[Politics] Loony labour vote to abolish private education

[Stumpy Tim]

I think there´s a huge misunderstanding of some here what kind of people use private education. Some people really believe that parents will pack their kids off to Switzerland or Ireland if they can´t use private school here - that´s laughable! My two kids go to a private (primary) school in Brighton, and 75% of the parents stretch themselves and make sacrifices to send their kids here. The vast majority are working middle-class families... there´s absolutely no way the vast majority of parents can afford boarding fees in other countries, and frankly most wouldn´t want to send their kids abroad. When someone says private school, it seems that is equated to Eton. Eton is one school amongst thousands in this country, and outlawing them is ludicrous. Hundreds of thousands of new school places, with the necessary extra funding for that is completely ridiculous, and frankly if the money was available I would much rather we spent that money on things that can make a real POSITIVE difference to this country... the NHS for starters

 

[Bakero]

I think there´s a huge misunderstanding of some here what kind of people use private education. Some people really believe that parents will pack their kids off to Switzerland or Ireland if they can´t use private school here - that´s laughable! My two kids go to a private (primary) school in Brighton, and 75% of the parents stretch themselves and make sacrifices to send their kids here. The vast majority are working middle-class families... there´s absolutely no way the vast majority of parents can afford boarding fees in other countries, and frankly most wouldn´t want to send their kids abroad. When someone says private school, it seems that is equated to Eton. Eton is one school amongst thousands in this country, and outlawing them is ludicrous. Hundreds of thousands of new school places, with the necessary extra funding for that is completely ridiculous, and frankly if the money was available I would much rather we spent that money on things that can make a real POSITIVE difference to this country... the NHS for starters

What possible benefits could an excellent education system for all have? Surely it's better to maintain a two-tier system that ensures the rich stay rich. Without this inequality we'd be in danger of improved health and well being for all, not to mention falling crime rates and teenage pregnancy rates. Sounds awful.

 

[beorhthelm]

Hundreds of thousands of new school places, with the necessary extra funding for that is completely ridiculous, and frankly if the money was available I would much rather we spent that money on things that can make a real POSITIVE difference to this country... the NHS for starters

they'll fund the places from tax on private schools. oh, wait...

 

[Deleted member 2719]

View attachment 115564

I think most know the rest of the saying is "or unless you're a fashion icon".

Corbyn isn't.

 

[BLOCK F]

I’m not sure, to be honest, and I agree it’s not clear-cut or straightforward (I was mainly thinking about the private education question, which I think is clearer, albeit also not a simple policy problem).

However..... I suspect it would be possible to devise a system which works better than the current inheritance tax system.

You ask what I see as “unearned” capital assets - well I can give you my own example - I was lucky enough to buy a 3-bed maisonette in central Brighton in my late 20s in 1984 for £27k. As a result of that luck, I’m now in my 60s sitting on housing equity worth something like 35-40 times that amount. Even if the original £27k plus the mortgage interest I paid can be seen as “earned”, the vast bulk of that capital appreciation is entirely unearned by me (let alone earned by my kids who might inherit it, at least they would if I could be arsed to find ways round the IHT, or decide not to leave the lot to charity) - all I did was sit there watching it grow over time. Even the original house purchase decision can’t be attributed to my ability or knowledge, as there was no way I could have predicted the subsequent ridiculous trajectory of the UK housing market. Other people of the same age and ability as me, who made different housing decisions to me, or happened to live in different places, will be much less well placed to leave huge assets to their kids. So yes, I think that’s a clear example of an unearned asset that a rational government (if they weren’t terrified of the ire of the Daily Mail) would prevent me passing on. Such a change would, incidentally also have a very positive effect on the housing market and economy, helping to move it towards a system in which houses are places to live in rather than financial assets, and helping to direct savings away from housing towards investment in productive assets

I understand that, but not all assets are in property.
We have a nice house in Sussex, but it certainly isn't grand and is more of a 'cottage by the sea'.I'm now 71 and have bought 5 houses in my life and have always regarded them as a home rather than an investment. Call me daft, but perhaps I could have 'acquired' greater assets if I had put more money into property, rather than say, my SIPP or portfolio of stocks and shares that now provide me with an income( I do not have a nice company or public sector pension) in my declining years. If I died tomorrow, my assets would pass to my wife and when she goes, everything would be left to our children. My point being, is that my pension provision and my share portfolio may well be regarded as 'unearned capital assets' and therefore fair game for a grasping Government, rather than being the result of me being prudent in wanting to provide for myself and my family. I would feel very angry that the state regarded my investments as theirs for the taking, when they are the result of my prudence and modest lifestyle over the years.

 

[lawros left foot]

I think there´s a huge misunderstanding of some here what kind of people use private education. Some people really believe that parents will pack their kids off to Switzerland or Ireland if they can´t use private school here - that´s laughable! My two kids go to a private (primary) school in Brighton, and 75% of the parents stretch themselves and make sacrifices to send their kids here. The vast majority are working middle-class families... there´s absolutely no way the vast majority of parents can afford boarding fees in other countries, and frankly most wouldn´t want to send their kids abroad. When someone says private school, it seems that is equated to Eton. Eton is one school amongst thousands in this country, and outlawing them is ludicrous. Hundreds of thousands of new school places, with the necessary extra funding for that is completely ridiculous, and frankly if the money was available I would much rather we spent that money on things that can make a real POSITIVE difference to this country... the NHS for starters

It does that the tax benefits to the Public school system is completely screwed, and then you look at Private health care, and it’s the same.
NHS hospitals pay business rates, private hospitals,if registered as charities don’t.

 

[BLOCK F]

Then that speccy four-eyes Potter swept in and took her away from you...?

Probably!

 

[Stumpy Tim]

What possible benefits could an excellent education system for all have? Surely it's better to maintain a two-tier system that ensures the rich stay rich. Without this inequality we'd be in danger of improved health and well being for all, not to mention falling crime rates and teenage pregnancy rates. Sounds awful.

That´s a totally different argument though. I´m all for more spending on education, but adding 600,000 new kids into the system means you´ll need billions of extra investment just to stand still - surely it would be better to fund education better, and still allow others to go to private school? So no, you don´t improve health and education by pushing more people into the system. You improve it by funding it properly

 

[Stumpy Tim]

It does that the tax benefits to the Public school system is completely screwed, and then you look at Private health care, and it’s the same.
NHS hospitals pay business rates, private hospitals,if registered as charities don’t.

I have some sympathy with this view. Personally I think they shouldn´t be charities, but businesses

 

[Bakero]

That´s a totally different argument though. I´m all for more spending on education, but adding 600,000 new kids into the system means you´ll need billions of extra investment just to stand still - surely it would be better to fund education better, and still allow others to go to private school? So no, you don´t improve health and education by pushing more people into the system. You improve it by funding it properly

The political will to improve it isn't there though, is it? That'd soon change if political and media elites had to send their kids to the local comp.

 

[soistes]

I understand that, but not all assets are in property.
We have a nice house in Sussex, but it certainly isn't grand and is more of a 'cottage by the sea'.I'm now 71 and have bought 5 houses in my life and have always regarded them as a home rather than an investment. Call me daft, but perhaps I could have 'acquired' greater assets if I had put more money into property, rather than say, my SIPP or portfolio of stocks and shares that now provide me with an income( I do not have a nice company or public sector pension) in my declining years. If I died tomorrow, my assets would pass to my wife and when she goes, everything would be left to our children. My point being, is that my pension provision and my share portfolio may well be regarded as 'unearned capital assets' and therefore fair game for a grasping Government, rather than being the result of me being prudent in wanting to provide for myself and my family. I would feel very angry that the state regarded my investments as theirs for the taking, when they are the result of my prudence and modest lifestyle over the years.

I wasn't suggesting that all assets are property - I agree that they aren't. I was just trying to give an example of unearned assets in my case. I can't even argue that I need it as a pension, as I'm already in receipt of a decent pension without having to touch the housing capital.

I understand your situation, however, and I don't think that rules should be changed retrospectively. So I agree that, if you had been investing in property (rather than say a pension) for decades on the reasonable assumption that this would provide for your old age, then it would indeed be unfair for a government to change the ground rules which apply to you, when you are in no position to make alternative provision. I also don't think you are daft to have done this, although if we had a sensibly regulated housing market, then we wouldn't have had the kind of house price inflation that we've seen in recent decades, and people like you wouldn't have thereby been encouraged to rely on housing to provide for your old age.

So I think a fairer approach (and yes it would be very complicated to get it right) would be for the government to give notice that any change of rules would apply to asset appreciation after a certain date (i.e. allowing people like you to keep the assets they'd built up under the previous tax regime, but making sure that future asset appreciation of the same kind wouldn't apply).

Finally, I think the 'Daily Mail' kind of language used in this sort of debate (e.g. talking about taxation as the action of a "grasping Government", rather than a mechanism for ensuring that our collective needs as a society are adequately funded) can be unhelpful, as it can influence the way people think about this sort of policy area, and it discourages reasoned debate about these important topics.

 

[BLOCK F]

ndependent schools are obligated to offer assistance and make themselves more accessible to people from disadvantaged backgrounds, or with reduced means. It is therefore perverse then, that bursaries and means-tested assistance is still being offered by private schools to families with incomes up to £140,000 per year.



St Pauls’ School in Barnes offers the financial aid to families with an income up to £120,000. The girls school offers the assistance to families with an income up to £110,000. At King Edward’s School in Birmingham, families earning up to £72,000 can qualify for financial help.

Not only are the definitions for what constitutes a lack of means or a disadvantaged background shifting to become antithetical to means-testing’s purpose, but the prevalence of means-tested financial aid itself is falling.

According to the Independent Schools Council’s 2018 annual census and report, the provision of means-tested scholarships has dropped 9%, from £22m to £20m between 2017 and 2018, whilst the provision of non-means-tested scholarships has risen 7% from £174m to £186m between 2017 and 2018.

At the same time, from 2007, the average independent school has raised its fees by 59%, which is far above inflation, constituting a rise of 29% in real terms.

Increasingly, private schools market themselves as fully enclosed retreats, with vast swathes of land, en-suite dorms, concert halls, dance studios and swimming pools. Pretty plush, one would think, for a supposed charity.

Lawro, I don't often agree with you, but you make some very valid points in your post.
I left school 53 years ago, but am still kept in touch with developments via the magazines and online news.
My old public school is unrecognisable from the institution I first attended almost 60 years ago and thank God for that! It was dark ages in many respects. However, it is now palatial and they are currently asking for donations towards a new development in the grounds costing zillions.
The schools seem to be competing with each other for more and more grand facilities. Personally, I think it has gone too far and I wouldn't consider giving them any of my hard earned dosh!
Yes, the fees have increased enormously and the kind of incomes that my and the parents of my peers earned would certainly preclude many from being able to afford today's fees.

 

[soistes]

The political will to improve it isn't there though, is it? That'd soon change if political and media elites had to send their kids to the local comp.

Absolutely - this is the crucial point. We're not comparing like with like. If the only choice was state schools, I reckon their quality and the resources available for them would improve pdq, as if by magic....

 

[Arthur]

The best possible education... that money can buy.

You get what you pay for at the end of the day. If you are lucky enough to be able to afford it then good luck to you.

The issue is that these business leaders and politicians also represent the 95+% of workers/voters that cannot afford to buy anything other than what's on offer from their locality/country/society. Meritocracy in education, politics and business is illusory.

So the best educated represent the poorly educated. Seems sensible to me.

 

[Stumpy Tim]

The political will to improve it isn't there though, is it? That'd soon change if political and media elites had to send their kids to the local comp.

Would it though? The "political elite" don´t seem that bothered about saving the planet for their kids, let alone schooling.

In fact, all that would happen is the rich would spend more on private tuition outside of school to make sure their kids get the best grades that way. In reality, people with more money will find a way to help their kids get better results.

 

[sydney]

The political will to improve it isn't there though, is it? That'd soon change if political and media elites had to send their kids to the local comp.

that is a very good point...!

 

[Bakero]

Would it though? The "political elite" don´t seem that bothered about saving the planet for their kids, let alone schooling.

In fact, all that would happen is the rich would spend more on private tuition outside of school to make sure their kids get the best grades that way. In reality, people with more money will find a way to help their kids get better results.

A bit of private tuition on top wouldn't negate the positive impacts.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Would it though? The "political elite" don´t seem that bothered about saving the planet for their kids, let alone schooling.

In fact, all that would happen is the rich would spend more on private tuition outside of school to make sure their kids get the best grades that way. In reality, people with more money will find a way to help their kids get better results.

What you would find is that the money you raised from the Summer Fayre for the school probably trebles overnight!

It was mentioned before when they made the transition in Finland, the wealthy pretty much demanded to pay more tax to invest in the education system. It is now genuinely one of the best in the world.

 

[BLOCK F]

I wasn't suggesting that all assets are property - I agree that they aren't. I was just trying to give an example of unearned assets in my case. I can't even argue that I need it as a pension, as I'm already in receipt of a decent pension without having to touch the housing capital.

I understand your situation, however, and I don't think that rules should be changed retrospectively. So I agree that, if you had been investing in property (rather than say a pension) for decades on the reasonable assumption that this would provide for your old age, then it would indeed be unfair for a government to change the ground rules which apply to you, when you are in no position to make alternative provision. I also don't think you are daft to have done this, although if we had a sensibly regulated housing market, then we wouldn't have had the kind of house price inflation that we've seen in recent decades, and people like you wouldn't have thereby been encouraged to rely on housing to provide for your old age.

So I think a fairer approach (and yes it would be very complicated to get it right) would be for the government to give notice that any change of rules would apply to asset appreciation after a certain date (i.e. allowing people like you to keep the assets they'd built up under the previous tax regime, but making sure that future asset appreciation of the same kind wouldn't apply).

Finally, I think the 'Daily Mail' kind of language used in this sort of debate (e.g. talking about taxation as the action of a "grasping Government", rather than a mechanism for ensuring that our collective needs as a society are adequately funded) can be unhelpful, as it can influence the way people think about this sort of policy area, and it discourages reasoned debate about these important topics.

How very grand of you to pronounce my 'grasping Government' phrase as Daily Mail language.
I always try and put forward a reasoned view on any topic I engage in, although I probably don't always succeed (not many do.)
In the context, I hardly think using the phrase 'grasping Government' is unreasonable at all and certainly not in McDonnell's league of 'overthrowing capitalism' for instance.
Anyway, I am disappointed, but will put it down to what is probably the difference in politics that exists between us.
By the way, I read the Times.
P.S.I still don't understand your view on my 'asset appreciation' and whether you deem this as unearned and presumably unworthy.

 

[brakespear]

The fact that most of the political elite were privately educated holds back the improvement of state schools. If the kids of the rich had to be state educated you can bet standards would improve.

I've always been of the opinion that anyone who is on Government should have to use public services rather than private,. how else can you ever imagine they would care about improving it