A private school closes. Blames a Labor tax proposal. Labor not being the government?
I for one am convinced.
General Election 2024
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
- Status
A private school closes. Blames a Labor tax proposal. Labor not being the government?
I for one am convinced.
I think National Service is a great idea in principle if it isacross multiple sectors, paid at living wage with ongoing incentives attached for contributing to the National Good like early retirement, tax breaks or help to buy etc and the ability to opt in or out.
This proposal is far from it - it's another Tory way of stoking the fire of division by implying that the youth are lazy and it's their need to work more and contribute, rather than the rampant dismantling of society and support that has gone on in the last 14 years of levelling down.
As a minimum, I cannot support national service until the Conservatives pledge to restore public service staffing levels to how they were in 2010. Otherwise you're just getting kids to work jobs for free that you made their parents redundant from.
What is currently being proposed is making young people only work for free in sectors you've decimated. It's not voluntary.
Yep. It only works as a policy if it makes old people feel like they are punishing the younger generation. As soon any responsibility for the policy is put onto old people then useless.
The video. It really hasn’t been thought through at all. Very much a we'll dig our way out situation
Edit - video deleted which is strange
Last edited:
I actually know some staff and parents there as i live nearby and knew about it before that headline, yes it was badly managed but the fee increase was the final blow. Parents were taking their kids out for September in order to try and get ahead of others vying for the best state schools and the numbers dropped below what was sustainable.
It's a school in a relatively average area with high price elasticity. There are lots like it in the UK.
Just looked up the fees for that school. £250k to send a child there for their full schooling to 18. Not taking into account inflation.
Why not just buy to let a few properties and hand them over to them when they turn 18? They could spend their school years playing in the mud and still be better off than 99% of the population by just sitting on their arse for the next 60 years.
Good. The more that close the better.
You sure about that?
The issues of the state education sector are nothing to do with private schools but it plays well to the perpetually envious who can't stand that somebody might have something they don't. A focus on stopping others getting ahead rather than trying to push everybody forward. It's a fecking plague in this country.
If things get any worse for the Tories it could be almost existential. The average age of their members is 72. Their active politicians are mostly in it for personal gain and power, but being out of office will hugely limit both, even if they do find a winnable seat. Will tomorrow's Camerons and Johnstons bother with the Tories any more? I hope they have a slow lingering death though, better that than a vibrant new right wing party that's more likely to actually win.
We’d be better off just abolishing private schools and doing what Finland did years ago. We should be looking to give all kids a fair chance rather than head starts for the wealthy ones.
Unfortunately, there is little pressure on Government to really improve state education when the those with wealth and power don’t use it. In reality, not only do they not use it, they see the current two tier system as something that actively benefits them and their children.
Unfortunately, there is little pressure on Government to really improve state education when the those with wealth and power don’t use it. In reality, not only do they not use it, they see the current two tier system as something that actively benefits them and their children.
They might join the Labour party. Then the breakaway left wing Corbyn party you've metioned in the past can become the offical oppoistion.
They might join the Labour party. Then the breakaway left wing Corbyn party you've metioned in the past can become the offical oppoistion.
Maybe, although official and permanent opposition if Corbyn is involved.
Maybe, although official and permanent opposition if Corbyn is involved.
At least there would be some opposition
That would be the ideal but is unlikely to ever work in the UK. Finland's system exists in a different social structure. Education is viewed differently and society is set up differently. You have schools set up to cater for all needs without the downward pressure lots of UK schools face. It would take years and a lost generation or two before you saw anything like that here.
I have friends teaching in Scandi countries, Norway, Denmark and Finland. They have much more flexible curriculums and they don't have the disruptive kids and management that we do.
Yes. It is about equality. And private education is about holding people down at other's expense. Education should be about equal education for all. Not priveledge for the relatively wealthy.
That's the assumption you're getting wrong, in the UK at least. Whether private schools exist or not makes little difference to what happens in the state sector.
Not at all. The difference is many decades of the Tories trying to destroy public education. And then using their destruction to justify further destruction and social division.
Private education is primarily paying for networking with other priveledged kids (and jobs from mates' parents). Educationally they are ordinary and often need special lobbying departments in schools (special consideration for exams etc), combined with actively pushing the dim kids out before they feck up your school's results to look ordinary or a bit better.
The various Scandanavian public school systems succeed because they value and fund public education.
Last edited:
I can assure you that if private schools in the UK ceased to exist and the rich and privileged children that currently attend them had to attend state schools along with the rest of the rabble, there would suddenly be a huge interest, political pressure and lobbying to bring state schools up to standard.
The reason state education has been ignored and neglected in this country is because not a single Tory MP, nor their benefactors care one bit about your average working class child and their prospects. It’s the core principle of conservatism and the class oriented society the UK is built upon. How to keep old money in old money families.
Since @Buster15 can't post in here he wanted me to tell you he plans to vote Tory and he can't wait for his kids to be in the army.
If it's ideal then that is what we should be working towards surely? If privately educated kids have to suffer the same education as the rest of the kids in society in order for all kids to end up with a better education then so be it. It will be huge benefit for the future of the country.
Why can't he post? He certainly isn't thread banned. I just tested by threadbanning and unthreadbanning pexbo to make sure.
Nobody is thread banned from this thread.
So too dumb to vote at 16 but perfectly able to work for free for the military a scant 2 years later?
Indeed. I know you don't agree with globalisation but in practice we have to compete with highly educated and motivated workforces all over the world, and if our best education and opportunities are restricted to a relatively small section of the population we will be hugely handicapped. Which is of course what that small section of the population wants, to be on top of the pile however shitty a pile it may be. It is up to the rest of us to vote accordingly.
Private schools harm society as a whole.
i agree but i’m sending my kids there. you can’t muck about when it comes to your own kids.
Fully understand why someone chooses to. I would right now too.
Meet the new boss same as the old boss.
I’ll be honest, I like to criticise him as much as you do and I’m going to assume this is posted to highlight that it’s private sector financing but we are in desperate need of all those things and if it can also stimulate the economy at the same time it can’t be a bad thing?
It won’t work though. It’s basically just PFI from the Mayor/Blair years.
Labour lead over Conservatives may be overstated, says Tory election expert
Exclusive: Robert Hayward, who identified ‘shy Tories’ in 1992, suggests the party is winning support from undecided voters
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...conservatives-overstated-tory-election-expert
Some of the polls before the general election may be overstating Labour’s huge lead over the Conservatives, a Tory election expert has said.
According to Robert Hayward, a peer and former MP who first identified the phenomenon of “shy Tories” before the 1992 election, his analysis of local election results suggests that the Conservatives are getting more support from voters who say they are undecided than is showing up in the polls.
“About 33 years on, I am yet again convinced that a statistical bias exists in the polls,” he said.
Polling in the run-up to the election has shown commanding leads for Labour of more than 20 points in some surveys, such as YouGov, while others, such as Opinium, show a gap of about 14.
Exclusive: Robert Hayward, who identified ‘shy Tories’ in 1992, suggests the party is winning support from undecided voters
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...conservatives-overstated-tory-election-expert
Some of the polls before the general election may be overstating Labour’s huge lead over the Conservatives, a Tory election expert has said.
According to Robert Hayward, a peer and former MP who first identified the phenomenon of “shy Tories” before the 1992 election, his analysis of local election results suggests that the Conservatives are getting more support from voters who say they are undecided than is showing up in the polls.
“About 33 years on, I am yet again convinced that a statistical bias exists in the polls,” he said.
Polling in the run-up to the election has shown commanding leads for Labour of more than 20 points in some surveys, such as YouGov, while others, such as Opinium, show a gap of about 14.
This national service thing is so silly, I assume the military is against it. Why would they want unmotivated people forced to be there?
Worked against the boche innit
It will work in the sense that things will get done, as @Pexbo says, but it is primarily a form of dishonest borrowing to keep the investment off the government balance sheet, and I would prefer honest borrowing personally. It's arguable whether private companies will be more or less efficient, my knowledge of railway privatisation says less, and also that a private company's motive will be profit before service, but I am biased. It also won't be good for staff at the lower levels, but possibly more lucrative for those higher up, depending on performance.
My instinct is against PFI, but I'm mindful that Gordon Brown thought it necessary in order to invest, and he was a seriously good chancellor and knows a hell of a lot more than I do.
There are a lot of roles that untrained people can do in the military that puts the burden away from full time serviceman.
I completely disagree with national service on concept and principle, but "military wouldn't want them" is not a valid argument.
Wouldn't it be a waste of resources? Spending time and money on people who will feck off at the first opportunity doesn't seem like a good investment. If the "slave" labour makes up for it, then I'll concede the point.
People tend to underestimate just how mundane the average soldier's life is, outside of deployment.
Even on deployment, 90% of it is "sit around and wait for something, anything, to happen, because you are so bored."
I once sat in an office (with one other person) in Kabul waiting for a confirmation from HUMINT assets that a person of interest has entered a car. That person didn't leave his home for 3 fecking days, so we sat there for close to 72 hours, taking it in turns to sleep, nap, piss around and entertain ourselves in the meantime.
Even on deployment, 90% of it is "sit around and wait for something, anything, to happen, because you are so bored."
I once sat in an office (with one other person) in Kabul waiting for a confirmation from HUMINT assets that a person of interest has entered a car. That person didn't leave his home for 3 fecking days, so we sat there for close to 72 hours, taking it in turns to sleep, nap, piss around and entertain ourselves in the meantime.
Yeah, I've read many times over the years that the army doesn't want national service, they are keen to be seen as proud professionals. I dare say the likes of the Telegraph will be able to find some ancient Colonel Blimp somewhere to say what they want to hear, but the army as a whole is against. National service will be expensive, and if that money is to be spent on the army it would be better spent on the likes of more Territorials, enthusiastic people who want to be there and who will fight effectively if required. It is the bleeding army after all. I would be for that personally.
The average day of a soldier not on deployment consists of marching, exercising, weapons cleaning, a few hours of advanced weapons training for specialists, more exercising, more cleaning. Then after 5-6pm if you're in the UK, you can piss around for a few hours before going to bed. That usually involves...well have a few drinks, chat, some psycho's do even more exercise, and then everyone's in bed by about 10pm max.
Put an 18 year old into this routine for a period of time, I don't see any significant cost of resources or harm to them. Might lower the obesity rate as well.
As for roles that a non-trained soldier can do, there are lots. If you have a HGV license (or the conscript is willing to take a course that gets you one) and the military equivalent, you can ferry supplies back and forth. If you speak a second language, you can provide second opinions on certain transcriptions and texts, if you have exceptional fitness you can be the lead pacemaker for certain long marches or runs. There's a lot of stuff they can do.
I hope to god the proposal isn't to actually send any of these people to combat regions or deployments though, that would be utterly insane.
But i'm against conscription/national service as a whole anyway. Statistically proven conscripts do not fight well.
- Status