whilst average attainment has improved the gap between rich and poor remains and has increased since 2020: “the history of education in England has been one of steady increases in opportunity combined with a determined effort by the wealthiest to maintain their advantage”.
We need more choice in education, removed VAT on private education again, restored assisted places, more free schools and parents having the opportunity to ballot to open new grammar schools not just close them
I don't believe you are paying for academic excellence, you are paying for a supreme confidence and a network you no longer generally find at state schools, although it existed back in my day.
And this is no joke. If you do make the leap, find a local school that plays rugby in at least one of the first two academic terms. This will tell you an awful lot about how the headteacher rolls. Team sports, particularly rugby and cricket are very important metrics in my old fashioned view.
Yeah, 2 more kids in the corner of the class might not seem like extra work to some. But state schools are deliberately run at 99%+ capacity. And teachers will bloody notice 2 more kids.
If15 parents in the whole catchment area do the same - a whole new class is required.
a determined effort by the wealthiest to maintain their advantage”.
And you followed it up with "I'm a great boss. (All those clubbable chaps acted clubbably for years after I employed them)."
I'm happy for you to clarify.
Things such as the 55C flow temperature for wet UFH is to make sure that installed systems are functional; if not developers will go for what they can sell at max profit, even if it is not fully effective. That is desirable, just as we regulate flow temperatures of heating systems condensing gas boilers, because if flow temperature for those goes above 55-56C the gas boiler stops condensing, and efficiency falls by 5-10%. This is just normal.
The Telegraph and GBN headlines about 'banning UFH' are imaginary. I think we are well beyond the point where installed directly electric (as opposed to wet) UFH will damage the market value of a dwelling, and be an albatross, outside special circumstances. Some requirements around controllability are imo just fine, as it gives an installation which will be more useable rather than ignored due to cost after a few years.
The changes around tumbler dryers are also something I can't get excited about. The price differences are becoming minimal, and the more expensive to run traditional types have afaics no advantages left, including the traditional claims of working in sheds and being quicker. The electricity company have the advantage of receiving about £100 a year more for the same amount of drying. They have essentially vanished from Which? Bets Buy lists. Perhaps people who buy one now need ritually to burn a £50 note twice a year, to remember the quality of the decision.
We need to balance the wider benefits of energy efficiency improvement against the individualist demand to make silly decisions. It means we need a smaller grid, or the existing one continues to be sufficient. My solar installation means I import 1-2 MWh less electricity each year, and export more, for no change in lifestyle; that saves, and makes, me money and reduces the load on the grid locally.
Nonsense is what I expect from Richard Tice; it's what he does. I'm more interested in Kemi & Clare Coutinho trying to pivot all of this into a culture war effectively on both energy efficiency and net zero *, without distinguishing the two. Conservative values are supposed to be rational, and I think this will undermine their political recovery.
* If it was Blair I might think that he was baiting the rump conservatives into doing this to marginalise themselves, but I do not see the SKS Labour Party as being capable of that.
Full article link to the Telegraph piece for anyone interested.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/4ff8222bab6e2753
Whoever "won" or "lost" the actual conflict, thr truth is we will likely see some further respite on petrol and diesel prices as Hormuz reopens and ships start moving again.
Fallingn fuel prices will be a nice inheritance for a Burnham Government and should ensure some form of "bounce" as we move through the summer - the news on migrant boat crossings is also encouraging.
All in all, a good start to the week for the Government.
In Durham, until recently, they got a 100% rebate on their council tax. It’s now 90%
Incentives matter. Reward people to,be idle then idle they will be.
You’re a mug if you work full time and pay tax and NI in this country.
See my earlier comment about wealthy parents sending their children, nominally, to state schools, while using private tuition at 6th form.
The private tuition as the main method of schooling is a reversion to the norm *before* the Public Schools were founded back in the day - the really aristocratic were home schooled by tutors.
Round and round it goes.
The social tariff gives you the basic package so if you’re on full fibre you move onto the 50 to 150 Mbps package rather the top tier packages of 900 to 1600 Mbps.
It’s useful if you’re 3 months into a 24 month package and you can downgrade without penalty.
The upselling of faster and faster connections - which aren't actually used - is a great money spinner for the ISPs.
As did Baron Morris of Castle Morris, former Labour Cabinet Minister, who was Labour education spokesman in the Lords some time in the Roy Hattersley period.
He came up with the immortal quote "I have bought a small manor house in Derbyshire to decline and die in." That was in a Church Times column in I think the early 1990s, and was in the village of Foolow - near Tideswell. He died in 2001.
I had a separate report from a friend, who was the Deputy Duck Warden of Foolow, which involved letting the village ducks our of their duck house in the morning, and putting them back in in the evening, about Lady Morris being the Duck Warden. That seemed to be an arrangement of a titular head, and a deputy who did the work,
The number one qualification was that they liked people and had an outgoing and helpful personna
I left school at 16 with 5 O levels, and went on to study naval architecture, then entered the insurance industry, then Edinburgh City police before taking over a newsagents and grocers business with my parents when I was 22. We then sold that business, my parents retired, and then I went on to another people facing business employing 15 ordinary hard working lovely employees
So to sum up, I only employed one graduate who was unsuited to his work, but the argument private educated bad, public good is simply far more nuanced
(I went to a private school, then very briefly a state school in the US, then another private school. Our household income was above median for lots of that, but below median for a bit.)
That is a LOT.
The Lords face a choice - be reasonable and propose sensible amendments, that the Commons can accept (and accept defeat if the Commons rejects their amendments) - or they can act like dicks and be ignored and the Commons passed alone.
So far they have chosen to act like dicks. That's their choice. If so, the Parliament Act quite rightly confirms the supremacy of the elected chamber, as it has done for well over a century now.
Don't be a dick.
PS we won't agree on the substance, you're right, but I reject that it is poorly drafted. Or moreover I think any poor drafting is it is overly safeguarded and that there are far too many restrictions that should not be there - ie the lack of any option for a living will, the 6 month requirement, etc - I would prefer a much more liberal one. However either way, the Commons has passed it. Either amend it and send it back to the Commons to review, which the Lords had a year to do, or see it passed altogether if the Commons votes that way.
Now just every other council to follow.
I had a small role in the redevelopment two decades ago now, as IT contractor to the caterers. I was the guy who made sure all of those fancy touch screen tills worked properly, and could proces credit cards, something that was very new at the time.
There exists a photo of me, aged 28, with a radio earpiece in one ear, a phone earpiece in the other, and a keyboard under my arm, wearing a morning suit because the staff still have to comply with the dress code in the Royal Enlcosure.
That Champagne bar in the concourse, it turned over £100k a day two decades ago when a bottle was £50 or £60, God only knows what it makes today.
Last job before I moved to Dubai, headhunted by the Ascot guy who’d moved the year before.
Thanks.
Even if your speed is identical on FTTP, latency and reliability is much better. I would suggest everyone migrates.
But in light of this morning's discussion of schools, the social media ban ignores the vast amount of educational material on YouTube in particular – no doubt because proponents are ignorant of it.
And has enough potential bandwidth for anything you might want to do - even running hosting from home.
Demand is very strong with Saturday a complete sell out and most of the main enclosures sold out tomorrow and Thursday.
It's not for me though the quality of the horses and the racing is unmatched.
My FTTP ping is 2-5ms. On FTTC it was 30-40.