With regard to George going to Eton, why would you send your children to boarding school if you didn't have to. I appreciate for some eg military it is unavoidable, but you have them for such a short period of time why would you offload them? When our children left to go to University it was a real wrench and I still miss them not being here even though it has freed up our lives.
Prince William went to Eton so presumably liked it enough to sign George up (or put him down or whatever it is you do for Eton).
Why can’t he go to a state school? Serious question.
Tbh I'd not given HRH's schooling any thought until seeing it brought up here a few minutes ago.
I would think a probable future king should have the best education possible tbh so Eton is an obvious choice
That will help him understand the real world for sure. Fecking parasites.
And SSH? And Tor? And the various obfuscation methods people use to mask internet traffic?
It's not about the fifteen-year-old running Tor, it's about about the thirteen-year-old who downloads TikTok because everyone else in her class has TikTok.
If you make social media less ubiquitous, less socially compulsory and slightly more awkward to access, you’ve changed behaviour for millions of normal users even though the nerds are still tunnelling packets through three continents. As ever, public policy is aimed at the middle of the bell curve, not the people arguing about SSH port forwarding online.
Look: I support the ban. The best way to get our kids tech literate is to make is so they have to jump through a few hoops to get to TikTok.
Rather sadly, the job you achieve in life (barring things like ill-health, accidents and wrongful imprisonment) is largely down to your own efforts and character: character is destiny and a' that. So the public school debate is a non-sequitur.
What is the problem, and it's going to get much worse when the boomers die, is the money and inheritance that wealthy parents gift their children. You can be very, very stupid but if you had wealthy parents you are not going to die in a council house, even if you deserve it.
So if Labour really wanted to increase class mobility, they'd tax houses not public schools.
Have you read any of Bourdieu's work? You might find it interesting. Some is a little dated such as the tastes of the French middle class in the 70's and 80's but the underlying concepts remain sound.
It is why so many of the top tier of our society come from private education. They are not smarter or harder working than their state school rivals but they do have more Social and Cultural Capital.
It's also about geography. It's much easier to accumulate cultural capital and make connections if you start out in or near a great city than if the nearest town with a bank branch is an hour away by bus. It's possible to overcome that disadvantage, but it's not as easy as not having to. The social capital private schools undobtedly provide is of a similar nature- nether essential to suceed, nor a guarantee of success, but it surely helps a lot.
And whilst effort, character and ability are important in achieving life aims, I prefered it when John Major acknowledged the role of luck- even if it's just being in the right place at the right time. And whilst all of us are (to an extent) lucky to be in Britain in 2026, some of us are luckier than others.
I agree. Indeed your point on geography is very pertinent to places like Makerfield. Opportunity in Britain is based around London and a few few other cosmopolitan metro areas. This causes a lot of resentment when those living in the cities get the opportunities while they feel excluded, particularly when those getting the breaks are of immigrant heritage.
Not just people of immigrant heritage but foreign nationals. Part of the story of London's demographic transformation has been the suppression of domestic migration away from left-behind areas.
Suppression? What are you talking about? London is full of chippy northerners and Scots etc. The only thing stopping people moving to London is the scary made up stories about crime they see on Facebook.
The other aspect to any hypothetical Battle of the Isle of Wight is that the UK would never dare decide to sink a Russian warship without checking in with Fox News Male Grooming correspondent Hegseth. Whose sanction for the action may or may not be forthcoming.
I also suspect, on the basis of zero evidence, that the Russians were more than slightly concerned that the yacht might have been loaded to the gunwales with explosives and Ukronazis. USS Cole, etc.
If we want to really put the willies up Ivan the sailor, we should get the Ukranians to do some sea trials of their sea drones off the Wight. The Ukranian Navy does have two (ex-RN) ships based in the Solent.
Yes, nothing could possibly go wrong with testing hastily cobbled together semi-autonomous weapons systems in one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world.
Nothing could go possibly wrong with VVP's so-called SMO!
The other aspect to any hypothetical Battle of the Isle of Wight is that the UK would never dare decide to sink a Russian warship without checking in with Fox News Male Grooming correspondent Hegseth. Whose sanction for the action may or may not be forthcoming.
I also suspect, on the basis of zero evidence, that the Russians were more than slightly concerned that the yacht might have been loaded to the gunwales with explosives and Ukronazis. USS Cole, etc.
With regard to George going to Eton, why would you send your children to boarding school if you didn't have to. I appreciate for some eg military it is unavoidable, but you have them for such a short period of time why would you offload them? When our children left to go to University it was a real wrench and I still miss them not being here even though it has freed up our lives.
Prince William went to Eton so presumably liked it enough to sign George up (or put him down or whatever it is you do for Eton).
Why can’t he go to a state school? Serious question.
Tbh I'd not given HRH's schooling any thought until seeing it brought up here a few minutes ago.
I would think a probable future king should have the best education possible tbh so Eton is an obvious choice
That will help him understand the real world for sure. Fecking parasites.
Plenty of people in state schools don't understand the real world. Eton is bad optics because of the nature of the place, but he'll probably get beaten up just as often there as anywhere else, and as a rich family going to a 'normal' school wouldn't make him suddenly understand the real world for most people.
Make sure he (officially) supports football so he can look interested at FA cup matches and he'll have a 'down to earth' image.
Rather sadly, the job you achieve in life (barring things like ill-health, accidents and wrongful imprisonment) is largely down to your own efforts and character: character is destiny and a' that. So the public school debate is a non-sequitur.
What is the problem, and it's going to get much worse when the boomers die, is the money and inheritance that wealthy parents gift their children. You can be very, very stupid but if you had wealthy parents you are not going to die in a council house, even if you deserve it.
So if Labour really wanted to increase class mobility, they'd tax houses not public schools.
No, as May discovered that is political suicide as far more voters own houses or have parents who own houses than attend public schools.
The biggest increases in social mobility in the last 100 years (bar the expansion of white collar office jobs after WW2) arguably came from Thatcher's sale of council homes so more could own their own homes and grammar schools, Labour of course opposed both
Parents could own their own grammar schools?
Impressive.
Grammar schools were and still are where they exist the only state schools which really tend to challenge the top private schools on Oxbridge entry and admission to the top professions like law and medicine
That is unsurprising as they are selective. If you only let in the most academically gifted students then you will tend to have a lot going on to top universities and academically challenging courses. It doesn't necessarily tell you anything about the quality of the school.
Yes and I have no problem with selective schools at all, they are the best way for bright children from working class or lower middle class backgrounds to get to a top university and top professional or managerial career
The other aspect to any hypothetical Battle of the Isle of Wight is that the UK would never dare decide to sink a Russian warship without checking in with Fox News Male Grooming correspondent Hegseth. Whose sanction for the action may or may not be forthcoming.
I also suspect, on the basis of zero evidence, that the Russians were more than slightly concerned that the yacht might have been loaded to the gunwales with explosives and Ukronazis. USS Cole, etc.
If we want to really put the willies up Ivan the sailor, we should get the Ukranians to do some sea trials of their sea drones off the Wight. The Ukranian Navy does have two (ex-RN) ships based in the Solent.
Yes, nothing could possibly go wrong with testing hastily cobbled together semi-autonomous weapons systems in one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world.
Nothing could go possibly wrong with VVP's so-called SMO!
Actually, hastily cobbled together semi-autonomous weapons systems are a significant part of what's currently trashing the SMO.
Whether we want to risk carnage in the Channel is a separate question.
Rather sadly, the job you achieve in life (barring things like ill-health, accidents and wrongful imprisonment) is largely down to your own efforts and character: character is destiny and a' that. So the public school debate is a non-sequitur.
What is the problem, and it's going to get much worse when the boomers die, is the money and inheritance that wealthy parents gift their children. You can be very, very stupid but if you had wealthy parents you are not going to die in a council house, even if you deserve it.
So if Labour really wanted to increase class mobility, they'd tax houses not public schools.
No, as May discovered that is political suicide as far more voters own houses or have parents who own houses than attend public schools.
The biggest increases in social mobility in the last 100 years (bar the expansion of white collar office jobs after WW2) arguably came from Thatcher's sale of council homes so more could own their own homes and grammar schools, Labour of course opposed both
Parents could own their own grammar schools?
Impressive.
Grammar schools were and still are where they exist the only state schools which really tend to challenge the top private schools on Oxbridge entry and admission to the top professions like law and medicine
That is unsurprising as they are selective. If you only let in the most academically gifted students then you will tend to have a lot going on to top universities and academically challenging courses. It doesn't necessarily tell you anything about the quality of the school.
Yes and I have no problem with selective schools at all, they are the best way for bright children from working class or lower middle class backgrounds to get to a top university and top professional or managerial career
They are the best way of letting pushy middle class parents game the system while leaving most kids to rot in under-resourced secondary moderns.
Rather sadly, the job you achieve in life (barring things like ill-health, accidents and wrongful imprisonment) is largely down to your own efforts and character: character is destiny and a' that. So the public school debate is a non-sequitur.
What is the problem, and it's going to get much worse when the boomers die, is the money and inheritance that wealthy parents gift their children. You can be very, very stupid but if you had wealthy parents you are not going to die in a council house, even if you deserve it.
So if Labour really wanted to increase class mobility, they'd tax houses not public schools.
Have you read any of Bourdieu's work? You might find it interesting. Some is a little dated such as the tastes of the French middle class in the 70's and 80's but the underlying concepts remain sound.
It is why so many of the top tier of our society come from private education. They are not smarter or harder working than their state school rivals but they do have more Social and Cultural Capital.
It's also about geography. It's much easier to accumulate cultural capital and make connections if you start out in or near a great city than if the nearest town with a bank branch is an hour away by bus. It's possible to overcome that disadvantage, but it's not as easy as not having to. The social capital private schools undobtedly provide is of a similar nature- nether essential to suceed, nor a guarantee of success, but it surely helps a lot.
And whilst effort, character and ability are important in achieving life aims, I prefered it when John Major acknowledged the role of luck- even if it's just being in the right place at the right time. And whilst all of us are (to an extent) lucky to be in Britain in 2026, some of us are luckier than others.
I agree. Indeed your point on geography is very pertinent to places like Makerfield. Opportunity in Britain is based around London and a few few other cosmopolitan metro areas. This causes a lot of resentment when those living in the cities get the opportunities while they feel excluded, particularly when those getting the breaks are of immigrant heritage.
Not just people of immigrant heritage but foreign nationals. Part of the story of London's demographic transformation has been the suppression of domestic migration away from left-behind areas.
Suppression? What are you talking about? London is full of chippy northerners and Scots etc. The only thing stopping people moving to London is the scary made up stories about crime they see on Facebook.
What are the chances of someone from the north of England getting social housing in London?
Rather sadly, the job you achieve in life (barring things like ill-health, accidents and wrongful imprisonment) is largely down to your own efforts and character: character is destiny and a' that. So the public school debate is a non-sequitur.
What is the problem, and it's going to get much worse when the boomers die, is the money and inheritance that wealthy parents gift their children. You can be very, very stupid but if you had wealthy parents you are not going to die in a council house, even if you deserve it.
So if Labour really wanted to increase class mobility, they'd tax houses not public schools.
Have you read any of Bourdieu's work? You might find it interesting. Some is a little dated such as the tastes of the French middle class in the 70's and 80's but the underlying concepts remain sound.
It is why so many of the top tier of our society come from private education. They are not smarter or harder working than their state school rivals but they do have more Social and Cultural Capital.
It's also about geography. It's much easier to accumulate cultural capital and make connections if you start out in or near a great city than if the nearest town with a bank branch is an hour away by bus. It's possible to overcome that disadvantage, but it's not as easy as not having to. The social capital private schools undobtedly provide is of a similar nature- nether essential to suceed, nor a guarantee of success, but it surely helps a lot.
And whilst effort, character and ability are important in achieving life aims, I prefered it when John Major acknowledged the role of luck- even if it's just being in the right place at the right time. And whilst all of us are (to an extent) lucky to be in Britain in 2026, some of us are luckier than others.
I agree. Indeed your point on geography is very pertinent to places like Makerfield. Opportunity in Britain is based around London and a few few other cosmopolitan metro areas. This causes a lot of resentment when those living in the cities get the opportunities while they feel excluded, particularly when those getting the breaks are of immigrant heritage.
Not just people of immigrant heritage but foreign nationals. Part of the story of London's demographic transformation has been the suppression of domestic migration away from left-behind areas.
Suppression? What are you talking about? London is full of chippy northerners and Scots etc. The only thing stopping people moving to London is the scary made up stories about crime they see on Facebook.
And astronomical rental and house prices. Astronomical rental and house prices do not discriminate against skin colour, religion or regional accents from North of Watford or South of Dover.
I didn't want to be rude which is why I didn't respond directly to @williamglenn
Rather sadly, the job you achieve in life (barring things like ill-health, accidents and wrongful imprisonment) is largely down to your own efforts and character: character is destiny and a' that. So the public school debate is a non-sequitur.
What is the problem, and it's going to get much worse when the boomers die, is the money and inheritance that wealthy parents gift their children. You can be very, very stupid but if you had wealthy parents you are not going to die in a council house, even if you deserve it.
So if Labour really wanted to increase class mobility, they'd tax houses not public schools.
No, as May discovered that is political suicide as far more voters own houses or have parents who own houses than attend public schools.
The biggest increases in social mobility in the last 100 years (bar the expansion of white collar office jobs after WW2) arguably came from Thatcher's sale of council homes so more could own their own homes and grammar schools, Labour of course opposed both
Parents could own their own grammar schools?
Impressive.
Grammar schools were and still are where they exist the only state schools which really tend to challenge the top private schools on Oxbridge entry and admission to the top professions like law and medicine
That is unsurprising as they are selective. If you only let in the most academically gifted students then you will tend to have a lot going on to top universities and academically challenging courses. It doesn't necessarily tell you anything about the quality of the school.
Yes and I have no problem with selective schools at all, they are the best way for bright children from working class or lower middle class backgrounds to get to a top university and top professional or managerial career
They are the best way of letting pushy middle class parents game the system while leaving most kids to rot in under-resourced secondary moderns.
You are more likely to get into Oxbridge or a Russell Group university or law and medicine from a grammar than most comps and academies if you are from a working class or lower middle class background. Comprehensives/academies are largely secondary moderns anyway unless from the leafiest middle class suburb or prosperous town and plenty of high schools in selective areas do OK
Senegal miss a sitter. Best team of the first half.
I did another of my tot ups last night.
Almost every match played so far can be cast as footballing old world (Europe, South America, Mexico) vs footballing new world (Caribbean, North America, Africa, Asia, Oceania). Iran v NZ was the first exception, England v Croatia will be another. I think it is how the seeding worked for the first round games.
Old world and new world had 17 points apiece when I counted.
Rather sadly, the job you achieve in life (barring things like ill-health, accidents and wrongful imprisonment) is largely down to your own efforts and character: character is destiny and a' that. So the public school debate is a non-sequitur.
What is the problem, and it's going to get much worse when the boomers die, is the money and inheritance that wealthy parents gift their children. You can be very, very stupid but if you had wealthy parents you are not going to die in a council house, even if you deserve it.
So if Labour really wanted to increase class mobility, they'd tax houses not public schools.
Have you read any of Bourdieu's work? You might find it interesting. Some is a little dated such as the tastes of the French middle class in the 70's and 80's but the underlying concepts remain sound.
It is why so many of the top tier of our society come from private education. They are not smarter or harder working than their state school rivals but they do have more Social and Cultural Capital.
It's also about geography. It's much easier to accumulate cultural capital and make connections if you start out in or near a great city than if the nearest town with a bank branch is an hour away by bus. It's possible to overcome that disadvantage, but it's not as easy as not having to. The social capital private schools undobtedly provide is of a similar nature- nether essential to suceed, nor a guarantee of success, but it surely helps a lot.
And whilst effort, character and ability are important in achieving life aims, I prefered it when John Major acknowledged the role of luck- even if it's just being in the right place at the right time. And whilst all of us are (to an extent) lucky to be in Britain in 2026, some of us are luckier than others.
I agree. Indeed your point on geography is very pertinent to places like Makerfield. Opportunity in Britain is based around London and a few few other cosmopolitan metro areas. This causes a lot of resentment when those living in the cities get the opportunities while they feel excluded, particularly when those getting the breaks are of immigrant heritage.
Not just people of immigrant heritage but foreign nationals. Part of the story of London's demographic transformation has been the suppression of domestic migration away from left-behind areas.
Suppression? What are you talking about? London is full of chippy northerners and Scots etc. The only thing stopping people moving to London is the scary made up stories about crime they see on Facebook.
And astronomical rental and house prices. Astronomical rental and house prices do not discriminate against skin colour, religion or regional accents from North of Watford or South of Dover.
I didn't want to be rude which is why I didn't respond directly to @williamglenn
Immigrants are more willing to live multiple people to a room, not just multiple people to a house.
Not skin colour, of course, but capacity for discomfort which comes from growing up dirt poor, not British poor.
Rather sadly, the job you achieve in life (barring things like ill-health, accidents and wrongful imprisonment) is largely down to your own efforts and character: character is destiny and a' that. So the public school debate is a non-sequitur.
What is the problem, and it's going to get much worse when the boomers die, is the money and inheritance that wealthy parents gift their children. You can be very, very stupid but if you had wealthy parents you are not going to die in a council house, even if you deserve it.
So if Labour really wanted to increase class mobility, they'd tax houses not public schools.
Have you read any of Bourdieu's work? You might find it interesting. Some is a little dated such as the tastes of the French middle class in the 70's and 80's but the underlying concepts remain sound.
It is why so many of the top tier of our society come from private education. They are not smarter or harder working than their state school rivals but they do have more Social and Cultural Capital.
It's also about geography. It's much easier to accumulate cultural capital and make connections if you start out in or near a great city than if the nearest town with a bank branch is an hour away by bus. It's possible to overcome that disadvantage, but it's not as easy as not having to. The social capital private schools undobtedly provide is of a similar nature- nether essential to suceed, nor a guarantee of success, but it surely helps a lot.
And whilst effort, character and ability are important in achieving life aims, I prefered it when John Major acknowledged the role of luck- even if it's just being in the right place at the right time. And whilst all of us are (to an extent) lucky to be in Britain in 2026, some of us are luckier than others.
I agree. Indeed your point on geography is very pertinent to places like Makerfield. Opportunity in Britain is based around London and a few few other cosmopolitan metro areas. This causes a lot of resentment when those living in the cities get the opportunities while they feel excluded, particularly when those getting the breaks are of immigrant heritage.
Not just people of immigrant heritage but foreign nationals. Part of the story of London's demographic transformation has been the suppression of domestic migration away from left-behind areas.
Suppression? What are you talking about? London is full of chippy northerners and Scots etc. The only thing stopping people moving to London is the scary made up stories about crime they see on Facebook.
And astronomical rental and house prices. Astronomical rental and house prices do not discriminate against skin colour, religion or regional accents from North of Watford or South of Dover.
I didn't want to be rude which is why I didn't respond directly to @williamglenn
Immigrants are more willing to live multiple people to a room, not just multiple people to a house.
Not skin colour, of course, but capacity for discomfort which comes from growing up dirt poor, not British poor.
And at the other end of the scale, there are absolutely more people globally who can afford London prices than there are in the UK.
Rather sadly, the job you achieve in life (barring things like ill-health, accidents and wrongful imprisonment) is largely down to your own efforts and character: character is destiny and a' that. So the public school debate is a non-sequitur.
What is the problem, and it's going to get much worse when the boomers die, is the money and inheritance that wealthy parents gift their children. You can be very, very stupid but if you had wealthy parents you are not going to die in a council house, even if you deserve it.
So if Labour really wanted to increase class mobility, they'd tax houses not public schools.
Have you read any of Bourdieu's work? You might find it interesting. Some is a little dated such as the tastes of the French middle class in the 70's and 80's but the underlying concepts remain sound.
It is why so many of the top tier of our society come from private education. They are not smarter or harder working than their state school rivals but they do have more Social and Cultural Capital.
It's also about geography. It's much easier to accumulate cultural capital and make connections if you start out in or near a great city than if the nearest town with a bank branch is an hour away by bus. It's possible to overcome that disadvantage, but it's not as easy as not having to. The social capital private schools undobtedly provide is of a similar nature- nether essential to suceed, nor a guarantee of success, but it surely helps a lot.
And whilst effort, character and ability are important in achieving life aims, I prefered it when John Major acknowledged the role of luck- even if it's just being in the right place at the right time. And whilst all of us are (to an extent) lucky to be in Britain in 2026, some of us are luckier than others.
I agree. Indeed your point on geography is very pertinent to places like Makerfield. Opportunity in Britain is based around London and a few few other cosmopolitan metro areas. This causes a lot of resentment when those living in the cities get the opportunities while they feel excluded, particularly when those getting the breaks are of immigrant heritage.
Not just people of immigrant heritage but foreign nationals. Part of the story of London's demographic transformation has been the suppression of domestic migration away from left-behind areas.
Suppression? What are you talking about? London is full of chippy northerners and Scots etc. The only thing stopping people moving to London is the scary made up stories about crime they see on Facebook.
What are the chances of someone from the north of England getting social housing in London?
The chances of anyone turning up and getting social housing is quite low. There is a long waiting list. If they're moving to London to work, like I did from Fife (home to many left behind areas although to be fair I wasn't fae those bits) they can rent privately and then buy once they've saved for a deposit. It's called getting on your bike. BTW I love the idea that the north of England is full of folks dreaming of living on a council estate in Croydon. Something tells me you are unfamiliar with those parts of the country...
Rather sadly, the job you achieve in life (barring things like ill-health, accidents and wrongful imprisonment) is largely down to your own efforts and character: character is destiny and a' that. So the public school debate is a non-sequitur.
What is the problem, and it's going to get much worse when the boomers die, is the money and inheritance that wealthy parents gift their children. You can be very, very stupid but if you had wealthy parents you are not going to die in a council house, even if you deserve it.
So if Labour really wanted to increase class mobility, they'd tax houses not public schools.
No, as May discovered that is political suicide as far more voters own houses or have parents who own houses than attend public schools.
The biggest increases in social mobility in the last 100 years (bar the expansion of white collar office jobs after WW2) arguably came from Thatcher's sale of council homes so more could own their own homes and grammar schools, Labour of course opposed both
Parents could own their own grammar schools?
Impressive.
Grammar schools were and still are where they exist the only state schools which really tend to challenge the top private schools on Oxbridge entry and admission to the top professions like law and medicine
That is unsurprising as they are selective. If you only let in the most academically gifted students then you will tend to have a lot going on to top universities and academically challenging courses. It doesn't necessarily tell you anything about the quality of the school.
Yes and I have no problem with selective schools at all, they are the best way for bright children from working class or lower middle class backgrounds to get to a top university and top professional or managerial career
They are the best way of letting pushy middle class parents game the system while leaving most kids to rot in under-resourced secondary moderns.
You are more likely to get into Oxbridge or a Russell Group university or law and medicine from a grammar than most comps and academies if you are from a working class or lower middle class background. Comprehensives/academies are largely secondary moderns anyway unless from the leafiest middle class suburb or prosperous town and plenty of high schools in selective areas do OK
Universities do try to lean over to take secondary modern kids (partly as they reckon they've overcome the obstacle if they get good results) - you won't get a good place if you only get fairly good results from a grammar school. But that's generally not enough to stop the elite kids with all manner of tutoring and support plus a good school.
Rather sadly, the job you achieve in life (barring things like ill-health, accidents and wrongful imprisonment) is largely down to your own efforts and character: character is destiny and a' that. So the public school debate is a non-sequitur.
What is the problem, and it's going to get much worse when the boomers die, is the money and inheritance that wealthy parents gift their children. You can be very, very stupid but if you had wealthy parents you are not going to die in a council house, even if you deserve it.
So if Labour really wanted to increase class mobility, they'd tax houses not public schools.
Have you read any of Bourdieu's work? You might find it interesting. Some is a little dated such as the tastes of the French middle class in the 70's and 80's but the underlying concepts remain sound.
It is why so many of the top tier of our society come from private education. They are not smarter or harder working than their state school rivals but they do have more Social and Cultural Capital.
It's also about geography. It's much easier to accumulate cultural capital and make connections if you start out in or near a great city than if the nearest town with a bank branch is an hour away by bus. It's possible to overcome that disadvantage, but it's not as easy as not having to. The social capital private schools undobtedly provide is of a similar nature- nether essential to suceed, nor a guarantee of success, but it surely helps a lot.
And whilst effort, character and ability are important in achieving life aims, I prefered it when John Major acknowledged the role of luck- even if it's just being in the right place at the right time. And whilst all of us are (to an extent) lucky to be in Britain in 2026, some of us are luckier than others.
I agree. Indeed your point on geography is very pertinent to places like Makerfield. Opportunity in Britain is based around London and a few few other cosmopolitan metro areas. This causes a lot of resentment when those living in the cities get the opportunities while they feel excluded, particularly when those getting the breaks are of immigrant heritage.
Not just people of immigrant heritage but foreign nationals. Part of the story of London's demographic transformation has been the suppression of domestic migration away from left-behind areas.
Suppression? What are you talking about? London is full of chippy northerners and Scots etc. The only thing stopping people moving to London is the scary made up stories about crime they see on Facebook.
What are the chances of someone from the north of England getting social housing in London?
The chances of anyone turning up and getting social housing is quite low. There is a long waiting list. If they're moving to London to work, like I did from Fife (home to many left behind areas although to be fair I wasn't fae those bits) they can rent privately and then buy once they've saved for a deposit. It's called getting on your bike. BTW I love the idea that the north of England is full of folks dreaming of living on a council estate in Croydon. Something tells me you are unfamiliar with those parts of the country...
Everyone I know who was an avid Cursor user even six months ago has jumped ship to something else. Dare say they have some 'sticky' enterprise contracts though.
Rather sadly, the job you achieve in life (barring things like ill-health, accidents and wrongful imprisonment) is largely down to your own efforts and character: character is destiny and a' that. So the public school debate is a non-sequitur.
What is the problem, and it's going to get much worse when the boomers die, is the money and inheritance that wealthy parents gift their children. You can be very, very stupid but if you had wealthy parents you are not going to die in a council house, even if you deserve it.
So if Labour really wanted to increase class mobility, they'd tax houses not public schools.
No, as May discovered that is political suicide as far more voters own houses or have parents who own houses than attend public schools.
The biggest increases in social mobility in the last 100 years (bar the expansion of white collar office jobs after WW2) arguably came from Thatcher's sale of council homes so more could own their own homes and grammar schools, Labour of course opposed both
Parents could own their own grammar schools?
Impressive.
Grammar schools were and still are where they exist the only state schools which really tend to challenge the top private schools on Oxbridge entry and admission to the top professions like law and medicine
That is unsurprising as they are selective. If you only let in the most academically gifted students then you will tend to have a lot going on to top universities and academically challenging courses. It doesn't necessarily tell you anything about the quality of the school.
Yes and I have no problem with selective schools at all, they are the best way for bright children from working class or lower middle class backgrounds to get to a top university and top professional or managerial career
They are the best way of letting pushy middle class parents game the system while leaving most kids to rot in under-resourced secondary moderns.
You are more likely to get into Oxbridge or a Russell Group university or law and medicine from a grammar than most comps and academies if you are from a working class or lower middle class background. Comprehensives/academies are largely secondary moderns anyway unless from the leafiest middle class suburb or prosperous town and plenty of high schools in selective areas do OK
Universities do try to lean over to take secondary modern kids (partly as they reckon they've overcome the obstacle if they get good results) - you won't get a good place if you only get fairly good results from a grammar school. But that's generally not enough to stop the elite kids with all manner of tutoring and support plus a good school.
They might get a slightly lower offer in social engineering terms, as might pupils from comprehensives/academies in deprived areas. Oxbridge and the Russell Group though still have well over half of the pupil intake from private and grammar schools. If we had more grammars again we would need less social engineering, now there are few grammars left in deprived areas and most are in more prosperous areas
Rather sadly, the job you achieve in life (barring things like ill-health, accidents and wrongful imprisonment) is largely down to your own efforts and character: character is destiny and a' that. So the public school debate is a non-sequitur.
What is the problem, and it's going to get much worse when the boomers die, is the money and inheritance that wealthy parents gift their children. You can be very, very stupid but if you had wealthy parents you are not going to die in a council house, even if you deserve it.
So if Labour really wanted to increase class mobility, they'd tax houses not public schools.
Have you read any of Bourdieu's work? You might find it interesting. Some is a little dated such as the tastes of the French middle class in the 70's and 80's but the underlying concepts remain sound.
It is why so many of the top tier of our society come from private education. They are not smarter or harder working than their state school rivals but they do have more Social and Cultural Capital.
It's also about geography. It's much easier to accumulate cultural capital and make connections if you start out in or near a great city than if the nearest town with a bank branch is an hour away by bus. It's possible to overcome that disadvantage, but it's not as easy as not having to. The social capital private schools undobtedly provide is of a similar nature- nether essential to suceed, nor a guarantee of success, but it surely helps a lot.
And whilst effort, character and ability are important in achieving life aims, I prefered it when John Major acknowledged the role of luck- even if it's just being in the right place at the right time. And whilst all of us are (to an extent) lucky to be in Britain in 2026, some of us are luckier than others.
I agree. Indeed your point on geography is very pertinent to places like Makerfield. Opportunity in Britain is based around London and a few few other cosmopolitan metro areas. This causes a lot of resentment when those living in the cities get the opportunities while they feel excluded, particularly when those getting the breaks are of immigrant heritage.
Not just people of immigrant heritage but foreign nationals. Part of the story of London's demographic transformation has been the suppression of domestic migration away from left-behind areas.
Suppression? What are you talking about? London is full of chippy northerners and Scots etc. The only thing stopping people moving to London is the scary made up stories about crime they see on Facebook.
What are the chances of someone from the north of England getting social housing in London?
The chances of anyone turning up and getting social housing is quite low. There is a long waiting list. If they're moving to London to work, like I did from Fife (home to many left behind areas although to be fair I wasn't fae those bits) they can rent privately and then buy once they've saved for a deposit. It's called getting on your bike. BTW I love the idea that the north of England is full of folks dreaming of living on a council estate in Croydon. Something tells me you are unfamiliar with those parts of the country...
I am sure the Duke of Northumberland dreams of a council estate in Croydon as he gazes out of his Alnwick Castle window
Rather sadly, the job you achieve in life (barring things like ill-health, accidents and wrongful imprisonment) is largely down to your own efforts and character: character is destiny and a' that. So the public school debate is a non-sequitur.
What is the problem, and it's going to get much worse when the boomers die, is the money and inheritance that wealthy parents gift their children. You can be very, very stupid but if you had wealthy parents you are not going to die in a council house, even if you deserve it.
So if Labour really wanted to increase class mobility, they'd tax houses not public schools.
No, as May discovered that is political suicide as far more voters own houses or have parents who own houses than attend public schools.
The biggest increases in social mobility in the last 100 years (bar the expansion of white collar office jobs after WW2) arguably came from Thatcher's sale of council homes so more could own their own homes and grammar schools, Labour of course opposed both
Parents could own their own grammar schools?
Impressive.
Grammar schools were and still are where they exist the only state schools which really tend to challenge the top private schools on Oxbridge entry and admission to the top professions like law and medicine
That is unsurprising as they are selective. If you only let in the most academically gifted students then you will tend to have a lot going on to top universities and academically challenging courses. It doesn't necessarily tell you anything about the quality of the school.
Yes and I have no problem with selective schools at all, they are the best way for bright children from working class or lower middle class backgrounds to get to a top university and top professional or managerial career
They are the best way of letting pushy middle class parents game the system while leaving most kids to rot in under-resourced secondary moderns.
You are more likely to get into Oxbridge or a Russell Group university or law and medicine from a grammar than most comps and academies if you are from a working class or lower middle class background. Comprehensives/academies are largely secondary moderns anyway unless from the leafiest middle class suburb or prosperous town and plenty of high schools in selective areas do OK
You are more likely to go to a top university from grammar school regardless of your background because grammar schools only let in people who are likely to go to a top university. A system that divides children into academic successes and failures at 11 will always favour children whose parents understand the system, ie the pushy middle classes. Not that I am criticizing the pushy middle classes, they are the people this country's prosperity largely rests on!
Rather sadly, the job you achieve in life (barring things like ill-health, accidents and wrongful imprisonment) is largely down to your own efforts and character: character is destiny and a' that. So the public school debate is a non-sequitur.
What is the problem, and it's going to get much worse when the boomers die, is the money and inheritance that wealthy parents gift their children. You can be very, very stupid but if you had wealthy parents you are not going to die in a council house, even if you deserve it.
So if Labour really wanted to increase class mobility, they'd tax houses not public schools.
Have you read any of Bourdieu's work? You might find it interesting. Some is a little dated such as the tastes of the French middle class in the 70's and 80's but the underlying concepts remain sound.
It is why so many of the top tier of our society come from private education. They are not smarter or harder working than their state school rivals but they do have more Social and Cultural Capital.
It's also about geography. It's much easier to accumulate cultural capital and make connections if you start out in or near a great city than if the nearest town with a bank branch is an hour away by bus. It's possible to overcome that disadvantage, but it's not as easy as not having to. The social capital private schools undobtedly provide is of a similar nature- nether essential to suceed, nor a guarantee of success, but it surely helps a lot.
And whilst effort, character and ability are important in achieving life aims, I prefered it when John Major acknowledged the role of luck- even if it's just being in the right place at the right time. And whilst all of us are (to an extent) lucky to be in Britain in 2026, some of us are luckier than others.
I agree. Indeed your point on geography is very pertinent to places like Makerfield. Opportunity in Britain is based around London and a few few other cosmopolitan metro areas. This causes a lot of resentment when those living in the cities get the opportunities while they feel excluded, particularly when those getting the breaks are of immigrant heritage.
Not just people of immigrant heritage but foreign nationals. Part of the story of London's demographic transformation has been the suppression of domestic migration away from left-behind areas.
Suppression? What are you talking about? London is full of chippy northerners and Scots etc. The only thing stopping people moving to London is the scary made up stories about crime they see on Facebook.
And astronomical rental and house prices. Astronomical rental and house prices do not discriminate against skin colour, religion or regional accents from North of Watford or South of Dover.
I didn't want to be rude which is why I didn't respond directly to @williamglenn
Immigrants are more willing to live multiple people to a room, not just multiple people to a house.
Not skin colour, of course, but capacity for discomfort which comes from growing up dirt poor, not British poor.
British poor can always sleep in their Motability VW T6 Campers.
Rather sadly, the job you achieve in life (barring things like ill-health, accidents and wrongful imprisonment) is largely down to your own efforts and character: character is destiny and a' that. So the public school debate is a non-sequitur.
What is the problem, and it's going to get much worse when the boomers die, is the money and inheritance that wealthy parents gift their children. You can be very, very stupid but if you had wealthy parents you are not going to die in a council house, even if you deserve it.
So if Labour really wanted to increase class mobility, they'd tax houses not public schools.
Have you read any of Bourdieu's work? You might find it interesting. Some is a little dated such as the tastes of the French middle class in the 70's and 80's but the underlying concepts remain sound.
It is why so many of the top tier of our society come from private education. They are not smarter or harder working than their state school rivals but they do have more Social and Cultural Capital.
It's also about geography. It's much easier to accumulate cultural capital and make connections if you start out in or near a great city than if the nearest town with a bank branch is an hour away by bus. It's possible to overcome that disadvantage, but it's not as easy as not having to. The social capital private schools undobtedly provide is of a similar nature- nether essential to suceed, nor a guarantee of success, but it surely helps a lot.
And whilst effort, character and ability are important in achieving life aims, I prefered it when John Major acknowledged the role of luck- even if it's just being in the right place at the right time. And whilst all of us are (to an extent) lucky to be in Britain in 2026, some of us are luckier than others.
I agree. Indeed your point on geography is very pertinent to places like Makerfield. Opportunity in Britain is based around London and a few few other cosmopolitan metro areas. This causes a lot of resentment when those living in the cities get the opportunities while they feel excluded, particularly when those getting the breaks are of immigrant heritage.
Not just people of immigrant heritage but foreign nationals. Part of the story of London's demographic transformation has been the suppression of domestic migration away from left-behind areas.
Suppression? What are you talking about? London is full of chippy northerners and Scots etc. The only thing stopping people moving to London is the scary made up stories about crime they see on Facebook.
And astronomical rental and house prices. Astronomical rental and house prices do not discriminate against skin colour, religion or regional accents from North of Watford or South of Dover.
I didn't want to be rude which is why I didn't respond directly to @williamglenn
Immigrants are more willing to live multiple people to a room, not just multiple people to a house.
Not skin colour, of course, but capacity for discomfort which comes from growing up dirt poor, not British poor.
British poor can always sleep in their Motability VW T6 Campers.
Hey, if we agree to pay housing benefit on these very mobile homes...
Rather sadly, the job you achieve in life (barring things like ill-health, accidents and wrongful imprisonment) is largely down to your own efforts and character: character is destiny and a' that. So the public school debate is a non-sequitur.
What is the problem, and it's going to get much worse when the boomers die, is the money and inheritance that wealthy parents gift their children. You can be very, very stupid but if you had wealthy parents you are not going to die in a council house, even if you deserve it.
So if Labour really wanted to increase class mobility, they'd tax houses not public schools.
Have you read any of Bourdieu's work? You might find it interesting. Some is a little dated such as the tastes of the French middle class in the 70's and 80's but the underlying concepts remain sound.
It is why so many of the top tier of our society come from private education. They are not smarter or harder working than their state school rivals but they do have more Social and Cultural Capital.
It's also about geography. It's much easier to accumulate cultural capital and make connections if you start out in or near a great city than if the nearest town with a bank branch is an hour away by bus. It's possible to overcome that disadvantage, but it's not as easy as not having to. The social capital private schools undobtedly provide is of a similar nature- nether essential to suceed, nor a guarantee of success, but it surely helps a lot.
And whilst effort, character and ability are important in achieving life aims, I prefered it when John Major acknowledged the role of luck- even if it's just being in the right place at the right time. And whilst all of us are (to an extent) lucky to be in Britain in 2026, some of us are luckier than others.
I agree. Indeed your point on geography is very pertinent to places like Makerfield. Opportunity in Britain is based around London and a few few other cosmopolitan metro areas. This causes a lot of resentment when those living in the cities get the opportunities while they feel excluded, particularly when those getting the breaks are of immigrant heritage.
Not just people of immigrant heritage but foreign nationals. Part of the story of London's demographic transformation has been the suppression of domestic migration away from left-behind areas.
Suppression? What are you talking about? London is full of chippy northerners and Scots etc. The only thing stopping people moving to London is the scary made up stories about crime they see on Facebook.
What are the chances of someone from the north of England getting social housing in London?
The chances of anyone turning up and getting social housing is quite low. There is a long waiting list. If they're moving to London to work, like I did from Fife (home to many left behind areas although to be fair I wasn't fae those bits) they can rent privately and then buy once they've saved for a deposit. It's called getting on your bike. BTW I love the idea that the north of England is full of folks dreaming of living on a council estate in Croydon. Something tells me you are unfamiliar with those parts of the country...
I am sure the Duke of Northumberland dreams of a council estate in Croydon as he gazes out of his Alnwick Castle window
At least he has some experience of living on an estate.
Rather sadly, the job you achieve in life (barring things like ill-health, accidents and wrongful imprisonment) is largely down to your own efforts and character: character is destiny and a' that. So the public school debate is a non-sequitur.
What is the problem, and it's going to get much worse when the boomers die, is the money and inheritance that wealthy parents gift their children. You can be very, very stupid but if you had wealthy parents you are not going to die in a council house, even if you deserve it.
So if Labour really wanted to increase class mobility, they'd tax houses not public schools.
No, as May discovered that is political suicide as far more voters own houses or have parents who own houses than attend public schools.
The biggest increases in social mobility in the last 100 years (bar the expansion of white collar office jobs after WW2) arguably came from Thatcher's sale of council homes so more could own their own homes and grammar schools, Labour of course opposed both
Parents could own their own grammar schools?
Impressive.
Grammar schools were and still are where they exist the only state schools which really tend to challenge the top private schools on Oxbridge entry and admission to the top professions like law and medicine
That is unsurprising as they are selective. If you only let in the most academically gifted students then you will tend to have a lot going on to top universities and academically challenging courses. It doesn't necessarily tell you anything about the quality of the school.
Yes and I have no problem with selective schools at all, they are the best way for bright children from working class or lower middle class backgrounds to get to a top university and top professional or managerial career
They are the best way of letting pushy middle class parents game the system while leaving most kids to rot in under-resourced secondary moderns.
You are more likely to get into Oxbridge or a Russell Group university or law and medicine from a grammar than most comps and academies if you are from a working class or lower middle class background. Comprehensives/academies are largely secondary moderns anyway unless from the leafiest middle class suburb or prosperous town and plenty of high schools in selective areas do OK
We've talked this to death before, but...
Yes, the proportion of young people who get onto superselective courses from selective schools and colleges is much higher than from comprehensive schools and colleges.
But
The chances that Timmy or Lauren or whoever will get onto a superselective course aren't that much affected much by where they do their A Levels. That's a different thing, a different calculation, and much more relevant.
If you really think that kind of rigourous academic education is a scare resouce that the state should ration, the Hampshire Sixth Form College model is a much better way of doing it. It's pure coincidence that it's the system I went through.
Everyone I know who was an avid Cursor user even six months ago has jumped ship to something else. Dare say they have some 'sticky' enterprise contracts though.
That's not really the point.
SpaceX hoovering up tech companies may or may not work out for them. It's rather that the currency they're paying with is vastly inflated - and issuing it in this manner is something of an end run around the IPO restrictions on releasing further stock into the market. I doubt this will be the last such deal.
Rather sadly, the job you achieve in life (barring things like ill-health, accidents and wrongful imprisonment) is largely down to your own efforts and character: character is destiny and a' that. So the public school debate is a non-sequitur.
What is the problem, and it's going to get much worse when the boomers die, is the money and inheritance that wealthy parents gift their children. You can be very, very stupid but if you had wealthy parents you are not going to die in a council house, even if you deserve it.
So if Labour really wanted to increase class mobility, they'd tax houses not public schools.
No, as May discovered that is political suicide as far more voters own houses or have parents who own houses than attend public schools.
The biggest increases in social mobility in the last 100 years (bar the expansion of white collar office jobs after WW2) arguably came from Thatcher's sale of council homes so more could own their own homes and grammar schools, Labour of course opposed both
Parents could own their own grammar schools?
Impressive.
Grammar schools were and still are where they exist the only state schools which really tend to challenge the top private schools on Oxbridge entry and admission to the top professions like law and medicine
That is unsurprising as they are selective. If you only let in the most academically gifted students then you will tend to have a lot going on to top universities and academically challenging courses. It doesn't necessarily tell you anything about the quality of the school.
Yes and I have no problem with selective schools at all, they are the best way for bright children from working class or lower middle class backgrounds to get to a top university and top professional or managerial career
They are the best way of letting pushy middle class parents game the system while leaving most kids to rot in under-resourced secondary moderns.
You are more likely to get into Oxbridge or a Russell Group university or law and medicine from a grammar than most comps and academies if you are from a working class or lower middle class background. Comprehensives/academies are largely secondary moderns anyway unless from the leafiest middle class suburb or prosperous town and plenty of high schools in selective areas do OK
You are more likely to go to a top university from grammar school regardless of your background because grammar schools only let in people who are likely to go to a top university. A system that divides children into academic successes and failures at 11 will always favour children whose parents understand the system, ie the pushy middle classes. Not that I am criticizing the pushy middle classes, they are the people this country's prosperity largely rests on!
One of the reasons that grammar schools went out of fashion was because pushy middle class parents (who were bedrock Conservatives until the party became a trade union for pensioners in the 2010s) hated having their children allocated places at Secondary Moderns.
You see the same dynamic playing out in Kent now, where the pressure is to expand grammar school provision, making selective schools less selective.
Rather sadly, the job you achieve in life (barring things like ill-health, accidents and wrongful imprisonment) is largely down to your own efforts and character: character is destiny and a' that. So the public school debate is a non-sequitur.
What is the problem, and it's going to get much worse when the boomers die, is the money and inheritance that wealthy parents gift their children. You can be very, very stupid but if you had wealthy parents you are not going to die in a council house, even if you deserve it.
So if Labour really wanted to increase class mobility, they'd tax houses not public schools.
Have you read any of Bourdieu's work? You might find it interesting. Some is a little dated such as the tastes of the French middle class in the 70's and 80's but the underlying concepts remain sound.
It is why so many of the top tier of our society come from private education. They are not smarter or harder working than their state school rivals but they do have more Social and Cultural Capital.
It's also about geography. It's much easier to accumulate cultural capital and make connections if you start out in or near a great city than if the nearest town with a bank branch is an hour away by bus. It's possible to overcome that disadvantage, but it's not as easy as not having to. The social capital private schools undobtedly provide is of a similar nature- nether essential to suceed, nor a guarantee of success, but it surely helps a lot.
And whilst effort, character and ability are important in achieving life aims, I prefered it when John Major acknowledged the role of luck- even if it's just being in the right place at the right time. And whilst all of us are (to an extent) lucky to be in Britain in 2026, some of us are luckier than others.
I agree. Indeed your point on geography is very pertinent to places like Makerfield. Opportunity in Britain is based around London and a few few other cosmopolitan metro areas. This causes a lot of resentment when those living in the cities get the opportunities while they feel excluded, particularly when those getting the breaks are of immigrant heritage.
Not just people of immigrant heritage but foreign nationals. Part of the story of London's demographic transformation has been the suppression of domestic migration away from left-behind areas.
Suppression? What are you talking about? London is full of chippy northerners and Scots etc. The only thing stopping people moving to London is the scary made up stories about crime they see on Facebook.
What are the chances of someone from the north of England getting social housing in London?
The chances of anyone turning up and getting social housing is quite low. There is a long waiting list. If they're moving to London to work, like I did from Fife (home to many left behind areas although to be fair I wasn't fae those bits) they can rent privately and then buy once they've saved for a deposit. It's called getting on your bike. BTW I love the idea that the north of England is full of folks dreaming of living on a council estate in Croydon. Something tells me you are unfamiliar with those parts of the country...
I am sure the Duke of Northumberland dreams of a council estate in Croydon as he gazes out of his Alnwick Castle window
He probably looks out at the A1 and would be comfortable with the single carriageway urban London bits.
In between it is all variably dualled 1950s wasteland, tractors merging into lorries and trying to catch you out LBW in the fast lane, Googie architecture, OK Diners, abandoned coaching inns and Pulse and Cocktails. Of all the weirdest places in the UK, I'd put much of the A1 in the top 10.
Rather sadly, the job you achieve in life (barring things like ill-health, accidents and wrongful imprisonment) is largely down to your own efforts and character: character is destiny and a' that. So the public school debate is a non-sequitur.
What is the problem, and it's going to get much worse when the boomers die, is the money and inheritance that wealthy parents gift their children. You can be very, very stupid but if you had wealthy parents you are not going to die in a council house, even if you deserve it.
So if Labour really wanted to increase class mobility, they'd tax houses not public schools.
Have you read any of Bourdieu's work? You might find it interesting. Some is a little dated such as the tastes of the French middle class in the 70's and 80's but the underlying concepts remain sound.
It is why so many of the top tier of our society come from private education. They are not smarter or harder working than their state school rivals but they do have more Social and Cultural Capital.
It's also about geography. It's much easier to accumulate cultural capital and make connections if you start out in or near a great city than if the nearest town with a bank branch is an hour away by bus. It's possible to overcome that disadvantage, but it's not as easy as not having to. The social capital private schools undobtedly provide is of a similar nature- nether essential to suceed, nor a guarantee of success, but it surely helps a lot.
And whilst effort, character and ability are important in achieving life aims, I prefered it when John Major acknowledged the role of luck- even if it's just being in the right place at the right time. And whilst all of us are (to an extent) lucky to be in Britain in 2026, some of us are luckier than others.
I agree. Indeed your point on geography is very pertinent to places like Makerfield. Opportunity in Britain is based around London and a few few other cosmopolitan metro areas. This causes a lot of resentment when those living in the cities get the opportunities while they feel excluded, particularly when those getting the breaks are of immigrant heritage.
Not just people of immigrant heritage but foreign nationals. Part of the story of London's demographic transformation has been the suppression of domestic migration away from left-behind areas.
Suppression? What are you talking about? London is full of chippy northerners and Scots etc. The only thing stopping people moving to London is the scary made up stories about crime they see on Facebook.
What are the chances of someone from the north of England getting social housing in London?
The chances of anyone turning up and getting social housing is quite low. There is a long waiting list. If they're moving to London to work, like I did from Fife (home to many left behind areas although to be fair I wasn't fae those bits) they can rent privately and then buy once they've saved for a deposit. It's called getting on your bike. BTW I love the idea that the north of England is full of folks dreaming of living on a council estate in Croydon. Something tells me you are unfamiliar with those parts of the country...
I am sure the Duke of Northumberland dreams of a council estate in Croydon as he gazes out of his Alnwick Castle window
He probably looks out at the A1 and would be comfortable with the single carriageway urban London bits.
In between it is all variably dualled 1950s wasteland, tractors merging into lorries and trying to catch you out LBW in the fast lane, Googie architecture, OK Diners, abandoned coaching inns and Pulse and Cocktails. Of all the weirdest places in the UK, I'd put much of the A1 in the top 10.
Rather sadly, the job you achieve in life (barring things like ill-health, accidents and wrongful imprisonment) is largely down to your own efforts and character: character is destiny and a' that. So the public school debate is a non-sequitur.
What is the problem, and it's going to get much worse when the boomers die, is the money and inheritance that wealthy parents gift their children. You can be very, very stupid but if you had wealthy parents you are not going to die in a council house, even if you deserve it.
So if Labour really wanted to increase class mobility, they'd tax houses not public schools.
Have you read any of Bourdieu's work? You might find it interesting. Some is a little dated such as the tastes of the French middle class in the 70's and 80's but the underlying concepts remain sound.
It is why so many of the top tier of our society come from private education. They are not smarter or harder working than their state school rivals but they do have more Social and Cultural Capital.
It's also about geography. It's much easier to accumulate cultural capital and make connections if you start out in or near a great city than if the nearest town with a bank branch is an hour away by bus. It's possible to overcome that disadvantage, but it's not as easy as not having to. The social capital private schools undobtedly provide is of a similar nature- nether essential to suceed, nor a guarantee of success, but it surely helps a lot.
And whilst effort, character and ability are important in achieving life aims, I prefered it when John Major acknowledged the role of luck- even if it's just being in the right place at the right time. And whilst all of us are (to an extent) lucky to be in Britain in 2026, some of us are luckier than others.
I agree. Indeed your point on geography is very pertinent to places like Makerfield. Opportunity in Britain is based around London and a few few other cosmopolitan metro areas. This causes a lot of resentment when those living in the cities get the opportunities while they feel excluded, particularly when those getting the breaks are of immigrant heritage.
Not just people of immigrant heritage but foreign nationals. Part of the story of London's demographic transformation has been the suppression of domestic migration away from left-behind areas.
Suppression? What are you talking about? London is full of chippy northerners and Scots etc. The only thing stopping people moving to London is the scary made up stories about crime they see on Facebook.
What are the chances of someone from the north of England getting social housing in London?
The chances of anyone turning up and getting social housing is quite low. There is a long waiting list. If they're moving to London to work, like I did from Fife (home to many left behind areas although to be fair I wasn't fae those bits) they can rent privately and then buy once they've saved for a deposit. It's called getting on your bike. BTW I love the idea that the north of England is full of folks dreaming of living on a council estate in Croydon. Something tells me you are unfamiliar with those parts of the country...
Bit easier in your day, though.
A bit easier, although I'm not a boomer! We bought our first home, a 2 bed flat on an iffy council estate in Lambeth, in 2002. It cost £135k. We sold it in 2011 for £200k to buy our current house. £65k in capital gains is not a huge amount compared to the sort of free money that people who bought ten years earlier enjoyed. 4.5% annual price appreciation.
The USA forced Iran to fly into the USA on the day of their match with New Zealand and then as soon as the match finished forced them on a plane back to Mexico.
Rather sadly, the job you achieve in life (barring things like ill-health, accidents and wrongful imprisonment) is largely down to your own efforts and character: character is destiny and a' that. So the public school debate is a non-sequitur.
What is the problem, and it's going to get much worse when the boomers die, is the money and inheritance that wealthy parents gift their children. You can be very, very stupid but if you had wealthy parents you are not going to die in a council house, even if you deserve it.
So if Labour really wanted to increase class mobility, they'd tax houses not public schools.
Have you read any of Bourdieu's work? You might find it interesting. Some is a little dated such as the tastes of the French middle class in the 70's and 80's but the underlying concepts remain sound.
It is why so many of the top tier of our society come from private education. They are not smarter or harder working than their state school rivals but they do have more Social and Cultural Capital.
It's also about geography. It's much easier to accumulate cultural capital and make connections if you start out in or near a great city than if the nearest town with a bank branch is an hour away by bus. It's possible to overcome that disadvantage, but it's not as easy as not having to. The social capital private schools undobtedly provide is of a similar nature- nether essential to suceed, nor a guarantee of success, but it surely helps a lot.
And whilst effort, character and ability are important in achieving life aims, I prefered it when John Major acknowledged the role of luck- even if it's just being in the right place at the right time. And whilst all of us are (to an extent) lucky to be in Britain in 2026, some of us are luckier than others.
I agree. Indeed your point on geography is very pertinent to places like Makerfield. Opportunity in Britain is based around London and a few few other cosmopolitan metro areas. This causes a lot of resentment when those living in the cities get the opportunities while they feel excluded, particularly when those getting the breaks are of immigrant heritage.
Not just people of immigrant heritage but foreign nationals. Part of the story of London's demographic transformation has been the suppression of domestic migration away from left-behind areas.
Suppression? What are you talking about? London is full of chippy northerners and Scots etc. The only thing stopping people moving to London is the scary made up stories about crime they see on Facebook.
What are the chances of someone from the north of England getting social housing in London?
The chances of anyone turning up and getting social housing is quite low. There is a long waiting list. If they're moving to London to work, like I did from Fife (home to many left behind areas although to be fair I wasn't fae those bits) they can rent privately and then buy once they've saved for a deposit. It's called getting on your bike. BTW I love the idea that the north of England is full of folks dreaming of living on a council estate in Croydon. Something tells me you are unfamiliar with those parts of the country...
I am sure the Duke of Northumberland dreams of a council estate in Croydon as he gazes out of his Alnwick Castle window
He probably looks out at the A1 and would be comfortable with the single carriageway urban London bits.
In between it is all variably dualled 1950s wasteland, tractors merging into lorries and trying to catch you out LBW in the fast lane, Googie architecture, OK Diners, abandoned coaching inns and Pulse and Cocktails. Of all the weirdest places in the UK, I'd put much of the A1 in the top 10.
Don't forget the Honey Pot Lane Industrial Estate, my favourite road sign in Britain owing to the absurd juxtaposition of the first three and last two words. I love the A1.
Rather sadly, the job you achieve in life (barring things like ill-health, accidents and wrongful imprisonment) is largely down to your own efforts and character: character is destiny and a' that. So the public school debate is a non-sequitur.
What is the problem, and it's going to get much worse when the boomers die, is the money and inheritance that wealthy parents gift their children. You can be very, very stupid but if you had wealthy parents you are not going to die in a council house, even if you deserve it.
So if Labour really wanted to increase class mobility, they'd tax houses not public schools.
No, as May discovered that is political suicide as far more voters own houses or have parents who own houses than attend public schools.
The biggest increases in social mobility in the last 100 years (bar the expansion of white collar office jobs after WW2) arguably came from Thatcher's sale of council homes so more could own their own homes and grammar schools, Labour of course opposed both
Parents could own their own grammar schools?
Impressive.
Grammar schools were and still are where they exist the only state schools which really tend to challenge the top private schools on Oxbridge entry and admission to the top professions like law and medicine
That is unsurprising as they are selective. If you only let in the most academically gifted students then you will tend to have a lot going on to top universities and academically challenging courses. It doesn't necessarily tell you anything about the quality of the school.
Yes and I have no problem with selective schools at all, they are the best way for bright children from working class or lower middle class backgrounds to get to a top university and top professional or managerial career
They are the best way of letting pushy middle class parents game the system while leaving most kids to rot in under-resourced secondary moderns.
You are more likely to get into Oxbridge or a Russell Group university or law and medicine from a grammar than most comps and academies if you are from a working class or lower middle class background. Comprehensives/academies are largely secondary moderns anyway unless from the leafiest middle class suburb or prosperous town and plenty of high schools in selective areas do OK
You are more likely to go to a top university from grammar school regardless of your background because grammar schools only let in people who are likely to go to a top university. A system that divides children into academic successes and failures at 11 will always favour children whose parents understand the system, ie the pushy middle classes. Not that I am criticizing the pushy middle classes, they are the people this country's prosperity largely rests on!
At my small market town those who failed the 11 plus went to the secondary modern with an expectation they could work on a farm, on the line at the jam factors or at Chapman's stationary products. At secondary year 4 the classes were split at the Grammar school into an A and a B stream with the B stream doing CSEs and the A stream doing O levels. The B stream were often referred to by dyed in the wool grammar school staff who swept around the place in their moth eaten gowns as "less able" students. The expectation was they could work on a farm, on the line at the jam factory or at Chapman's stationary* products.
*Customer asks a W H Smith Saturday girl; "do you keep stationary". "No" replies the girl, "my boyfriend likes me to writhe like a wild animal".
The USA forced Iran to fly into the USA on the day of their match with New Zealand and then as soon as the match finished forced them on a plane back to Mexico.
Rather sadly, the job you achieve in life (barring things like ill-health, accidents and wrongful imprisonment) is largely down to your own efforts and character: character is destiny and a' that. So the public school debate is a non-sequitur.
What is the problem, and it's going to get much worse when the boomers die, is the money and inheritance that wealthy parents gift their children. You can be very, very stupid but if you had wealthy parents you are not going to die in a council house, even if you deserve it.
So if Labour really wanted to increase class mobility, they'd tax houses not public schools.
Have you read any of Bourdieu's work? You might find it interesting. Some is a little dated such as the tastes of the French middle class in the 70's and 80's but the underlying concepts remain sound.
It is why so many of the top tier of our society come from private education. They are not smarter or harder working than their state school rivals but they do have more Social and Cultural Capital.
It's also about geography. It's much easier to accumulate cultural capital and make connections if you start out in or near a great city than if the nearest town with a bank branch is an hour away by bus. It's possible to overcome that disadvantage, but it's not as easy as not having to. The social capital private schools undobtedly provide is of a similar nature- nether essential to suceed, nor a guarantee of success, but it surely helps a lot.
And whilst effort, character and ability are important in achieving life aims, I prefered it when John Major acknowledged the role of luck- even if it's just being in the right place at the right time. And whilst all of us are (to an extent) lucky to be in Britain in 2026, some of us are luckier than others.
I agree. Indeed your point on geography is very pertinent to places like Makerfield. Opportunity in Britain is based around London and a few few other cosmopolitan metro areas. This causes a lot of resentment when those living in the cities get the opportunities while they feel excluded, particularly when those getting the breaks are of immigrant heritage.
Not just people of immigrant heritage but foreign nationals. Part of the story of London's demographic transformation has been the suppression of domestic migration away from left-behind areas.
Suppression? What are you talking about? London is full of chippy northerners and Scots etc. The only thing stopping people moving to London is the scary made up stories about crime they see on Facebook.
What are the chances of someone from the north of England getting social housing in London?
The chances of anyone turning up and getting social housing is quite low. There is a long waiting list. If they're moving to London to work, like I did from Fife (home to many left behind areas although to be fair I wasn't fae those bits) they can rent privately and then buy once they've saved for a deposit. It's called getting on your bike. BTW I love the idea that the north of England is full of folks dreaming of living on a council estate in Croydon. Something tells me you are unfamiliar with those parts of the country...
I am sure the Duke of Northumberland dreams of a council estate in Croydon as he gazes out of his Alnwick Castle window
He probably looks out at the A1 and would be comfortable with the single carriageway urban London bits.
In between it is all variably dualled 1950s wasteland, tractors merging into lorries and trying to catch you out LBW in the fast lane, Googie architecture, OK Diners, abandoned coaching inns and Pulse and Cocktails. Of all the weirdest places in the UK, I'd put much of the A1 in the top 10.
You forgot the A1(M) sections!
The blue sections lack the dubious charms of the green sections, which feel like the thwarted imperial ambitions of Rutland and Lincolnshire to cast the whole UK in their image.
Rather sadly, the job you achieve in life (barring things like ill-health, accidents and wrongful imprisonment) is largely down to your own efforts and character: character is destiny and a' that. So the public school debate is a non-sequitur.
What is the problem, and it's going to get much worse when the boomers die, is the money and inheritance that wealthy parents gift their children. You can be very, very stupid but if you had wealthy parents you are not going to die in a council house, even if you deserve it.
So if Labour really wanted to increase class mobility, they'd tax houses not public schools.
No, as May discovered that is political suicide as far more voters own houses or have parents who own houses than attend public schools.
The biggest increases in social mobility in the last 100 years (bar the expansion of white collar office jobs after WW2) arguably came from Thatcher's sale of council homes so more could own their own homes and grammar schools, Labour of course opposed both
Parents could own their own grammar schools?
Impressive.
Grammar schools were and still are where they exist the only state schools which really tend to challenge the top private schools on Oxbridge entry and admission to the top professions like law and medicine
That is unsurprising as they are selective. If you only let in the most academically gifted students then you will tend to have a lot going on to top universities and academically challenging courses. It doesn't necessarily tell you anything about the quality of the school.
Yes and I have no problem with selective schools at all, they are the best way for bright children from working class or lower middle class backgrounds to get to a top university and top professional or managerial career
They are the best way of letting pushy middle class parents game the system while leaving most kids to rot in under-resourced secondary moderns.
You are more likely to get into Oxbridge or a Russell Group university or law and medicine from a grammar than most comps and academies if you are from a working class or lower middle class background. Comprehensives/academies are largely secondary moderns anyway unless from the leafiest middle class suburb or prosperous town and plenty of high schools in selective areas do OK
You are more likely to go to a top university from grammar school regardless of your background because grammar schools only let in people who are likely to go to a top university. A system that divides children into academic successes and failures at 11 will always favour children whose parents understand the system, ie the pushy middle classes. Not that I am criticizing the pushy middle classes, they are the people this country's prosperity largely rests on!
At my small market town those who failed the 11 plus went to the secondary modern with an expectation they could work on a farm, on the line at the jam factors or at Chapman's stationary products. At secondary year 4 the classes were split at the Grammar school into an A and a B stream with the B stream doing CSEs and the A stream doing O levels. The B stream were often referred to by dyed in the wool grammar school staff who swept around the place in their moth eaten gowns as "less able" students. The expectation was they could work on a farm, on the line at the jam factory or at Chapman's stationary* products.
*Customer asks a W H Smith Saturday girl; "do you keep stationary". "No" replies the girl, "my boyfriend likes me to writhe like a wild animal".
And many of the A stream became doctors, lawyers, academics, business leaders etc
Rather sadly, the job you achieve in life (barring things like ill-health, accidents and wrongful imprisonment) is largely down to your own efforts and character: character is destiny and a' that. So the public school debate is a non-sequitur.
What is the problem, and it's going to get much worse when the boomers die, is the money and inheritance that wealthy parents gift their children. You can be very, very stupid but if you had wealthy parents you are not going to die in a council house, even if you deserve it.
So if Labour really wanted to increase class mobility, they'd tax houses not public schools.
No, as May discovered that is political suicide as far more voters own houses or have parents who own houses than attend public schools.
The biggest increases in social mobility in the last 100 years (bar the expansion of white collar office jobs after WW2) arguably came from Thatcher's sale of council homes so more could own their own homes and grammar schools, Labour of course opposed both
Parents could own their own grammar schools?
Impressive.
Grammar schools were and still are where they exist the only state schools which really tend to challenge the top private schools on Oxbridge entry and admission to the top professions like law and medicine
That is unsurprising as they are selective. If you only let in the most academically gifted students then you will tend to have a lot going on to top universities and academically challenging courses. It doesn't necessarily tell you anything about the quality of the school.
Yes and I have no problem with selective schools at all, they are the best way for bright children from working class or lower middle class backgrounds to get to a top university and top professional or managerial career
They are the best way of letting pushy middle class parents game the system while leaving most kids to rot in under-resourced secondary moderns.
You are more likely to get into Oxbridge or a Russell Group university or law and medicine from a grammar than most comps and academies if you are from a working class or lower middle class background. Comprehensives/academies are largely secondary moderns anyway unless from the leafiest middle class suburb or prosperous town and plenty of high schools in selective areas do OK
You are more likely to go to a top university from grammar school regardless of your background because grammar schools only let in people who are likely to go to a top university. A system that divides children into academic successes and failures at 11 will always favour children whose parents understand the system, ie the pushy middle classes. Not that I am criticizing the pushy middle classes, they are the people this country's prosperity largely rests on!
The pushy middle classes are even more favoured by comprehensives as they dominate the top ones and academies in the most wealthy areas and are most willing to do the church attendance needed to get into a top faith school, assuming they don't go private of course.
A bright child can get into a grammar though with raw high IQ even without wealthy and pushy middle class parents
Rather sadly, the job you achieve in life (barring things like ill-health, accidents and wrongful imprisonment) is largely down to your own efforts and character: character is destiny and a' that. So the public school debate is a non-sequitur.
What is the problem, and it's going to get much worse when the boomers die, is the money and inheritance that wealthy parents gift their children. You can be very, very stupid but if you had wealthy parents you are not going to die in a council house, even if you deserve it.
So if Labour really wanted to increase class mobility, they'd tax houses not public schools.
No, as May discovered that is political suicide as far more voters own houses or have parents who own houses than attend public schools.
The biggest increases in social mobility in the last 100 years (bar the expansion of white collar office jobs after WW2) arguably came from Thatcher's sale of council homes so more could own their own homes and grammar schools, Labour of course opposed both
Parents could own their own grammar schools?
Impressive.
Grammar schools were and still are where they exist the only state schools which really tend to challenge the top private schools on Oxbridge entry and admission to the top professions like law and medicine
That is unsurprising as they are selective. If you only let in the most academically gifted students then you will tend to have a lot going on to top universities and academically challenging courses. It doesn't necessarily tell you anything about the quality of the school.
Yes and I have no problem with selective schools at all, they are the best way for bright children from working class or lower middle class backgrounds to get to a top university and top professional or managerial career
They are the best way of letting pushy middle class parents game the system while leaving most kids to rot in under-resourced secondary moderns.
You are more likely to get into Oxbridge or a Russell Group university or law and medicine from a grammar than most comps and academies if you are from a working class or lower middle class background. Comprehensives/academies are largely secondary moderns anyway unless from the leafiest middle class suburb or prosperous town and plenty of high schools in selective areas do OK
We've talked this to death before, but...
Yes, the proportion of young people who get onto superselective courses from selective schools and colleges is much higher than from comprehensive schools and colleges.
But
The chances that Timmy or Lauren or whoever will get onto a superselective course aren't that much affected much by where they do their A Levels. That's a different thing, a different calculation, and much more relevant.
If you really think that kind of rigourous academic education is a scare resouce that the state should ration, the Hampshire Sixth Form College model is a much better way of doing it. It's pure coincidence that it's the system I went through.
Sixth form colleges do have a good record of getting pupils into Oxbridge or Russell Group universities but only as they are A level and university entry focused
The Gestapo marched hundreds of thousands of innocent people to their deaths.
I've ended private schools' tax breaks to invest in state schools.
No responsible leader makes vile comparisons like this. Kemi Badenoch is not fit to be Prime Minister.
Good grief, the comments on Phillipson's tweet!
E.g.: "I'd applaud if they rounded up you, and all of your ilk, and sent you off on a death march."
"Private schools never had tax breaks. Private schools already pay hundreds of thousands in tax. You added another tax on top of existing taxes. Further, Badenoch is being polite. You support putting people in prison for jokes. The Gestapo never went that far. You are worse."
"The party screaming NAZI at everyone else. The party bringing back the final Solution. The party of Goebles propaganda The party taking away free speech. The party experimenting on our kids.. The party of tiered Justice.. The Fascist Labour party... yuk"
Political point. The people making those comments are precisely Badenoch's target audience for her Philipson is a Gestapo officer remarks. Which shows why she's far too infantile to be PM.
In the previous sentence she compared Ed Miliband to Nigerian dictators who shot and killed striking oil workers. You disagree with their policies but you don't have to personalise in this stupid way.
Rather sadly, the job you achieve in life (barring things like ill-health, accidents and wrongful imprisonment) is largely down to your own efforts and character: character is destiny and a' that. So the public school debate is a non-sequitur.
What is the problem, and it's going to get much worse when the boomers die, is the money and inheritance that wealthy parents gift their children. You can be very, very stupid but if you had wealthy parents you are not going to die in a council house, even if you deserve it.
So if Labour really wanted to increase class mobility, they'd tax houses not public schools.
No, as May discovered that is political suicide as far more voters own houses or have parents who own houses than attend public schools.
The biggest increases in social mobility in the last 100 years (bar the expansion of white collar office jobs after WW2) arguably came from Thatcher's sale of council homes so more could own their own homes and grammar schools, Labour of course opposed both
Parents could own their own grammar schools?
Impressive.
Grammar schools were and still are where they exist the only state schools which really tend to challenge the top private schools on Oxbridge entry and admission to the top professions like law and medicine
That is unsurprising as they are selective. If you only let in the most academically gifted students then you will tend to have a lot going on to top universities and academically challenging courses. It doesn't necessarily tell you anything about the quality of the school.
Yes and I have no problem with selective schools at all, they are the best way for bright children from working class or lower middle class backgrounds to get to a top university and top professional or managerial career
They are the best way of letting pushy middle class parents game the system while leaving most kids to rot in under-resourced secondary moderns.
You are more likely to get into Oxbridge or a Russell Group university or law and medicine from a grammar than most comps and academies if you are from a working class or lower middle class background. Comprehensives/academies are largely secondary moderns anyway unless from the leafiest middle class suburb or prosperous town and plenty of high schools in selective areas do OK
You are more likely to go to a top university from grammar school regardless of your background because grammar schools only let in people who are likely to go to a top university. A system that divides children into academic successes and failures at 11 will always favour children whose parents understand the system, ie the pushy middle classes. Not that I am criticizing the pushy middle classes, they are the people this country's prosperity largely rests on!
At my small market town those who failed the 11 plus went to the secondary modern with an expectation they could work on a farm, on the line at the jam factors or at Chapman's stationary products. At secondary year 4 the classes were split at the Grammar school into an A and a B stream with the B stream doing CSEs and the A stream doing O levels. The B stream were often referred to by dyed in the wool grammar school staff who swept around the place in their moth eaten gowns as "less able" students. The expectation was they could work on a farm, on the line at the jam factory or at Chapman's stationary* products.
*Customer asks a W H Smith Saturday girl; "do you keep stationary". "No" replies the girl, "my boyfriend likes me to writhe like a wild animal".
And many of the A stream became doctors, lawyers, academics, business leaders etc
Strangely enough, they were quite a disappointment (myself included). The poshest of posh boys became a big cheese on Wall Street and later in life achieved his own pre- bankruptcy notice in the London Gazette.
I think you missed my key point. All the secondary kids and half the grammar school kids didn't necessarily achieve their full academic potential. That is not a success story for me.
The USA forced Iran to fly into the USA on the day of their match with New Zealand and then as soon as the match finished forced them on a plane back to Mexico.
An interesting aspect of the latest polls from Germany is that the AfD lead is being driven by a decrease in gender polarisation with women also turning towards the AfD.
The USA forced Iran to fly into the USA on the day of their match with New Zealand and then as soon as the match finished forced them on a plane back to Mexico.
An interesting aspect of the latest polls from Germany is that the AfD lead is being driven by a decrease in gender polarisation with women also turning towards the AfD.
An interesting aspect of the latest polls from Germany is that the AfD lead is being driven by a decrease in gender polarisation with women also turning towards the AfD.
Rather sadly, the job you achieve in life (barring things like ill-health, accidents and wrongful imprisonment) is largely down to your own efforts and character: character is destiny and a' that. So the public school debate is a non-sequitur.
What is the problem, and it's going to get much worse when the boomers die, is the money and inheritance that wealthy parents gift their children. You can be very, very stupid but if you had wealthy parents you are not going to die in a council house, even if you deserve it.
So if Labour really wanted to increase class mobility, they'd tax houses not public schools.
No, as May discovered that is political suicide as far more voters own houses or have parents who own houses than attend public schools.
The biggest increases in social mobility in the last 100 years (bar the expansion of white collar office jobs after WW2) arguably came from Thatcher's sale of council homes so more could own their own homes and grammar schools, Labour of course opposed both
Parents could own their own grammar schools?
Impressive.
Grammar schools were and still are where they exist the only state schools which really tend to challenge the top private schools on Oxbridge entry and admission to the top professions like law and medicine
That is unsurprising as they are selective. If you only let in the most academically gifted students then you will tend to have a lot going on to top universities and academically challenging courses. It doesn't necessarily tell you anything about the quality of the school.
Yes and I have no problem with selective schools at all, they are the best way for bright children from working class or lower middle class backgrounds to get to a top university and top professional or managerial career
They are the best way of letting pushy middle class parents game the system while leaving most kids to rot in under-resourced secondary moderns.
You are more likely to get into Oxbridge or a Russell Group university or law and medicine from a grammar than most comps and academies if you are from a working class or lower middle class background. Comprehensives/academies are largely secondary moderns anyway unless from the leafiest middle class suburb or prosperous town and plenty of high schools in selective areas do OK
You are more likely to go to a top university from grammar school regardless of your background because grammar schools only let in people who are likely to go to a top university. A system that divides children into academic successes and failures at 11 will always favour children whose parents understand the system, ie the pushy middle classes. Not that I am criticizing the pushy middle classes, they are the people this country's prosperity largely rests on!
At my small market town those who failed the 11 plus went to the secondary modern with an expectation they could work on a farm, on the line at the jam factors or at Chapman's stationary products. At secondary year 4 the classes were split at the Grammar school into an A and a B stream with the B stream doing CSEs and the A stream doing O levels. The B stream were often referred to by dyed in the wool grammar school staff who swept around the place in their moth eaten gowns as "less able" students. The expectation was they could work on a farm, on the line at the jam factory or at Chapman's stationary* products.
*Customer asks a W H Smith Saturday girl; "do you keep stationary". "No" replies the girl, "my boyfriend likes me to writhe like a wild animal".
And many of the A stream became doctors, lawyers, academics, business leaders etc
Strangely enough, they were quite a disappointment (myself included). The poshest of posh boys became a big cheese on Wall Street and later in life achieved his own pre- bankruptcy notice in the London Gazette.
I think you missed my key point. All the secondary kids and half the grammar school kids didn't necessarily achieve their full academic potential. That is not a success story for me.
Only about 10% of pupils will ever achieve the academic potential needed to become doctors, lawyers, accountants, bankers, academics, company executives, engineers etc. 40% might do some form of middle class office/admin work or become a middle manager or teacher or nurse or police officer, the rest will do a bluecollar job of some form with a few unemployed.
The grammar schools at least ensured a fair number of their pupils got into that top 10%
The Gestapo marched hundreds of thousands of innocent people to their deaths.
I've ended private schools' tax breaks to invest in state schools.
No responsible leader makes vile comparisons like this. Kemi Badenoch is not fit to be Prime Minister.
Good grief, the comments on Phillipson's tweet!
E.g.: "I'd applaud if they rounded up you, and all of your ilk, and sent you off on a death march."
"Private schools never had tax breaks. Private schools already pay hundreds of thousands in tax. You added another tax on top of existing taxes. Further, Badenoch is being polite. You support putting people in prison for jokes. The Gestapo never went that far. You are worse."
"The party screaming NAZI at everyone else. The party bringing back the final Solution. The party of Goebles propaganda The party taking away free speech. The party experimenting on our kids.. The party of tiered Justice.. The Fascist Labour party... yuk"
Political point. The people making those comments are precisely Badenoch's target audience for her Philipson is a Gestapo officer remarks. Which shows why she's far too infantile to be PM.
In the previous sentence she compared Ed Miliband to Nigerian dictators who shot and killed striking oil workers. You disagree with their policies but you don't have to personalise in this stupid way.
Close to the 10th anniversary of the assassination of Jo Cox for Badenoch to write bile like this is an utter disgrace.
Yes, I think we were saying a couple of weeks ago that Rupert Lowe has a top social media operation, especially on Facebook. What is interesting is that Farage is getting twitchy two days before the by-election. Pollsters used to talk about shy Tories; are we about to see shy Restorers (or even Reformers)?
Rather sadly, the job you achieve in life (barring things like ill-health, accidents and wrongful imprisonment) is largely down to your own efforts and character: character is destiny and a' that. So the public school debate is a non-sequitur.
What is the problem, and it's going to get much worse when the boomers die, is the money and inheritance that wealthy parents gift their children. You can be very, very stupid but if you had wealthy parents you are not going to die in a council house, even if you deserve it.
So if Labour really wanted to increase class mobility, they'd tax houses not public schools.
Have you read any of Bourdieu's work? You might find it interesting. Some is a little dated such as the tastes of the French middle class in the 70's and 80's but the underlying concepts remain sound.
It is why so many of the top tier of our society come from private education. They are not smarter or harder working than their state school rivals but they do have more Social and Cultural Capital.
It's also about geography. It's much easier to accumulate cultural capital and make connections if you start out in or near a great city than if the nearest town with a bank branch is an hour away by bus. It's possible to overcome that disadvantage, but it's not as easy as not having to. The social capital private schools undobtedly provide is of a similar nature- nether essential to suceed, nor a guarantee of success, but it surely helps a lot.
And whilst effort, character and ability are important in achieving life aims, I prefered it when John Major acknowledged the role of luck- even if it's just being in the right place at the right time. And whilst all of us are (to an extent) lucky to be in Britain in 2026, some of us are luckier than others.
I agree. Indeed your point on geography is very pertinent to places like Makerfield. Opportunity in Britain is based around London and a few few other cosmopolitan metro areas. This causes a lot of resentment when those living in the cities get the opportunities while they feel excluded, particularly when those getting the breaks are of immigrant heritage.
Not just people of immigrant heritage but foreign nationals. Part of the story of London's demographic transformation has been the suppression of domestic migration away from left-behind areas.
Suppression? What are you talking about? London is full of chippy northerners and Scots etc. The only thing stopping people moving to London is the scary made up stories about crime they see on Facebook.
What are the chances of someone from the north of England getting social housing in London?
The chances of anyone turning up and getting social housing is quite low. There is a long waiting list. If they're moving to London to work, like I did from Fife (home to many left behind areas although to be fair I wasn't fae those bits) they can rent privately and then buy once they've saved for a deposit. It's called getting on your bike. BTW I love the idea that the north of England is full of folks dreaming of living on a council estate in Croydon. Something tells me you are unfamiliar with those parts of the country...
I am sure the Duke of Northumberland dreams of a council estate in Croydon as he gazes out of his Alnwick Castle window
He probably looks out at the A1 and would be comfortable with the single carriageway urban London bits.
In between it is all variably dualled 1950s wasteland, tractors merging into lorries and trying to catch you out LBW in the fast lane, Googie architecture, OK Diners, abandoned coaching inns and Pulse and Cocktails. Of all the weirdest places in the UK, I'd put much of the A1 in the top 10.
Don't forget the Honey Pot Lane Industrial Estate, my favourite road sign in Britain owing to the absurd juxtaposition of the first three and last two words. I love the A1.
The business directory of Honey Pot Lane Industrial Estate feels about right:
A cooperative dealing in grain processing. A tanker company dealing in Industrial waste products and domestic septic tank emptying A specialist vehicle seller of ex-military vehicles along with a more general but still quirky car sales place A furniture wholesalers A padel court!
Everyone I know who was an avid Cursor user even six months ago has jumped ship to something else. Dare say they have some 'sticky' enterprise contracts though.
That's not really the point.
SpaceX hoovering up tech companies may or may not work out for them. It's rather that the currency they're paying with is vastly inflated - and issuing it in this manner is something of an end run around the IPO restrictions on releasing further stock into the market. I doubt this will be the last such deal.
Facebook (or Meta) used to be similarly acquisitive but with Elon Musk there is also a touch of unpredictability. The rocket company is now an AI company, just as Tesla became a punt on crypto.
Depends on whether some of Tory grouping break rank in voting against both competing leadership bids.
Next meeting is mid July.
If this such a crime? These things can be explained in a few minutes. A couple of hours of training on 'committees and the chairing of such' will do the trick.
Depends on whether some of Tory grouping break rank in voting against both competing leadership bids.
Next meeting is mid July.
If this such a crime? These things can be explained in a few minutes. A couple of hours of training on 'committees and the chairing of such' will do the trick.
Yes, they had had their councillor orientation sessions and a couple of weeks to prepare and still didn't understand the basics, so crashed an initial bid to set up some leadership hustings in meeting (these took place in an additional meeting but still didn't succeed in voting in a leader).
Wes Streeting on Newsnight: Labour is currently losing the battle against Reform UK and doesn't think Starmer can turn it around.
And - that's been obvious since about March 2025...
I want a Lab government where Streeting's obvious talents and Burnham's obvious talents are working together to turn the shitstorm we are in as a country around.
If David Miliband needs to be there as well, then go for it.
Personally, I would get Alan Milburn into Cabinet tomorrow.
No goals in the France/Senegal match until 66 mins. I'm guessing you could have got pretty high odds on 4 goals being scored just before then, maybe as high as 20/1.
Rather sadly, the job you achieve in life (barring things like ill-health, accidents and wrongful imprisonment) is largely down to your own efforts and character: character is destiny and a' that. So the public school debate is a non-sequitur.
What is the problem, and it's going to get much worse when the boomers die, is the money and inheritance that wealthy parents gift their children. You can be very, very stupid but if you had wealthy parents you are not going to die in a council house, even if you deserve it.
So if Labour really wanted to increase class mobility, they'd tax houses not public schools.
Have you read any of Bourdieu's work? You might find it interesting. Some is a little dated such as the tastes of the French middle class in the 70's and 80's but the underlying concepts remain sound.
It is why so many of the top tier of our society come from private education. They are not smarter or harder working than their state school rivals but they do have more Social and Cultural Capital.
It's also about geography. It's much easier to accumulate cultural capital and make connections if you start out in or near a great city than if the nearest town with a bank branch is an hour away by bus. It's possible to overcome that disadvantage, but it's not as easy as not having to. The social capital private schools undobtedly provide is of a similar nature- nether essential to suceed, nor a guarantee of success, but it surely helps a lot.
And whilst effort, character and ability are important in achieving life aims, I prefered it when John Major acknowledged the role of luck- even if it's just being in the right place at the right time. And whilst all of us are (to an extent) lucky to be in Britain in 2026, some of us are luckier than others.
I agree. Indeed your point on geography is very pertinent to places like Makerfield. Opportunity in Britain is based around London and a few few other cosmopolitan metro areas. This causes a lot of resentment when those living in the cities get the opportunities while they feel excluded, particularly when those getting the breaks are of immigrant heritage.
Not just people of immigrant heritage but foreign nationals. Part of the story of London's demographic transformation has been the suppression of domestic migration away from left-behind areas.
Suppression? What are you talking about? London is full of chippy northerners and Scots etc. The only thing stopping people moving to London is the scary made up stories about crime they see on Facebook.
What are the chances of someone from the north of England getting social housing in London?
The chances of anyone turning up and getting social housing is quite low. There is a long waiting list. If they're moving to London to work, like I did from Fife (home to many left behind areas although to be fair I wasn't fae those bits) they can rent privately and then buy once they've saved for a deposit. It's called getting on your bike. BTW I love the idea that the north of England is full of folks dreaming of living on a council estate in Croydon. Something tells me you are unfamiliar with those parts of the country...
Bit easier in your day, though.
A bit easier, although I'm not a boomer! We bought our first home, a 2 bed flat on an iffy council estate in Lambeth, in 2002. It cost £135k. We sold it in 2011 for £200k to buy our current house. £65k in capital gains is not a huge amount compared to the sort of free money that people who bought ten years earlier enjoyed. 4.5% annual price appreciation.
Compared to what the prior decade got its not as much, but compared to incomes and actually earning the money by going to work, it is a lot.
That is the problem today, people seem to think that houses are supposed to be cash machines that churn out more income than actually working, while people who are working at the start of their careers have to pay ever higher rents while trying to get off the hamster wheel.
Reform seems utterly terrified of Restore and seemingly is no longer interested in going after Labour: tacit acceptance their tactics won’t work on Burnham?
Getting rid of the equality act is a bridge too far.
Wes Streeting on Newsnight: Labour is currently losing the battle against Reform UK and doesn't think Starmer can turn it around.
And - that's been obvious since about March 2025...
I want a Lab government where Streeting's obvious talents and Burnham's obvious talents are working together to turn the shitstorm we are in as a country around.
If David Miliband needs to be there as well, then go for it.
Personally, I would get Alan Milburn into Cabinet tomorrow.
* Streetings obvious talents are getting funds from vested interests and privatising stuff * Burnham's obvious talents are agreeing with the last person he talked to and spending taxpayers' money on stuff * Milliband D's obvious talents are getting cushy quango jobs and sleeping in hotels
I don't know what kind of Star Trek transporter accident you'd get from combining the three, but when it comes out of the telepod and stops screaming with what's left of its face, let me know how it copes with that "turning the country around" thing
Comments
Make sure he (officially) supports football so he can look interested at FA cup matches and he'll have a 'down to earth' image.
Whether we want to risk carnage in the Channel is a separate question.
I didn't want to be rude which is why I didn't respond directly to @williamglenn
Almost every match played so far can be cast as footballing old world (Europe, South America, Mexico) vs footballing new world (Caribbean, North America, Africa, Asia, Oceania). Iran v NZ was the first exception, England v Croatia will be another. I think it is how the seeding worked for the first round games.
Old world and new world had 17 points apiece when I counted.
Not skin colour, of course, but capacity for discomfort which comes from growing up dirt poor, not British poor.
The UK and Japan are expected to agree investment creating tens of thousands of new jobs and more than £18 billion in economic gains, alongside a new partnership at the forefront of next-generation technologies.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/tens-of-thousands-of-new-jobs-and-more-than-18-billion-boost-to-british-economy-as-prime-minister-meets-japanese-leader
It's actually not insignificant.
Starmer can't buy decent publicity at the moment.
BTW I love the idea that the north of England is full of folks dreaming of living on a council estate in Croydon. Something tells me you are unfamiliar with those parts of the country...
‘Learn to love Ed Miliband’: how Burnham allies are jostling for cabinet jobs
With Andy Burnham predicted to win Makerfield byelection, talk is turning to who would join him if he replaced Keir Starmer
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jun/16/key-figures-andy-burnham-fit-government-makerfield-byelection
But then neither is the current lot.
https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/2066945798206591062?s=20
Yes, the proportion of young people who get onto superselective courses from selective schools and colleges is much higher than from comprehensive schools and colleges.
But
The chances that Timmy or Lauren or whoever will get onto a superselective course aren't that much affected much by where they do their A Levels. That's a different thing, a different calculation, and much more relevant.
If you really think that kind of rigourous academic education is a scare resouce that the state should ration, the Hampshire Sixth Form College model is a much better way of doing it. It's pure coincidence that it's the system I went through.
SpaceX hoovering up tech companies may or may not work out for them. It's rather that the currency they're paying with is vastly inflated - and issuing it in this manner is something of an end run around the IPO restrictions on releasing further stock into the market.
I doubt this will be the last such deal.
You see the same dynamic playing out in Kent now, where the pressure is to expand grammar school provision, making selective schools less selective.
In between it is all variably dualled 1950s wasteland, tractors merging into lorries and trying to catch you out LBW in the fast lane, Googie architecture, OK Diners, abandoned coaching inns and Pulse and Cocktails. Of all the weirdest places in the UK, I'd put much of the A1 in the top 10.
https://resultadosegundavuelta.onpe.gob.pe/main/presidenciales
Keiko is now 15k up
The USA forced Iran to fly into the USA on the day of their match with New Zealand and then as soon as the match finished forced them on a plane back to Mexico.
Now the USA are saying a bunch of Iran's players including the captain can't come back because their visa's expired.
https://x.com/BladeoftheS/status/2066867436268220917
*Customer asks a W H Smith Saturday girl; "do you keep stationary". "No" replies the girl, "my boyfriend likes me to writhe like a wild animal".
Edit: and another from Mbappe.
Great game!
A bright child can get into a grammar though with raw high IQ even without wealthy and pushy middle class parents
In the previous sentence she compared Ed Miliband to Nigerian dictators who shot and killed striking oil workers. You disagree with their policies but you don't have to personalise in this stupid way.
I think you missed my key point. All the secondary kids and half the grammar school kids didn't necessarily achieve their full academic potential. That is not a success story for me.
https://x.com/wahlen_de/status/2066939586450767927
Männer | Frauen
AfD: 30,5% | 27,0%
Union: 24,5% | 19,5%
GRÜNE: 13,5% | 15,5%
SPD: 10,5% | 14,0%
LINKE: 8,5% | 12,5%
BSW: 3,5% | 3,5%
FDP: 4,0% | 3,0%
Sonstige: 5,0% | 5,0%
Historians will be completely baffled by the 2020s in the USA.
The fighting cage on the Whitehouse lawn demonstrates the end of days.
The grammar schools at least ensured a fair number of their pupils got into that top 10%
Reform's nominated leader for Kirklees council says she doesn't know what things like standing orders and amendments are.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c202ylr4j0jo
She has no empathy, compassion, understanding.
She's no better than Braverman, Jenrick Yusuf
The business directory of Honey Pot Lane Industrial Estate feels about right:
A cooperative dealing in grain processing.
A tanker company dealing in Industrial waste products and domestic septic tank emptying
A specialist vehicle seller of ex-military vehicles along with a more general but still quirky car sales place
A furniture wholesalers
A padel court!
Depends on whether some of Tory grouping break rank from voting against both competing leadership bids.
Next meeting is mid July.
If David Miliband needs to be there as well, then go for it.
Personally, I would get Alan Milburn into Cabinet tomorrow.
That is the problem today, people seem to think that houses are supposed to be cash machines that churn out more income than actually working, while people who are working at the start of their careers have to pay ever higher rents while trying to get off the hamster wheel.
Getting rid of the equality act is a bridge too far.
* Burnham's obvious talents are agreeing with the last person he talked to and spending taxpayers' money on stuff
* Milliband D's obvious talents are getting cushy quango jobs and sleeping in hotels
I don't know what kind of Star Trek transporter accident you'd get from combining the three, but when it comes out of the telepod and stops screaming with what's left of its face, let me know how it copes with that "turning the country around" thing