UK Politics

[steviewevie]

I actually would have preferred Faiza Shaheen to stand rather than Abbott...not sure what Abbott can actually contribute whereas Shaheen seemed smart, keen etc. May not have been super loyal but wouldn't be grumbling about everything like Abbott does.

[steviewevie]

14 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

What's the actual evidence for this? I highly doubt this transpires.

 

Genuinely perplexes me that people send their kids to private school, I went to one of the best state schools in Scotland (lucky, I know) and if you can afford to live in the catchment area then a decent amount will also be able to afford school fees but many choose not to cause the state school is good.

 

And you might say , 'well not all state schools are good and some are dumps' but people who could go to private school don't tend to live in areas with poor state schools from my experience. It may be different in England where you have grammar schools etc I dunno

They send their kids to private schools because the best universities and the best jobs in business/science/arts/politics are full of people who went to private schools.

Edited May 31 by steviewevie

[fraybentos1]

5 minutes ago, Ommadawn said:

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mail/20240528/281487871475247

Plenty of other sources if you look.

Yeah I've seen stuff like this. What people say they will do and what actually happens is a different matter.

 

It's like when before we had a minimum wage people said we can't have this, it's unaffordable and businesses will go under. Yet here we are. 

 

Why the f**k shouldn't they pay VAT. Please spare me the charitable status drivel cause its total pish.

[steviewevie]

8 minutes ago, Ommadawn said:

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mail/20240528/281487871475247

Plenty of other sources if you look.

like...

The public cost of private schools: rising fees and luxury facilities raise questions about charitable status (theconversation.com)

[fraybentos1]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

They send their kids to private schools because the best universities and the best jobs in business/science/arts/politics are full of people who went to private schools.

Yeah sure but the choice is likely between a great state school in a lovely area or private. I totally get what you're saying its just a personal preference but even if I was minted there's no way I ever would.

[fraybentos1]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

like...

The public cost of private schools: rising fees and luxury facilities raise questions about charitable status (theconversation.com)

Furthermore, they can claim 25% of all donations received (such as chancellor Rishi Sunak’s donations to his old school, Winchester College, which reportedly exceed £100,000) from the tax authorities in gift aid.

 

This is a disgrace

[pink_triangle]

22 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

What's the actual evidence for this? I highly doubt this transpires.

 

Genuinely perplexes me that people send their kids to private school, I went to one of the best state schools in Scotland (lucky, I know) and if you can afford to live in the catchment area then a decent amount will also be able to afford school fees but many choose not to cause the state school is good.

 

And you might say , 'well not all state schools are good and some are dumps' but people who could go to private school don't tend to live in areas with poor state schools from my experience. It may be different in England where you have grammar schools etc I dunno

I am generally against private schools and would be happy if they got rid of them all. However I do worry the best state schools would effectively run as private schools and the money would just go into increased housing prices for those who can afford to live in those areas

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

Yeah I've seen stuff like this. What people say they will do and what actually happens is a different matter.

 

It's like when before we had a minimum wage people said we can't have this, it's unaffordable and businesses will go under. Yet here we are. 

 

Why the f**k shouldn't they pay VAT. Please spare me the charitable status drivel cause its total pish.

 

Fine, and I wouldn't argue but if you do so, you have to take the consequences of having to fork out extra funds to accomodate the extra pupils in the state sector. A possible quarter of a million pupils is more than just two or three in each school.
It's just an example of Labour's politics of envy with a vacumn of ideas of how to deal with the consequences.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I am generally against private schools and would be happy if they got rid of them all. However I do worry the best state schools would effectively run as private schools and the money would just go into increased housing prices for those who can afford to live in those areas

 

Correct  - parents who can just about to pay for private education now, but won't in the future can easily get their kids into the best state schools by offering to invest funds into those schools in exchange for a place thereby depriving another pupil of the opportunity to attend.

[pink_triangle]

15 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

I actually would have preferred Faiza Shaheen to stand rather than Abbott...not sure what Abbott can actually contribute whereas Shaheen seemed smart, keen etc. May not have been super loyal but wouldn't be grumbling about everything like Abbott does.

The thing is Shaheen doesn’t have a national profile so the political calculation is different. My view is Abbott is a bit useless, but her past means she is kept when she is a bit past her sell by date.

 

I think it’s the right decision by Starmer, sometimes you have to know which battles to fight and when to retreat. If he becomes PM there will be  loads of similar incidents and he won’t always get it right.

[steviewevie]

If you actually want to do something about inequality in this country then bin private schools. Raise taxes on higher incomes and wealth and have a better state school system. Yes a state school that is considered successful means house prices rise in that area, but then you divert more funding in underperforming schools.

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

The thing is Shaheen doesn’t have a national profile so the political calculation is different. My view is Abbott is a bit useless, but her past means she is kept when she is a bit past her sell by date.

 

I think it’s the right decision by Starmer, sometimes you have to know which battles to fight and when to retreat. If he becomes PM there will be  loads of similar incidents and he won’t always get it right.

yeah, ok...I'm not really thinking or caring about the national profile or how this is for Starmer, just that she would be a far better contributor to parliament and maybe government than Abbott.

[steviewevie]

just feels like Starmer's boys or whatever they're called were getting a bit gun ho macho with their de-selection thing on Tuesday or whenever this was and now there's a lot of bad vibes running through Labour. 

[fraybentos1]

12 minutes ago, Ommadawn said:

A possible quarter of a million pupils is more than just two or three in each school.

There is no way this amount is happening.

 

13 minutes ago, Ommadawn said:

It's just an example of Labour's politics of envy

Have you seen the current Labour Party's policy platform? It's hardly politics on envy stuff. 

 

 

[pink_triangle]

5 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

yeah, ok...I'm not really thinking or caring about the national profile or how this is for Starmer, just that she would be a far better contributor to parliament and maybe government than Abbott.

Yes completely agree with you there. Abbott feels like she is just there at this point, while you feel Shaheen could have been an interesting voice.

[fraybentos1]

Here's a quote from Michael Gove about this from 2017. Michael f**king Gove 

 

Writing in the Times in 2017, Gove said: “Private school fees are VAT exempt. That tax advantage allows the wealthiest in this country, indeed the very wealthiest in the globe, to buy a prestige service that secures their children a permanent positional edge in society at an effective 20% discount. How can this be justified?”

[Nobody Interesting]

47 minutes ago, lazyred said:

What if they restrict tax relief on pension contributions or apply capital gains tax on your main house or replace council tax or start indexing  fuel duty again or extend NI to pensioner income or put charges on some free services. None of those would make Reeves a liar.

 

They could do that lot if they don't want to be re-elected........................ not just cos some of it is raising taxes such and indexing fuel duty and would be used as such by the Tories but cos some of the rest would be so hated they would be Labour's Poll tax.

[steviewevie]

 

[Nobody Interesting]

1 minute ago, fraybentos1 said:

Here's a quote from Michael Gove about this from 2017. Michael f**king Gove 

 

Writing in the Times in 2017, Gove said: “Private school fees are VAT exempt. That tax advantage allows the wealthiest in this country, indeed the very wealthiest in the globe, to buy a prestige service that secures their children a permanent positional edge in society at an effective 20% discount. How can this be justified?”

 

What saddens me in this entire debate, not just on here but i n the media and on Question Time last night is that nobody (apart from Bishop of Dover last night) talks about how every child should have access to the best education and it should never be based on where you live or what you can afford.

Education is what key to sorting out the mess the country is in in so many ways, education of diet, financing, econmics, politics, and so much more that will help people be 'ready for the work place' as Sunak keeps banging on about.

Every school should have access to kitchen, swimming pools, sports centres and so much more htat means every child can get the best learning in what they are good at - not just those who can afford houses in a good school, area or those that can afford to go private.

People educated in diet and cooking will likely be healthier and need less NHS so saving money in future.........

I could go on but know the kind of things others will come up with as to 'why not' and how it will cost too much.
It will cost much more not to though.

[Guest]

I wonder if Starmer would be Labour leader if he hadn't had a private education?

[Nobody Interesting]

8 minutes ago, Ommadawn said:

I wonder if Starmer would be Labour leader if he hadn't had a private education?

I wonder if any politician who has not been educated in a state school understands education in state schools.

[lazyred]

11 minutes ago, Ommadawn said:

I wonder if Starmer would be Labour leader if he hadn't had a private education?

Just pointing out it was a state grammar school when he started and went private during his time there. He didn't have to pay fees. He would probably have gone to the same university and become a lawyer if it stayed a grammar school.

[fraybentos1]

20 minutes ago, Ommadawn said:

I wonder if Starmer would be Labour leader if he hadn't had a private education?

It was a grammar school which changed to a private school while he was there

[Guest]

1 minute ago, fraybentos1 said:

It was a grammar school which changed to a private school while he was there

 

So he had a private education then.

 

[fraybentos1]

2 minutes ago, Ommadawn said:

 

So he had a private education then.

 

Yeah I'm sure if it had stayed a grammar school he'd be destitute right now and working at Morrison's part time