Election Year or Fear!

[ramAnag]

For once rA you aren't being the biggest idealist the room, MA is. 'Accident Of Birth' is a big part of it and although I've seen good teachers on both sides of the paywall dragging kids up (and occasionally down) its IMO parenting that does most to influence outcomes of equally capable children. BUT there's more than one aspect to 'parenting' - a moral code yes, hours helping with homework yes, but also in some cases making the necessary sacrifices to put the kids into the magnificent environments you mentioned.

Couldn’t agree more about the parenting part and as I’ve always maintained, there is no greater ‘gift’ than that of being brought up by good and decent parents.

As regards the ‘magnificent environments’, I think I was describing the fact that they are comparatively magnificently equipped. Having spent four years in one and visited others I’m not convinced they’re always ‘magnificent environments’ but the facilities they offer are superb.

On the sacrifice point. I’m sure that some parents make such a sacrifice, but the fact is that less than 10% of pupils attend our private ‘public’ schools. The fees are beyond the means of the vast majority, even allowing for the ‘sacrifice’ you speak of, and wouldn’t it be better to create a more level playing field offering much improved facilities and opportunities for the 90% plus?

[Geoff Parkstone]

And how much would Ms Reeves need to raise in extra taxes for that? OBR says 38% of GDP goes to the government in tax already (and they spend 44% of GDP), so fix this and NHS too and we'd likely be at around 50% ++. It would be "better" to have perfect facilities free to everyone across the public sector but GB Limited can't afford it. In fact I doubt any developed economy can.

Let's hope all our new doctors and engineers can help supercharge the economy to meet these aims, but sadly all this is just pie in the sky

[Trickytreesreds]

Good evening viewers. ( best Benny Hill voice).

Been a while and quick mention to say, well done DCFC on your revival. Surprised me, but no doubt surprised yourselves.

But back on topic. Labour are done.
That budget was pathetic.
Unless you are a benefit user, there was nothing there to help the country. No growth , nothing. In fact within 1 day if it Reforms size grew. Rachel from accounts seems clueless , except to appeasement for their left whingers.
Their public polling now puts them down to third at best and it?s still falling. ( I know Ra mentioned my one year prediction I made ) , but seriously? How the feck is he still here?

His team are a joke. From Rachel to Lammy, who came out with another Gem this week. Basically wanting to abandon the bastion of British justice, of trial by jury, to a hearing with a judge . Then getting angry and confused as to why folks rejected it and the whole idea. Honestly, I don?t think I have ever seen a more detached bunch of loons going. Though on that score, the Greens are jockeying for the honour.

I?m going to thank Labour though, for finally undoing a great injustice, to return the money stolen from the MPS. All ?3.5 billion of it.
Been a foookin outrage that they robbed it in the first place and I look forward to my 50k Christmas bonus.

Love tricky xx

[ramAnag]

And how much would Ms Reeves need to raise in extra taxes for that? OBR says 38% of GDP goes to the government in tax already (and they spend 44% of GDP), so fix this and NHS too and we'd likely be at around 50% ++. It would be "better" to have perfect facilities free to everyone across the public sector but GB Limited can't afford it. In fact I doubt any developed economy can.

Let's hope all our new doctors and engineers can help supercharge the economy to meet these aims, but sadly all this is just pie in the sky

You’re right of course and I acknowledge that, however you asked about the future of public schools (private education) and my response is that the current situation exemplifies the inequality to be found in the UK (and the US) today.
Money must be available, how else can such schools thrive with fees (per pupil) well in excess of the national average wage?
I don’t have the answer or the solution. Don’t even know if there is one. I’m just suggesting that, in the interest of fairness, it is unjustifiable for the wealthiest 7-8% to have access to such facilities while the vast majority have to make do and mend. It’s not a new situation but some of the facilities I’ve seen recently have reinforced my view of this particular inequity.

[Andy_Faber]

You’re right of course and I acknowledge that, however you asked about the future of public schools (private education) and my response is that the current situation exemplifies the inequality to be found in the UK (and the US) today.
Money must be available, how else can such schools thrive with fees (per pupil) well in excess of the national average wage?
I don’t have the answer or the solution. Don’t even know if there is one. I’m just suggesting that, in the interest of fairness, it is unjustifiable for the wealthiest 7-8% to have access to such facilities while the vast majority have to make do and mend. It’s not a new situation but some of the facilities I’ve seen recently have reinforced my view of this particular inequity.

What exactly do you mean 'money must be available'? Are you suggesting that private school fees would just be handed over to the state?

[ramAnag]

What exactly do you mean 'money must be available'? Are you suggesting that private school fees would just be handed over to the state?

Not at all. Odd conclusion. I’m just saying that the top 6-8% must have the ability to pay such fees at a time when the fees for each child are often in excess of the average annual salary.

I suppose the question then is, is it justifiable for a privileged elite in the country to have access to such essentials as better health care and better educational facilities? Doubt we’ll answer it definitively.

[Andy_Faber]

Not at all. Odd conclusion. I’m just saying that the top 6-8% must have the ability to pay such fees at a time when the fees for each child are often in excess of the average annual salary.

I suppose the question then is, is it justifiable for a privileged elite in the country to have access to such essentials as better health care and better educational facilities? Doubt we’ll answer it definitively.

I still don't get the first paragraph but the question in your second paragraph suggests you don't 'get' the breadth of people, their personal circumstances or their determination in relation to the choice of state or fee paying education. Most choosing the fee-paying route aren't 'privileged elite', most that I know (I know a fair few and I'm sure you can guess why) are in stable relationships, maybe a bit better off than the average but by no means 'rich', focussed on their children's path through life and willing to forego certain things around time and money to enable that. IMO 'it' is justifiable in the same way as its justifiable for parents to do ****-all for the education of their kids. NB I'm not talking about those able to afford Eton etc, such establishments are outliers in this discussion to me

[ramAnag]

I still don't get the first paragraph but the question in your second paragraph suggests you don't 'get' the breadth of people, their personal circumstances or their determination in relation to the choice of state or fee paying education. Most choosing the fee-paying route aren't 'privileged elite', most that I know (I know a fair few and I'm sure you can guess why) are in stable relationships, maybe a bit better off than the average but by no means 'rich', focussed on their children's path through life and willing to forego certain things around time and money to enable that. IMO 'it' is justifiable in the same way as its justifiable for parents to do ****-all for the education of their kids. NB I'm not talking about those able to afford Eton etc, such establishments are outliers in this discussion to me

Bit cryptic, not sure I can guess why. I understand you differentiating between Eton and the more local likes of Trent College, Abbotsholme and Denstone but they are still extremely expensive and out of the reach of most people.

Your view is that being wealthy enough to access such facilities is justifiable and you are, of course, fully entitled to that view. I’m not so comfortable with the situation and find the fact that, I think, 20 Prime Ministers went to Eton, emblematic of the situation and a cause for concern.

What I’m more certain of is that it is never ‘justifiable for parents to do **** all for the education of their kids’ and I’m puzzled by that contrary comment from you.

[Andy_Faber]

Bit cryptic, not sure I can guess why. I understand you differentiating between Eton and the more local likes of Trent College, Abbotsholme and Denstone but they are still extremely expensive and out of the reach of most people.

Your view is that being wealthy enough to access such facilities is justifiable and you are, of course, fully entitled to that view. I?m not so comfortable with the situation and find the fact that, I think, 20 Prime Ministers went to Eton, emblematic of the situation and a cause for concern.

What I?m more certain of is that it is never ?justifiable for parents to do **** all for the education of their kids? and I?m puzzled by that contrary comment from you.

Maybe I didn't word that last paragraph well. Its a free world, if parents feel their kids' best interests are served by taking them on expensive holidays, having generous allowances, latest tech etc but never spend minute one helping them with school work/issues then that's their choice and it can't be legislated against

But there's the other side of the coin. Forget Eton, focus on (and don't forget, not-for-profit) Trent etc. Yes there are a few parents who's financial headroom is enormous but there are also lots of 'ordinary' parents setting their stall out to invest their disposable income in their children. Again its a free world, why should they not give their hard earned cash to a school instead of a tour operator or other such luxury.

I also don't see a big difference between parents who want the best and go to the fee paying option and those who choose to invest their money in relocating into a good school's catchment - its still use of what you seem to see as an unfair advantage, ie cash, however honestly and/or back breakingly its been attained, to give children the best available. Likewise state school parents who pour money into private tuition.

Not suggesting there's not inequality that shouldn't be addressed in the state system more suggessting that paying for education issnt as elitist as you make out

[Geoff Parkstone]

Rather than criticising those parents who chose the fee paying option, those in the state sector should be very pleased that they do. Class sizes would be even more unsustainable if those parents didn't invest in their kids future but simply plonked them in the local comprehensive. Resource management is eased by having less to educate.

That so many ex PMs were educated in the private sector is something of a red herring. That the better educated get involved in politics and want to serve their country isn't a surprise. It's about as unsurprising as saying the majority of British murderers or drug dealers are "educated' in the state system. It's back to the nature or nurture argument