How LARGE will Cameron's failure be ?

[Martinf]

I agree. All this talk about hung parliaments etc. will make sure that everyone goes out to vote rather than not bothering. I am sure most people would rather have a new Conservative goverment than another term under the one eyed jock wanker.

You're wrong thankfully. Most people do not want a Tory Government. At the moment - if the polls are to be believed - about 40% want it. The rest want Labour or Lib Dem or Green or blah blah blah.

 

[Joe Gatting's Dad]

The bookies who are rarely wrong have a conservative victory at eight to one on and two to one on with a comfortable majority. Liberal democrats can be got at 350-1, with a maximum of one green seat (Iwonder where) at about 8-11

 

[auschr]

more of the same. some people never learn

 

[O Lads]

Labour majority. Most people that 'support the tories' and are 'fed up with labour' are the same people that read & believe whatever The Sun tells them to, and won't even bother leaving their house on 6th May.

 

[Greyrun]

Good point, politicians aren't very brave these days.

I would like to see Labour really take on the public schools. There is something happening with the Charities Commission at the moment to justify their status, but it is very weak, and more aimed at forging links with local comps. My natural inclination would be to ban them, but I can see that might be difficult.

However, what I've never really understood is how they get charitable status, which gives them relief from taxes (corporation tax and others), and is therefore basically ordinary taxpayers subsidising the education of the already very rich. Ludicrous, and the total opposite of what a progressive taxation system is designed for.

So if Labour abolished charitable status they would at least have to operate like the businesses they are, they'd be forced to put fees up, many would go to to the wall and there would only be a few left. All those other kids, many from very pro-education and motivated families, would be spread across the system, and there would be a raising of the general standard. Then you start a virtuous circle. If the standard in comprehensives is going up, there is less need to have/attend fee-paying schools.

Labour would win a lot more votes than they would lose from that policy. Most of the people against it would never vote Labour anyway. And if it's not your idea of a good policy, and for some on here it wouldn't be, at least you'd have a straight choice between the parties instead of all the gutless, mealy-mouthed stuff currently.

 

[GNF on Tour]

If Labour win I am giving up for good and leaving the country and can the last person left with any ambition please turn the lights out when they go.

Well, don't fuckin come to New Zealand please you dopey attention-seeking twat.

 

[clapham_gull]

Paul Daniels, Phil Collins and Jim Davidson. Sadly not a single one of these morons carried out their promise of leaving the country if Labour got in, and neither would Gareth.

Tories will be the biggest party, but 5 to 10 short of an overall majority. It's time for the LibDems to step up to the plate.

Technically Jim Davidson did, but I think we're a better country for it.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

 

[Buzzer]

Good point, politicians aren't very brave these days.

I would like to see Labour really take on the public schools. There is something happening with the Charities Commission at the moment to justify their status, but it is very weak, and more aimed at forging links with local comps. My natural inclination would be to ban them, but I can see that might be difficult.

However, what I've never really understood is how they get charitable status, which gives them relief from taxes (corporation tax and others), and is therefore basically ordinary taxpayers subsidising the education of the already very rich. Ludicrous, and the total opposite of what a progressive taxation system is designed for.

So if Labour abolished charitable status they would at least have to operate like the businesses they are, they'd be forced to put fees up, many would go to to the wall and there would only be a few left. All those other kids, many from very pro-education and motivated families, would be spread across the system, and there would be a raising of the general standard. Then you start a virtuous circle. If the standard in comprehensives is going up, there is less need to have/attend fee-paying schools.

Labour would win a lot more votes than they would lose from that policy. Most of the people against it would never vote Labour anyway. And if it's not your idea of a good policy, and for some on here it wouldn't be, at least you'd have a straight choice between the parties instead of all the gutless, mealy-mouthed stuff currently.

That is absolutely totally rubbish. Sorry, but it is. The vast majority of income for these private schools are fees. The parents paying these fees are paying on taxed income. Their money after the government has taken its share. There is no subsidy by "ordinary" taxpayers at that point. And at that point the parents are the ones subsidising the ordinary taxpayer by opting out of a state school system yet still having to pay for it through taxes.

Investment (non-fee or donation) income is taxed as per normal businesses so all that leaves us with is whether or not to tax the "profit" these schools generate. You say that CGT and corp tax is lost to the government but if these schools did not exist (as you wish them to) then there would be no tax collected anyway and there would be a net cost to ordinary taxpayers now having to pay for Camilla and Henry to be educated within a state system.

I take on board the greater philosophical/political debate about private education and whether they should have charitable status or not but would point out that by killing private education in the UK will inevitably reduce the cash available per child in state education because of the rise in the number of children being educated in state schools. Also, as has been pointed out here, charitable status is not just a matter of convenience. There's very strict rules about how money can be spent, how it is to be collected and at all times has to be ultra vires. I know how stringently these rules are enforced as I have been in the past a senior accountant at one of the UK's largest charities. Schools can't just take charitable status as a badge of convenience then do what they like.

By all means, argue that private schools should be scrapped but at least stick to political dogma rather than cite spurious economic benefits.


p.s. love your comment about motivated and pro-education parents starting a virtuous circle. Do you know how patronising that sounds?

 

[Simster]

Personally, I'd abolish the charity status of private sector schools. There is nothing charitiable about sending your kids to a school that is beyond the reach of 95% of the country. Whatsmore, these schools are able to pick and choose who they accept, so it's not even as if they're doing a service to kids who need a helping hand but happen to have rich parents, because those kids don't pass the entrance exam and therefore don't get in.

Besides, there is something wrong with a wealthy, civilised society where a significant minority feels the need to turn its back on local state education in this way - it's simply too divisive IMO. However, as with a lot of the country's problems (binge drinking, the blame culture, the benefits lifestyle choice of some on sink estates), we need to be able to affect a cultural change, and that requires a long term view spanning at least a generation. This, in turn, requires cross party support, and I don't see that happening any time soon.

p.s. love your comment about motivated and pro-education parents starting a virtuous circle. Do you know how patronising that sounds?

I found most of your post very interesting, but as far as I'm concerned, you'd have to be a bit over sensitive to find this patronising. It makes perfect sense, IMO.

 

[User removed 4]

Besides, there is something wrong with a wealthy, civilised society where a significant minority feels the need to turn its back on local state education in this way - it's simply too divisive IMO.

Do you honestly think you'd hold the same views if , for instance, you lived in wandsworth ? parts extremely wealthy, parts complete shitholes , but state schools nowhere near the level of those in reigate.

 

[Buzzer]

I found most of your post very interesting, but as far as I'm concerned, you'd have to be a bit over sensitive to find this patronising. It makes perfect sense, IMO.

The idea that working class parents are not as pro-education as those who send their kids to private schools and that chinless wonders are somehow parachuted into schools and miraculously raise the class averages in SATS. Gawd bless ya, Guv'nor. I just think it's patronising.

 

[Buzzer]

...Also, this idea that bringing in motivated parents will raise school standards. Not a chance. All that will happen is that property prices around very good state schools will rise dramatically. Say you are a rich parent and now you have to send your child to state school. Will you send your child to London Oratory or will you send them to an inner city school in Haringey?

Hmm....bit of a toughie, that one.

 

[Harty]

Even Mrs H has joined in the debate, on GMTV this morning they had one of their floating voters, a 26 year old single mother of 4, who was complaining about child care costs and the fact it hampered her getting a well paid job.

Mrs Hart quite rightly pointed out that is was her decsion to have 4 kids at a relatively young age, and why didn't Kate form GMTV ask if the father/fathers of the four kids did their 'bit' chipping in?

Don't want to sound like a snob, but 26 four kids no husband, moaning about child care costs, and a platform to do it on breakfast TV, is that what this country has come to?

 

[Mileoakman]

What gets me about the election is the fact that people just don't seem to be seeing through Cameron & the Tories like they should. Last week I saw him sitting round his kitchen table telling how he had had to adjust his household budget to take into consideration the worsening financial situation. Seeing the man is worth a minimum of £30 million this seemed a little difficult to stomach!

Anyway, look at his promised policies. He will give a £1.2bn inheritance tax cut to the richest 2% with the most going to the 3000 wealthiest estates, (including his wifes!). Then he has pledged to cut the taxes on the pensions of the richest, handing another 3.2bn to the same 1%. Then his marriage tax relief policies policies will give 13 times more to the rich than the poor. To pay for this handout he will slash programmes for the middle and skint like the Child Trust Fund, Sure Start, state schools and the NHS.

Do we really want someone who stated last week that his wife was really very unconventional, she even went to a day school!!

Lets hope people wake up soon.

 

[User removed 4]

and skint like the Child Trust Fund,

How anyone could take the axe to such a worthwhile project is totally beyond me, i mean , its not like 90% of it will be spunked in ibiza when they reach 18 is it ?

 

[Simster]

Do you honestly think you'd hold the same views if , for instance, you lived in wandsworth ? parts extremely wealthy, parts complete shitholes , but state schools nowhere near the level of those in reigate.

Yes, yes I do. You see, if I lived in Wandsworth and the schools weren't good enough, I'd move out of the area. A bit like they do in France and Germany I guess. I didn't once suggest that there wouldn't be variations in the quality of education throughout the country, but education is only as good as the commitment of the parents of the kids at that school.

The idea that working class parents are not as pro-education as those who send their kids to private schools and that chinless wonders are somehow parachuted into schools and miraculously raise the class averages in SATS. Gawd bless ya, Guv'nor. I just think it's patronising.

As I say, I think you're looking for reasons to be offended. I just put it down to simple stats. Assuming that 99% of parents of kids in the private education sector actually care about their kids education, and this percentage is lower in the state education, then how can those kids parachuted in from the private sector have anything but a positive effect? Afterall, there's none of this private sector bollocks in France, Germany, Netherlands or the Scnadinavian countries. Or at least, it's an utterly insignificant number.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Labour majority. Most people that 'support the tories' and are 'fed up with labour' are the same people that read & believe whatever The Sun tells them to, and won't even bother leaving their house on 6th May.

Most people? That is a pile of crock.

 

[Mileoakman]

How anyone could take the axe to such a worthwhile project is totally beyond me, i mean , its not like 90% of it will be spunked in ibiza when they reach 18 is it ?

And I'mk sure the billions given to his Tory friends in tax cuts will be wisely spent as well, don't you!. Probably not Ibiza just a bit more upmarket I suspect.

 

[User removed 4]

Yes, yes I do. You see, if I lived in Wandsworth and the schools weren't good enough, I'd move out of the area. A bit like they do in France and Germany I guess. I didn't once suggest that there wouldn't be variations in the quality of education throughout the country, but education is only as good as the commitment of the parents of the kids at that school.

You'd move near a good school ? So i take it you're against the lottery style allocation system now in operation in brighton and hove ?