So it's class war then...

[Pieman68]

wolves_wanderer said:

Bloody ridiculous isn't it? My old school used to be the single biggest user of the assisted places scheme and was as a consequence pretty well mixed in terms of family backgrounds. Now the only people who could send their kids are the "wealthy", soon to become the "even-more-wealthy" if Labour get their way. An absolute nonsense IMO.

My old school (400 year old Grammar school) tried to exist as a solely private school after the abolition of the assisted place. I, as the son of a typesetter and a bookbinder, had the opportunity to attend a great school and achieve decent academic results as well as partaking in a variety of out of school activities - all at the same time as my sister's education was compromised but teachers striking and working to rule

As the school became fee paying only, it's results declined due to the fact that they had to take students based upon financial clout rather than academic ability

2 years ago they had to abandon this and became an academy. They have just announced that they are closing the 6th form due to a lack of subscription

So, in short, they have taken an aspirational school that allowed working class families to better themselves, and in less than 20 years have reduced it to a mediocre state school with no 6th form (even though all children now have to stay at school until they are 18). Equality isn't supposed to be about dumbing everybody down to the bottom level is it?

As an aside to this, my daughter is in the 2nd year of high school. The amount of stuff that she isn't taught is unbelievable. Her maths is atrocious and when I show her better ways to work out her answers I just get told that that is not the way that they are shown at school and they get marked down if they don't use the methods that they are taught - surely it's about finding the right way for a child to understand it as they are all different

I am from a staunchly working class family in a staunchly red part of the country - yet my dad now refuses to vote completely and I will most certainly not vote for the ineptitude of the red rosette

[FredClogs]

JagLover said:

FredClogs said:

Independent schools which refuse to play sport, do art projects, get involved in drama production with the local state sector have, in my opinion, already chosen to remove themselves from civil society, that's an ivory tower, I don't see why I should subsidise the construction of yours and I don't think you're doing yourself any favours by building one.

and if they offer means tested bursaries?

1/3 of poor children getting into Oxford or Cambridge were educated at a private school.

Cherry picking the brightest poor kids is not getting involved and experiencing wider society, it's something else. It's to be encouraged and good for the individuals concerned but it does nothing for wider community relations and goes no way to redressing the wider imbalance in our society - both financial equality and parity of opportunity/choice and life experiences.

[heppers75]

FredClogs said:

heppers75 said:

FredClogs said:

They are only threatening to remove the subsidy from schools which don't wish to get involved with their local community and create joint ventures with the local state schools.

There are all sorts of things one could say about the sort of people and schools that wish not to mix with those of the local state sector (I'll save it), but if there is one thing I know about kids it's that they don't give two fks about peoples income, social status and intellectual elitism, kids enjoy being around other kids, growing their imaginations through play and experiencing the rich and diverse world around them. Should people be punished for wanting to build ivory towers in which to enclose their children? No, probably not, they should be pitied, but they shouldn't be subsidised to do it.

I am assuming (possibly wrongly) that you don't have kids then? I say that as I can say without a shadow of a doubt kids irrespective of their backgrounds and especially as they get towards the 9-10 year old plus mark care hugely about all the things you say they do not. That is an observation across our very broad spectrum of friends as well, at least over half of which have kids in the state system and at varying qualities of school.

Also that last sentence, I would genuinely love you to explain what you believe an "ivory tower" in that context really is and what experience and or evidence you would have to support its existence.

I have 3 kids, they're young but I will encourage them to mix with people of all types and teach them that success in life is not measured by what you can buy but what you can experience. I will teach them that by denigrating people based on their material wealth they not also loose a potential friend but they loose a little but of their own humanity. I will teach them to "know thy self"

Independent schools which refuse to play sport, do art projects, get involved in drama production with the local state sector have, in my opinion, already chosen to remove themselves from civil society, that's an ivory tower, I don't see why I should subsidise the construction of yours and I don't think you're doing yourself any favours by building one.

Well you will realise as your kids get older and they interact with the rest of society and the children in it, whilst your intentions are very laudable and notable - they are ultimately not reflected in the society in which your children will be participating.

I also think that you assuming that Independent schools do not play sport, or do art projects and drama productions with other schools, including state ones is something you have read in an article and not actually had any experience first hand of. I cannot speak for every independent school of course however I know my sons school (which is in independent school) along with the 6 or 8 others in I would say a 20 mile radius of where we live. Play home and away games at various sports and have various inter school activities with the other independent schools and state ones. I also know the same is true for a couple of our friends who live further afield from us in other areas.

So I would suggest before you spout out not so veiled insults at people who have chosen to make different life choices to yours by assuming that in doing so you have some form of moral superiority and in turn assuming that simply because someone or their offspring is privately educated they hold the tenants and conduct their lives in a way you understand and define because of that choice, you actually avail yourself of some experience and of the facts in the real world. You might find you understand the situation better than simply regurgitating what you read from someone else.

[JagLover]

FredClogs said:

Cherry picking the brightest poor kids is not getting involved and experiencing wider society, it's something else. It's to be encouraged and good for the individuals concerned but it does nothing for wider community relations and goes no way to redressing the wider imbalance in our society - both financial equality and parity of opportunity/choice and life experiences.

Same old labour rhetoric. Bright poor kids should rise with their class not out of it.

As well as the benefit to the taxpayer private schools are already justifying charitable status, and not building "ivory towers", if they offer means tested bursaries for a decent number of kids.

That will not mean "levelling them down" however so will not appeal to lefties.

Edited by JagLover on Tuesday 25th November 13:44

[FredClogs]

heppers75 said:

FredClogs said:

heppers75 said:

FredClogs said:

They are only threatening to remove the subsidy from schools which don't wish to get involved with their local community and create joint ventures with the local state schools.

There are all sorts of things one could say about the sort of people and schools that wish not to mix with those of the local state sector (I'll save it), but if there is one thing I know about kids it's that they don't give two fks about peoples income, social status and intellectual elitism, kids enjoy being around other kids, growing their imaginations through play and experiencing the rich and diverse world around them. Should people be punished for wanting to build ivory towers in which to enclose their children? No, probably not, they should be pitied, but they shouldn't be subsidised to do it.

I am assuming (possibly wrongly) that you don't have kids then? I say that as I can say without a shadow of a doubt kids irrespective of their backgrounds and especially as they get towards the 9-10 year old plus mark care hugely about all the things you say they do not. That is an observation across our very broad spectrum of friends as well, at least over half of which have kids in the state system and at varying qualities of school.

Also that last sentence, I would genuinely love you to explain what you believe an "ivory tower" in that context really is and what experience and or evidence you would have to support its existence.

I have 3 kids, they're young but I will encourage them to mix with people of all types and teach them that success in life is not measured by what you can buy but what you can experience. I will teach them that by denigrating people based on their material wealth they not also loose a potential friend but they loose a little but of their own humanity. I will teach them to "know thy self"

Independent schools which refuse to play sport, do art projects, get involved in drama production with the local state sector have, in my opinion, already chosen to remove themselves from civil society, that's an ivory tower, I don't see why I should subsidise the construction of yours and I don't think you're doing yourself any favours by building one.

Well you will realise as your kids get older and they interact with the rest of society and the children in it, whilst your intentions are very laudable and notable - they are ultimately not reflected in the society in which your children will be participating.

I also think that you assuming that Independent schools do not play sport, or do art projects and drama productions with other schools, including state ones is something you have read in an article and not actually had any experience first hand of. I cannot speak for every independent school of course however I know my sons school (which is in independent school) along with the 6 or 8 others in I would say a 20 mile radius of where we live. Play home and away games at various sports and have various inter school activities with the other independent schools and state ones. I also know the same is true for a couple of our friends who live further afield from us in other areas.

So I would suggest before you spout out not so veiled insults at people who have chosen to make different life choices to yours by assuming that in doing so you have some form of moral superiority and in turn assuming that simply because someone or their offspring is privately educated they hold the tenants and conduct their lives in a way understand and define, you actually avail yourself of some experience and of the facts in the real world. You might find you understand the situation better than simply regurgitating what you read from someone else.

How incredibly condescending, you really should try and mix with proles more often, we are quite adept at forming our own conclusions and opinions - in my experience it's one of the advantages of less than perfect education.

I can only refer you back to what Tristan Hunt said, quoted in the article and not what you imagine or wish that he had said.

[Bluebarge]

heppers75 said:

Interesting post there, on the BUPA and NHS argument, actually yes - if you are paying for a private health care plan which eases the burden on the state system I do think you should be entitled to tax relief on that as well, but that is another argument.

It is not an armageddon scenario at all, just a practical assessment of the negative side effects of making a decision. Which unfortunately those that subscribe to such envy driven positions often neither want nor believe is real. Like it as not there is a negative impact to the decision and an offset in benefit vs reward. There may well be £Xm in additional tax revenue but that comes with £Xm of impact and additional cost and like all good sound fiscal decisions you need to perform both sides of the equation to reach an informed decision. You cannot just say this proposed legislation will make the country £Xm in year in additional income without offsetting the associated cost of that decision as well.. Of course unless you are wanting to support this at a soundbite level then of course that is exactly what you do!

Then on top of that fiscal equation there is an impact that would further reduce the lefts desire for social mobility by reducing the availability of something that can and does, like it or not, increase that. The even bigger irony being that most of those supporting this in political terms have benefitted from that same system they are seeking to effect. Don't people who support them ever think why that is?

But carry on shooting yourselves in the foot, personally it won't really affect me and I am just trying to explain that there are negatives as well as perceived positives to the proposal.

On the BUPA argument, given that a lot of BUPA patients end up using NHS facilities, especially if their liposuction goes wrong, I can't really see the argument for tax relief, and nor can the Conservatives it seems.

As to your other point, yes it is an Armageddon scenario, because Labour is not proposing to close private schools, or remove tax relief from all of them, it is merely saying if you want charitable status, act like a charity and do something for the community. What's to dispute there?

But, you carry on with your nightmare scenarios of coachloads of Tarquins, Ludmillas, Viktors and Fenellas all turning up at their local comp on the same day (some of which would be in Moscow, HK etc)if it makes you happy.

[heppers75]

FredClogs said:

How incredibly condescending, you really should try and mix with proles more often, we are quite adept at forming our own conclusions and opinions - in my experience it's one of the advantages of less than perfect education.

I can only refer you back to what Tristan Hunt said, quoted in the article and not what you imagine or wish that he had said.

FYI, I am state educated and in some particularly stty schools, I was also born and raised in a very depressed mining town in the north midlands and 95% of my family would vote for a baboon if it wore a red tie.

You assume because I have posted what I have, have the opinions that I have and have made the choices I have I am something I am not.

Which ought to tell you everything you need to know about the prejudices of a vast majority of the sort who hold the opinions you seem to be supporting.

Fortunately from my perspective they can tinker with the tax breaks and all that goes with it all they like, the fees will increase the system will become more elitist than it already is and that is a bad thing for the nation and the need for social mobility.

I am sure that will make you bizarrely very happy.

[Randomthoughts]

FredClogs said:

How incredibly condescending, you really should try and mix with proles more often, we are quite adept at forming our own conclusions and opinions - in my experience it's one of the advantages of less than perfect education.

I can only refer you back to what Tristan Hunt said, quoted in the article and not what you imagine or wish that he had said.

So you have no answer to the valid points raised, and instead throw your toys out and refer people to the soundbites that have already been discredited.

Have you ever thought of applying for a position in Labour's PR department?

[LucreLout]

FredClogs said:

I have 3 kids, they're young but I will encourage them to mix with people of all types and teach them that success in life is not measured by what you can buy but what you can experience.

The latter is very often driven or limited by the former.

You cannot experience a gap year in China / America I what you can afford to buy is a fortnight in Benidorm.

Experiencing classical music and Italian food from iTunes while eating pizza hut may not be the same as experiencing it in Florence, for example.

Experiencing nature at your local zoo may not be the same as seeing it Li on the plains of Africa.

Money drives the range of possible experiences. It always will.

[turbobloke]

LucreLout said:

FredClogs said:

I have 3 kids, they're young but I will encourage them to mix with people of all types and teach them that success in life is not measured by what you can buy but what you can experience.

The latter is very often driven or limited by the former.

You cannot experience a gap year in China / America I what you can afford to buy is a fortnight in Benidorm.

Experiencing classical music and Italian food from iTunes while eating pizza hut may not be the same as experiencing it in Florence, for example.

Experiencing nature at your local zoo may not be the same as seeing it Li on the plains of Africa.

Money drives the range of possible experiences. It always will.

Indeed. The other thing that occurs after reading this lefty love for experience and shunning of materialism (Labour politicians excepted of course, the slimy hypocrites) and the benefits of watching moths dancing around your toxic ecobulbs etc is that, if money doesn't matter, why are they so keen to take if from people who've earned it and give it to those that haven't, why the constant harping about material inequality when a couple of hours spent watching a sunset will be far better experientially for these most loyal and philosophical supporters.

[anonymous-user]

FredClogs said:

the wider imbalance in our society - both financial equality and parity of opportunity/choice and life experiences.

Sorry to say, but most of these goals are not attainable. Equality of opportunity is, but you can pretty much drawn the line there. Society will never be equal; nor will there ever be such a thing as financial equality or parity of life experiences (assuming I understand what you mean by those) because people aren't equal in the first place.

It's an inconvenient fact that the left usually tries to socially engineer its way around, but people are not equally gifted with intelligence, looks, risk appetite, acumen, sporting ability, you name it. And as a result, in life there are winners and there are losers. There always have been, and always will be.

Grandscale social experiments to impose universal equality (eg the Soviet Union, communist China) have been tried, and have failed. It is a barren ideology.

Those at the bottom of life's pyramid will not be remotely better off by making life for those at the top worse, no matter what tall tales the left spins. Unfortunately, that particular lie seems to be underpinning pretty much every message Labour puts out at the moment.

[turbobloke]

FredClogs said:

/...success in life is not measured by what you can buy but what you can experience...

FredClogs said:

...the wider imbalance in our society - both financial equality...

Aye.

Labour can sort that contradiction before breakfast. An end to poverty, happy smiley faces everywhere, birds singing, dockside comps trumping (on) the lawns of public schools, social mobility so fast it'll make Dwayne's toes curl.



If Red Ed and his bunch of comedians get in somebody should send a memo to the IMF so they can book time ahead of the need.

[heppers75]

Bluebarge said:

heppers75 said:

Interesting post there, on the BUPA and NHS argument, actually yes - if you are paying for a private health care plan which eases the burden on the state system I do think you should be entitled to tax relief on that as well, but that is another argument.

It is not an armageddon scenario at all, just a practical assessment of the negative side effects of making a decision. Which unfortunately those that subscribe to such envy driven positions often neither want nor believe is real. Like it as not there is a negative impact to the decision and an offset in benefit vs reward. There may well be £Xm in additional tax revenue but that comes with £Xm of impact and additional cost and like all good sound fiscal decisions you need to perform both sides of the equation to reach an informed decision. You cannot just say this proposed legislation will make the country £Xm in year in additional income without offsetting the associated cost of that decision as well.. Of course unless you are wanting to support this at a soundbite level then of course that is exactly what you do!

Then on top of that fiscal equation there is an impact that would further reduce the lefts desire for social mobility by reducing the availability of something that can and does, like it or not, increase that. The even bigger irony being that most of those supporting this in political terms have benefitted from that same system they are seeking to effect. Don't people who support them ever think why that is?

But carry on shooting yourselves in the foot, personally it won't really affect me and I am just trying to explain that there are negatives as well as perceived positives to the proposal.

On the BUPA argument, given that a lot of BUPA patients end up using NHS facilities, especially if their liposuction goes wrong, I can't really see the argument for tax relief, and nor can the Conservatives it seems.

As to your other point, yes it is an Armageddon scenario, because Labour is not proposing to close private schools, or remove tax relief from all of them, it is merely saying if you want charitable status, act like a charity and do something for the community. What's to dispute there?

But, you carry on with your nightmare scenarios of coachloads of Tarquins, Ludmillas, Viktors and Fenellas all turning up at their local comp on the same day (some of which would be in Moscow, HK etc)if it makes you happy.

The BUPA statement, you have some facts to back that up do you? Or just a sweeping statement?

It really is not, it is just an assessment of the other side of the coin to the decision, which you are still ignoring - do you just not understand it or not believe it? If the latter why don't you?

As for the last paragraph, I think that coupled with the liposuction comment really shows your prejudice in the light it so duly deserves!

Edited by heppers75 on Tuesday 25th November 14:52

[Asterix]

FredClogs said:

you really should try and mix with proles more often

If they're all like you, no thanks. They sound a bitter bunch.

[julian64]

Can I get a rebate?

My son passed his eleven plus and didn't get a place at a grammar school because we don't have any in our area. Closest grammar school to us refused my son on the basis that he was outside the area despite having an eleven plus mark higher than 80% of the intake.

As there are no grammar schools in our area we had to send him privately.

It seems like a good wheeze by the government to charge me about three times for my sons education and then say I'm an elitist and should be contributing more to state school education.

[anonymous-user]

Bluebarge said:

the idea that somewhere like Eton should be taxed on the same basis as Oxfam is pretty laughable.

I agree completely. Less than half of the £400m given to Oxfam is actually spent on charitable work, they really push the boundaries of what a charity is.

[turbobloke]

fblm said:

Bluebarge said:

the idea that somewhere like Eton should be taxed on the same basis as Oxfam is pretty laughable.

I agree completely. Less than half of the £400m given to Oxfam is actually spent on charitable work, they really push the boundaries of what a charity is.

Totally agree.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27783331

Eton has sponsored a Free School in the area as one if its many voluntary contributions to the local community in keeping with charitable status.

[anonymous-user]

I went to one of the most expensive UK public schools on a bursary. The school fees would have been more than my dad ever earned, in fact he was unemployed for several years I was there and we lived with my Grandma. I was far from unique. This stuff about Tarquin and Gemmima is stereotypical crap that betrays the motivation of the person making the argument far clearer than anything they actually have to say. FWIW I'd say half the kids were genuinely wealthy and half were from middle class families who scrimped and saved every penny to educate their kids.

So remove charitable status and the main difference is the school now has to pay business rates. They would have to hike fees (driving those middle class kids into the state system, to be replaced presumably by dumber foreign kids with the money), lower entry requirements, reduce scholarships and bursaries, and would have no incentive to keep sharing their facilities with anyone for free. How is this supposed to be a good thing?

[heppers75]

Asterix said:

FredClogs said:

you really should try and mix with proles more often

If they're all like you, no thanks. They sound a bitter bunch.

The major issue is that for many that is the case.

One particularly memorable one for me was at a wedding a few years ago by one particularly entertaining friend of my mothers side of the family who I had known growing up and who I had not even met since I was in my late teens who called me a "class traitor" - when I asked him why I was told I was "one of them now" because I "had money". His judgement of me BTW not mine and provoked only by me being stood at the bar with my brother, uncle and cousin and it being my round, asking if I could buy him a drink!

There is so very little you can do with people like that and it is ultimately a very sad reflection on society as a whole and there are a fair few of them that seemingly hang out here as well.

[Bluebarge]

heppers75 said:

The BUPA statement, you have some facts to back that up do you? Or just a sweeping statement?

It really is not, it is just an assessment of the other side of the coin to the decision, which you are still ignoring - do you just not understand it or not believe it? If the latter why don't you?

As for the last paragraph, I think that coupled with the liposuction comment really shows your prejudice in the light it so duly deserves!

Edited by heppers75 on Tuesday 25th November 14:52

on the BUPA statement, like the Tarquin statement, it was bleeding obviously tongue in cheek, but since BUPA handles mostly minor elective surgery, and all the big expensive stuff (care for the elderly, emergency surgery, complex surgery) is done by the NHS then I can't see that the tax saving to the state makes it worthwhile subsidising BUPA. And as to it not being Tory policy, well that clearly is a fact.

As to your second para - you are railing against something that has not been proposed and will not happen - Labour are trying to nudge some private schools to do more to justify their charitable status - so why are you banging on about the Domesday scenario? - it will never come to that because Labour know it would be too damaging to their electoral prospects.

I harbour no prejudice at all - I am in no way against private education, but I can see why charitable status is an anomaly. That does not lead me to conclude that private schools should be closed, but the idea that they should mentor some state schools or their pupils is by no means absurd, in my opinion.