Current Affairs The Labour Party

[tsubaki]

They've been running country for the last 200 years.

They have, and for 160 years millions of people struggled successfully to close the gap between rich and poor quite a bit. Sadly our generations are seeing it expand again.

 

[gonetomorrow]

I'd be happy if charitable status was removed from fee-paying schools.

They can jolly well stand on their own two feet, as many of their former pupils keep telling the rest of us to do.

 

[Tubey]

It is kind of telling that you don't say anything about a policy you agree with, or the part of another policy that you agree with (until asked directly), but rather spend several posts having yet another go at "the extreme left" for proposing something that would only negatively affect the very well off.

Also I would point out that the motion says "integrate", not "eradicate". The plan appears to be to get rid of the indirect state financial support that keeps many schools going, and then take them over when they go bust (which is similar to how they want to bring the railway TOCs back into state ownership).

The reason I didn't bring it up is because it's negligible when set against the electoral consequence of banning private schools.

The normal person nods their head or at worst shrugs their shoulders at cutting prescription fees - there's a logic to it, it makes sense. It's smart policy making.

Whereas the normal person does a double take and wonders "what the hell is this crap?" when presented with "Labour members call to 'redistribute' private schools' assets".

One rightly grabs headlines, the other doesn't.

How isn't this obvious?

 

[tsubaki]

I'd be happy if charitable status was removed from fee-paying schools.

They can jolly well stand on their own two feet, as many of their former pupils keep telling the rest of us to do.

Yes, but some of them - even Eton - give scholarships away to poor boys, to help them get up the social ladder.

(and by poor boys I mean Boris Johnson, and Paul Dacre's son)

 

[tsubaki]

The reason I didn't bring it up is because it's negligible when set against the electoral consequence of banning private schools.

The normal person nods their head or at worst shrugs their shoulders at cutting prescription fees - there's a logic to it, it makes sense. It's smart policy making.

Whereas the normal person does a double take and wonders "what the hell is this crap?" when presented with "Labour members call to 'redistribute' private schools' assets".

One rightly grabs headlines, the other doesn't.

How isn't this obvious?

"Grabs headlines"? When most newspaper editors and senior hacks went to private school, I wonder why that might be newsworthy....

 

[gonetomorrow]

Yes, but some of them - even Eton - give scholarships away to poor boys, to help them get up the social ladder.

(and by poor boys I mean Boris Johnson, and Paul Dacre's son)

Well the social ladder will have to do without them. We don't want any more Johnsons and Dacres.

 

[zzr45]

Ah yes, the cries that it would cost extra money to accomodate private school kids in the state system. Labour will waste money! People in villages near Eton might starve in their unheated cottages!

Meanwhile the Tories have wasted more than four billion on free schools, around a quarter of which is in legal fees.

So, it won’t cost extra money for the state system to accommodate more kids?

The loss of jobs and industry built around is perfectly okay? Not very Socialist that is it Comrade?

A bit of whataboutery thrown in at the end. It’s okay, you can admit that this is an awful Labour idea. We won’t tell Momentum.

 

[Eggs]

Just so we're clear though, banning private schools most definitely doesn't mark Labour out as extreme left in the slightest.

...I recall Diane Abbot Speaking out about Private schools and then sending her son to one. I suspect she won’t be alone in the Shadow Cabinet in paying for their children’s education.

Do as we say, not as we do.

 

[tsubaki]

So, it won’t cost extra money for the state system to accommodate more kids?

The loss of jobs and industry built around is perfectly okay? Not very Socialist that is it Comrade?

A bit of whataboutery thrown in at the end. It’s okay, you can admit that this is an awful Labour idea. We won’t tell Momentum.

i) It might cost more to educate more kids, though that would be dependent on how much the independent schools get off the state directly or indirectly already
ii) Who has said there would be job losses? The motion says integrate, not close. Also "industry" lol
iii) Well, since you mention it, it is worth pointing out that the cost of educating those 600000 kids (from 2500 schools) in the state sector is, according to your twitter research, around three billion. The four billion plus spent by this and the previous regime on free schools covers probably 500 schools and 250000 kids.

 

[summerisle]

The reason I didn't bring it up is because it's negligible when set against the electoral consequence of banning private schools.

The normal person nods their head or at worst shrugs their shoulders at cutting prescription fees - there's a logic to it, it makes sense. It's smart policy making.

Whereas the normal person does a double take and wonders "what the hell is this crap?" when presented with "Labour members call to 'redistribute' private schools' assets".

One rightly grabs headlines, the other doesn't.

How isn't this obvious?

Are you this 'normal person' atop the Clapham omnibus ?

 

[Tubey]

Are you this 'normal person' atop the Clapham omnibus ?

Not really - the way I approach things is to try and acknowledge my own biases and try and gauge the overall 'mood' to get an 'average' of how people feel. My own views, in my determination, are quite a bit left of the national average.

For example, if I supported fox hunting (I don't, but it's an easy example), I wouldn't class myself as the 'normal person' in the country when it comes to that view, as it's quite obvious the 'average person' would very likely be against fox hunting being legal.

 

[zzr45]

i) It might cost more to educate more kids, though that would be dependent on how much the independent schools get off the state directly or indirectly already
ii) Who has said there would be job losses? The motion says integrate, not close. Also "industry" lol
iii) Well, since you mention it, it is worth pointing out that the cost of educating those 600000 kids (from 2500 schools) in the state sector is, according to your twitter research, around three billion. The four billion plus spent by this and the previous regime on free schools covers probably 500 schools and 250000 kids.

No. It will cost the state more. There is no escape from this.

There will be job losses. It’s no different than any merger - for example what would the purpose of keeping the completely isolated Sedbergh School open? What would happen to those employed in the local vicinity. What about the local businesses that need the work they get from these schools?

I fail to see your point. The Tories having wasted money does not automatically make this a good policy.

 

[Charlie Sweet]

I know quite a few folk who spent £0000's on their kids schooling, to no obvious social or career advantage. I am pretty sure many (parents) do it for their own ego, rather than the good of their kids.

I'll happily admit I send my two kids to private school. I do so because the state primary they were offered was terrible - as in not just average or not very good but really poor. I'm not going to subject my kids to that due to some sort of perverse sense of self righteousness.

 

[Charlie Sweet]

It´s a principled policy though and one that I think would help to level the playing field. I doubt it would ever become reality but I´m proud to be a member of a party that entertains ideas like this.

We can´t be swayed by how the media perceives our policies. No matter what is put forward it will never be enough to get a good write up from the right wing commentariat.

I'm a member of the same party and think its nuts. For me its student politics and there is no considered approach. As I said before Labour should look at greater taxation of these schools or better collaboration with local failing schools.

What's next - abolish grammar schools?

I suspect private schools is one of many issues which will prove popular with everyday members of the public, once the election kicks in and the media is compelled to report what Labour is actually proposing.

And no, it has nothing to do with envy.

Ensuring that rich and powerful people have a stake in the success of public institutions is the only way to prevent them from being trashed by oligarchs and their pet ideologues.

There is no chance on earth that Michael Gove and Dominic Cummings would have been permitted to unleash their hare-brained pub-napkin experiments on the schools if David Cameron's kids were to be subjected to them (or of schools forced to close on Fridays from lack of funds, for that matter).

Just as there is also no chance the NHS would have to endure idiotic PFI impositions like these: https://inews.co.uk/news/health/nhs-hospitals-pfi-bill-ippr-report-toxic-legacy-556120 if the lives of the people whose taxes the Tories and Lib Dems cut depended on it, like the rest of us.

It smacks of pure envy to me.

 

[Brennan]

My parents sent me to a private school which cost around £5k per year. Neither of them earned a great amount, and they sacrificed a lot to send me there.

They’re both from a working class background, and lifelong labour voters.

Not all private schools are £20k a term and full of millionaires...