[Politics] Loony labour vote to abolish private education

[HitchinSeagull]

I'll put my hand up - I am very much in favour of huge inheritance tax introductions and it is for that exact reason. I am aware it is very much the politics of envy but I don't think that makes it void. I am a public sector worker who earns a nice salary but nothing exciting. My wife's parents own a house worth about £150k up north and she is one of 6, and my parents do not own property. We are lucky enough to have saved up enough deposit buy a small house, however it is very small and we'll never be able to upgrade, as the mortgage is a stretch as it is for us - salaries are unlikely to increase (apart from with inflation if we're lucky) and to be honest interest rates will probably rise substantially at some point between now and the mortage being paid off (when we are 65). However the majority of people I work with live in bigger houses, in nicer areas, and are paying way less on their mortgage each month - purely because their parents have helped them out.

I get the arguments for inheritance - i.e. the prospect of handing down property is a huge motivator for people to work hard, and particularly the sentimental issue over family homes etc. But it's a strange society when people can achieve the same qualifications, do the same job to the same standard, and yet have such different standards of living to their co-workers due to the fortune of how successful and prudent their parents were.

And yes, I am a completely jealous *******.

I have to admit Im confused, why should prudence be punished? My mother was a teacher and my father earned a quarter of her wage, yet we went without in order for them to buy a house.

Early on in working I worked in Worthing on a site, I worked with 4 other guys who were all digging foundations, they earnt 3-4 times my wage yet all were living in social housing while I was sharing with 5 others in a house and had no chance of social housing. The 4 other guys genuinely spent their excess disposable income on drinking, cocaine and prostitutes before going back up north for the weekend. Theres privilege in many ways and not just for the rich.

As for private schools the truth is its not about where you went to school but who you know, that wouldnt end, the elitism would remain. Momentum seem quite elitist in their way

P.S. I've never voted anything but labour and greatly support social housing but all systems are prone to abuse.


Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[Bakero]

My sons went to private school because my ex-wife worked there so our fees were greatly reduced. She left the state sector because it was run so badly and had so much pointless paperwork and tests. Even with reduced fees we went without stuff to afford them. My second son isn't the most acamedically gifted and would have struggled at his state secondary school had it not been for the solid foundation he got from the private sector - something the state sector struggles.to provide thanks to lack of money and stupid processes. I object of the idea that a government can prevent me spending MY money, hard earned and taxed, on what I want to spend it on. Besides, Labours idea is really to make the education of 600k kids worse rather then improving state education. Race to the bottom as some might say.

The only real-life example I can think of where fee paying schools are prohibited is Finland. Their education system is globally recognised as outstanding, certainly not a race to the bottom.

 

[beorhthelm]

Finland decided to integrate private schools some 30 to 40 years ago and now has one of the best education systems in the world. Private education is ineffiicient and grossly unfiar becuase it promotes mediocre talent and reduces the life chances of the 93% who are state educated. The remaing 7% dominate every aspect of British society - the law, business, the arts, sport, politics etc etc. If you have children who are in the 93% why would you accept this gross distortion?

interesting claim, private education is inefficient yet dominate areas that need to demonstrate intellect or endeavour. Lawyers, business, sports are not prone to promoting mediocrity, being from the right school might get you in the door but doesn't give you a free ride to the top. so we can pretend those from state education dont possess enough intellect and endeavour to get ahead, or ask what is different between these systems that leads to this.

 

[sahel]

interesting claim, private education is inefficient yet dominate areas that need to demonstrate intellect or endeavour. Lawyers, business, sports are not prone to promoting mediocrity, being from the right school might get you in the door but doesn't give you a free ride to the top. so we can pretend those from state education dont possess enough intellect and endeavour to get ahead, or ask what is different between these systems that leads to this.

No one could possibly deny that a private education confers advantages. After all they spend three times as much on each pupil as in the state system. That is the point. The 7% privately educated have enormous advantages which translate into a dominance in society. That means it isnt the best who go to the top but the privileged. That is why it is inefficient as well as grossly unfair.

 

[Bakero]

interesting claim, private education is inefficient yet dominate areas that need to demonstrate intellect or endeavour. Lawyers, business, sports are not prone to promoting mediocrity, being from the right school might get you in the door but doesn't give you a free ride to the top. so we can pretend those from state education dont possess enough intellect and endeavour to get ahead, or ask what is different between these systems that leads to this.

Just maybe picking from 100% would be better than 7%.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

Are you completely nuts?

No. I am completely right.

Very high levels of IHT on property derived wealth would be to the national benefit. Individuals, communities and the economy.

 

[Is it PotG?]

No. I am completely right.

Very high levels of IHT on property derived wealth would be to the national benefit. Individuals, communities and the economy.

So what would be the incentive to perform well at these new schools and succeed in life if you give it all back to the state?

 

[beorhthelm]

No one could possibly deny that a private education confers advantages. After all they spend three times as much on each pupil as in the state system. That is the point. The 7% privately educated have enormous advantages which translate into a dominance in society. That means it isnt the best who go to the top but the privileged. That is why it is inefficient as well as grossly unfair.

yes there is advantage. im highlighting the claim that its mediocre and inefficient. you need to reconcile that blatant contradiction. and explain why apparently only the private educated get to the top (they dont, you just chose to ignore all those that get there from state system).

 

[BLOCK F]

I'll put my hand up - I am very much in favour of huge inheritance tax introductions and it is for that exact reason. I am aware it is very much the politics of envy but I don't think that makes it void. I am a public sector worker who earns a nice salary but nothing exciting. My wife's parents own a house worth about £150k up north and she is one of 6, and my parents do not own property. We are lucky enough to have saved up enough deposit buy a small house, however it is very small and we'll never be able to upgrade, as the mortgage is a stretch as it is for us - salaries are unlikely to increase (apart from with inflation if we're lucky) and to be honest interest rates will probably rise substantially at some point between now and the mortage being paid off (when we are 65). However the majority of people I work with live in bigger houses, in nicer areas, and are paying way less on their mortgage each month - purely because their parents have helped them out.

I get the arguments for inheritance - i.e. the prospect of handing down property is a huge motivator for people to work hard, and particularly the sentimental issue over family homes etc. But it's a strange society when people can achieve the same qualifications, do the same job to the same standard, and yet have such different standards of living to their co-workers due to the fortune of how successful and prudent their parents were.

And yes, I am a completely jealous *******.

Blimey, what an unhappy individual you must be with an outlook like that.
You should really go and find some socialist utopia to live in and see if that suits you better.
I don't know whether you have children or not, but if you do ,will you be leaving your property and general assets to them or perhaps donating it all to the state instead?

 

[ManOfSussex]

Excellent idea and long overdue. Less English public school numpties = a better world.

 

[nicko31]

The UK is one of the most unequal societies in Europe and private education fosters this inequality. Currently 7% of school children go on to control parliament, the judiciary and the media.

The pernicious effects of this inequality impacts mental wellbeing, physical health, crime, social mobility, community and violence.

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.

Why should we support a system that entrenches privilege and harms society?

Think you've put your finger on why we are where we are now, just look at our PM, look at our speaker, look at our foreign secretary....

 

[sahel]

yes there is advantage. im highlighting the claim that its mediocre and inefficient. you need to reconcile that blatant contradiction. and explain why apparently only the private educated get to the top (they dont, you just chose to ignore all those that get there from state system).

I suggest you do the research which shows the proprtion of privately educated people in the top reaches of society. It is eye opening. The Guardian has a good video on the subject which is easy to acces and shows the key statistics

 

[soistes]

Finland decided to integrate private schools some 30 to 40 years ago and now has one of the best education systems in the world. Private education is ineffiicient and grossly unfiar becuase it promotes mediocre talent and reduces the life chances of the 93% who are state educated. The remaing 7% dominate every aspect of British society - the law, business, the arts, sport, politics etc etc. If you have children who are in the 93% why would you accept this gross distortion?

I have some sympathy with this argument, and the point about Finland is correct - since its school reforms it has consistently dominated the OECD league tables of educational performance (the UK is never anywhere near the top). It also has a much more equal society on most indicators. I think the prominence of private education in the UK has been one of the main factors in perpetuating inequality and social class division in this country, and if managed properly, abolition could be a major positive positive contribution to educational and social change (a lot would depend on the small print of the Labour proposals though - I have no faith that this bunch wouldn't make a hash of it in practice).

I'm also sceptical of the argument that the state schools wouldn't be able to cope with the influx of private school students if the private schools were abolished/nationalised, and that standards would simply fall across-the-board as the "best" schools were abolished or brought into the state system ("race to the bottom", etc). A key point surely is that if the 7% were forced to attend state schools (and I assume that many of them would still end up at the same schools as they attend now, but they'd be state schools if nationalised), the parents of the 7%, who are typically pushy, well-heeled types (including many MPs, senior civil servants and influential voices in the media) would be a major, aggressive, loud and articulate lobby for more investment and higher standards in state schools. They simply wouldn't put up with lower funding and poorer standards if it was seriously likely to affect their precious offspring.

On the moral arguments, 'freedom of choice', 'politics of envy' etc, I tend to the view (apparently unpopular with some on here) that it's wrong that my kids (or anyone's kids), simply because I have a higher than average income, should have better educational chances than other kids through me buying those chances for them. Why do they deserve that? They already have a significant leg up (through no merit of their own) by being born into a relatively comfortable middle class professional household, with educated parents, lots of books etc etc, so why should their parents be able to boost that through purchasing "better" education (which is "better" only because of the greater financial investment in it, which in a fairer world should be available to all)?

 

[Moshe Gariani]

So what would be the incentive to perform well at these new schools and succeed in life if you give it all back to the state?

The incentive would be INCREASED to work hard, "perform well" and "succeed in life", in order to create non-property derived wealth for yourself during your life and to pass on to your children if you wish.

 

[Is it PotG?]

The incentive would be INCREASED to work hard, "perform well" and "succeed in life", in order to create non-property derived wealth for yourself during your life and to pass on to your children if you wish.

Fair enough. So, my life example: My wife and I proudly from council house backgrounds, worked hard, accumulated a few quid. Own a decent enough house, but we should not retain that or pass it on?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

On the moral arguments, 'freedom of choice', 'politics of envy' etc, I tend to the view (apparently unpopular with some on here) that it's wrong that my kids (or anyone's kids), simply because I have a higher than average income, should have better educational chances than other kids through me buying those chances for them. Why do they deserve that? They already have a significant leg up (through no merit of their own) by being born into a relatively comfortable middle class professional household, with educated parents, lots of books etc etc, so why should their parents be able to boost that through purchasing "better" education (which is "better" only because of the greater financial investment in it, which in a fairer world should be available to all)?

And how far do you stretch this myth about it being unfair and only the rich using it ? I'd like one of those really big houses between Dyke Road and Goldstone Crescent - is it fair that someone can afford them but I can't ? My kids will want their own cars - they can't afford them - now I'm sure that Woody Cook who went to the same 6th form as my step-daughter won't have a problem getting one - that's hardly fair ! How far do you go to 'level' this line of inequality ?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

The incentive would be INCREASED to work hard, "perform well" and "succeed in life", in order to create non-property derived wealth for yourself during your life and to pass on to your children if you wish.

But you didn't differentiate between 'property derived wealth' and 'earned wealth' in your original post. Just anything over £50k should be 100% taxed.

 

[Bold Seagull]

And how far do you stretch this myth about it being unfair and only the rich using it ? I'd like one of those really big houses between Dyke Road and Goldstone Crescent - is it fair that someone can afford them but I can't ? My kids will want their own cars - they can't afford them - now I'm sure that Woody Cook who went to the same 6th form as my step-daughter won't have a problem getting one - that's hardly fair ! How far do you go to 'level' this line of inequality ?

I suppose it's whether you view buying a house or car as exactly the same as buying an education.

 

[ManOfSussex]

Think you've put your finger on why we are where we are now, just look at our PM, look at our speaker, look at our foreign secretary....

But people look at our PM, call him 'Boris' out of inherent deference because of his accent and where he went to school and actually like him, to the point of awe, as a result. If you join the Tory party and have a posh, English accent you can get away with anything. (See Brexit) The fact that normal people are outraged and affronted at the very notion of banning public school numpties like Johnson ever happening, shows that the oldest trick in the rules of the British Empire, Divide and Rule, is alive and well.

Obviously this policy will never come to fruition, but if nothing else it's rattled the cages of a few gammons, broflakes, public school numpties and their sycophants.

Frankly how dare a woman, in the Labour Party, with a northern accent, who left school at 16 because she fell pregnant, suggest something like this?! She really needs to know her place does Angela Rayner, the oik.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Frankly how dare a woman, in the Labour Party, with a northern accent, who left school at 16 because she fell pregnant, suggest something like this?! She really needs to know her place does Angela Rayner, the oik.

Don't forget Abbott.