[Politics] Loony labour vote to abolish private education

[schmunk]

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

Let's take away the ministerial Jags...

 

[Mtoto]

Ok take your point on that but it still doesn't answer the point of why shouldn't someone be able to pay for a better service/product if they can afford to do so including education.

I also don't understand why people get the hump about politicians or business leaders coming from a privately educated background? Surely you want the people at the top to have had best possible education available?

Because there's a difference between buying a smarter car/bigger TV and a 14-year once-in-a-lifetime process that is required by law and can have an immense impact on an individual child's life chances and outcomes for the next 60 years?

 

[Stumpy Tim]

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.

You´re betting the future of the education system in this country on the chance that people like me will spend more at the summer fayre. I probably spend 20 quid at the summer fayre, and can´t see me trebling. This is the problem with the debate - people seem to think that all parents of private schooled kids are multi-millionaires, but the reality is that 99.9% of us are not. I want my kids to be well-educated, and don´t apologise for it. If the government invested in education better then I would have no problem sending my kids to state school (and many state schools are still good by the way). But they don´t and won´t. If Labour had proper costed plans to massively boost education spending at the same time, then they may have a point. Unfortunately it´s just a crappy idea that is clearly driven by envy.

 

[Milano]

Scrapping private eduction is never going to happen, removing the tax breaks and charity status from these institutions though seems a no-brainer, unless you’re a Tory. Why should schools that charge £2k a month to their students also receive funding or tax breaks from the tax payer when state schools (93% of the system) are being crippled financially? My local primary school is struggling to the point that if it weren’t for the amazing PTA raising funds like an Olympic sport they’d be down to a 4 day week by now, however down the road we have Ardingley College receiving tax breaks on top of the £2k per month student fees. It is just plain wrong.

 

[Milano]

You´re betting the future of the education system in this country on the chance that people like me will spend more at the summer fayre. I probably spend 20 quid at the summer fayre, and can´t see me trebling. This is the problem with the debate - people seem to think that all parents of private schooled kids are multi-millionaires, but the reality is that 99.9% of us are not. I want my kids to be well-educated, and don´t apologise for it. If the government invested in education better then I would have no problem sending my kids to state school (and many state schools are still good by the way). But they don´t and won´t. If Labour had proper costed plans to massively boost education spending at the same time, then they may have a point. Unfortunately it´s just a crappy idea that is clearly driven by envy.

That last sentence is an incredibly blinkered view. You do get kids of Labour voting parents going to private schools you know. The debate IMO isn’t about private schools it is about the disgraceful under funding of state schools for the last 10 years, it is almost criminal.

I want my taxes to go on Health, Security, Education. Absolutely everything else should self-fund or come a very distant 4th in funding plans.

 

[Simster]

I'll tell you what - you can bet your f**king arse the ruling classes like Fat De Piffle Johnson or tedious beta-male Jacob Rees-Mogg wouldn't entertain a referendum for the ordinaries to decide whether or not to ban non-state schools.

 

[beorhthelm]

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

"eat your own dog food" is the practice (slightly poor name), default in business to use what you sell or partnered with. you wouldnt expect the director of Sussex Beds to be shopping at Dreams.

 

[Stumpy Tim]

That last sentence is an incredibly blinkered view. You do get kids of Labour voting parents going to private schools you know. The debate IMO isn’t about private schools it is about the disgraceful under funding of state schools for the last 10 years, it is almost criminal.

I want my taxes to go on Health, Security, Education. Absolutely everything else should self-fund or come a very distant 4th in funding plans.

No it isn´t. I 100% agree with the rest of your post by the way (I´ve only ever voted Labour in General Elections), but the people who have put this forward come across as completely envious.

 

[Bold Seagull]

You´re betting the future of the education system in this country on the chance that people like me will spend more at the summer fayre. I probably spend 20 quid at the summer fayre, and can´t see me trebling. This is the problem with the debate - people seem to think that all parents of private schooled kids are multi-millionaires, but the reality is that 99.9% of us are not. I want my kids to be well-educated, and don´t apologise for it. If the government invested in education better then I would have no problem sending my kids to state school (and many state schools are still good by the way). But they don´t and won´t. If Labour had proper costed plans to massively boost education spending at the same time, then they may have a point. Unfortunately it´s just a crappy idea that is clearly driven by envy.

Yes, a light hearted joke re: the summer fayre.

I actually don't think the debate has anything to do with the wealth or not wealth of parents or by envy. Far from it in fact. I think this is solely down to our children having equal chances through their education whether they are born into a family who don't give a crap about education, to being born into a family placing so much value on it they will go without to fund their child's education.

Many state schools are actually better than their private school counterparts, the difference is that the intake to a private school is mainly a collective of parents with a reasonable amount of affluence, their own education and a desire for their kids to be educated as well as possible. Therefore you could stick that cohort into an average state school, and they'll still end up with high attainment. So the question is, as you have said, why not fund an education system that is fit for all?

I would apply the same scenario to independent and religious schools too. We should have a universal secular education system for all. A life chance for a child shouldn't be determined by their parents, religion or anything else. They are kids. They haven't made any choices yet.

 

[Stumpy Tim]

Yes, a light hearted joke re: the summer fayre.

I actually don't think the debate has anything to do with the wealth or not wealth of parents or by envy. Far from it in fact. I think this is solely down to our children having equal chances through their education whether they are born into a family who don't give a crap about education, to being born into a family placing so much value on it they will go without to fund their child's education.

Many state schools are actually better than their private school counterparts, the difference is that the intake to a private school is mainly a collective of parents with a reasonable amount of affluence, their own education and a desire for their kids to be educated as well as possible. Therefore you could stick that cohort into an average state school, and they'll still end up with high attainment. So the question is, as you have said, why not fund an education system that is fit for all?

I would apply the same scenario to independent and religious schools too. We should have a universal secular education system for all. A life chance for a child shouldn't be determined by their parents, religion or anything else. They are kids. They haven't made any choices yet.

We don´t disagree too much to be honest. We agree education should be funded properly, and we agree it probably isn´t right now. My point is that the solution isn´t to force 600,000 extra kids into that under-funded state sector, it´s to increase the funding for state education so that many more parents don´t feel the need to put them into private education.

Tony Blair actually discusses this in his autobiography too. He said the dilemma is about whether to make things as fair as possible so those without wealthy families are on a level-playing field, or to allow those fortunate enough to have these opportunities to excel even further. The truth is that neither choice is 100% satisfactory.

 

[Arthur]

Because there's a difference between buying a smarter car/bigger TV and a 14-year once-in-a-lifetime process that is required by law and can have an immense impact on an individual child's life chances and outcomes for the next 60 years?

An early example for the child that life can be hard at times and isn't always fair.

I went to a shit state school (which I now understand is actually quite good) and left with little more than a boot up the arse. I'm sure my parents would have sent me somewhere better if they had the money to. All ifs buts and maybes if I would have performed better of course but it hasn't done me any harm in the long run. My cousin on the other hand went to Lancing and has a very ordinary life. I'm sure he had a lot more doors open for him than I did simply because of the school he went to. I don't feel any bad feeling towards him because of that. You've still got to work at life once you end your school days.

 

[Silverhatch]

An early example for the child that life can be hard at times and isn't always fair.

I went to a shit state school (which I now understand is actually quite good) and left with little more than a boot up the arse. I'm sure my parents would have sent me somewhere better if they had the money to. All ifs buts and maybes if I would have performed better of course but it hasn't done me any harm in the long run. My cousin on the other hand went to Lancing and has a very ordinary life. I'm sure he had a lot more doors open for him than I did simply because of the school he went to. I don't feel any bad feeling towards him because of that. You've still got to work at life once you end your school days.

Absolutely agree with the requirement to have some sort of drive after your formative years of school, but what gets me (or got to me during my career) was the almost obligatory sense of ****ing superiority that alumni of certain public schools had about their education and subsequent place in society - despite the fact that many (most) of them were utter ****wits.

 

[BLOCK F]

Absolutely agree with the requirement to have some sort of drive after your formative years of school, but what gets me (or got to me during my career) was the almost obligatory sense of ****ing superiority that alumni of certain public schools had about their education and subsequent place in society - despite the fact that many (most) of them were utter ****wits.

May I ask what your job was?

 

[WATFORD zero]

May I ask what your job was?

Member of Parliament ?

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

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.

Ah, you mean language like ‘crashing out of the EU’ used to stifle debate on a topic. Yes, couldn’t agree more.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

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

I thought you would be knocking one out over this ....

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

Let’s do away with Oxford and Cambridge universities too. That would really attract talent to this country.

Deluded, bitter, jealous and clueless .......... but worryingly attracting the votes of more and more disillusioned students

Maybe those students don’t like the fact that over a million people rely on food banks or that 4 million people are trapped in deep poverty or that our NHS, schools and police force are all criminally underfunded or the Tories have systematically attacked the most vulnerable people in society due their callas, ruinous austerity dogma. Maybe

 

[BLOCK F]

Member of Parliament ?

Ha-ha, good reply; especially if he was referring to Seamus Milne and James Schneider!

 

[timbha]

Maybe those students don’t like the fact that over a million people rely on food banks or that 4 million people are trapped in deep poverty or that our NHS, schools and police force are all criminally underfunded or the Tories have systematically attacked the most vulnerable people in society due their callas, ruinous austerity dogma. Maybe

Yeah, maybe

 

[ATFC Seagull]

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?

That's a strange conclusion to jump to. I just have an opinion on inheritance tax and get the odd pang of jealousy when my co-workers have more money and bigger houses than me - to be honest I thought that would be applicable to most of us. I love my life. It's not like I wander around constantly thinking about property and other people's inheritance. It's just that it was being discussed so I chipped in.