Time to get a VPN then - John Oliver really hates the Tories
General Election 2024
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
- Status
They originally said the money raised (which is questionable) would go to improving state schools. Now it's going to nurseries in primary schools. Next week it will be going somewhere else I expect. The whole thing has already been pushed back a year.
None of this answers the question of where are the classrooms coming from and who is going to look after all these kids, considering they've already got 2000 teaching vacancies they can't fill.
It's a good policy in theory but practically it doesn't work at all and a lot of kids are going to lose out from it over the next few years.
It’s something that my wife and I have discussed/debated/argued over as I went to private school and she didn’t.
The extra factor in our case is that our daughter has Down Syndrome and so will need SEND support when she goes into FT education.
My views were/are that factors such as smaller class sizes, more funding for SEND, would give our girl a better outlook from her education.
I guess it’s the same mental gymnastics as the NHS - as a single man I was ‘private healthcare over my dead body’ but now, whilst I still adore the concept of the NHS, it’s not a hill I’d be willing to die on if my daughter is in need and the NHS can’t provide what she needs.
Kemi Badenoch compares Labour equal pay plans to apartheid South Africa policies
Badenoch continues with her reasonable comments and comparisons.
Badenoch continues with her reasonable comments and comparisons.
Again, we're going to have to agree to disagree.
The numbers you're saying may be the case for your private school, which is great for you and your family but is demonstrably not the average.
And I don't see how a class war is a war between low income earners.....and other low income earners. Nor do I accept, or ever accept, that low income earners could send their kids to private school, unless they on bursaries, or family money they're not telling others about.
Almost a third of kids in this country are in poverty. The line between poverty for them and going to private school is not simply a couple more sacrifices from the parents.
Out of interest (if you don't mind answering), what are your wife's arguments against if not financial?
The latter point I find slightly strange to be honest. Not a criticism of you but just how much the NHS is a religion in this country. To see Starmer and Sunak both insist they would never use private healthcare in a debate, as if they were being asked if they'd ever murder someone, when a large number of OECD countries manage to have a mixed private/public model with universal coverage without the excesses brought about by American healthcare is genuinely really odd to me.
Re: NHS it’s a huge battle between ideology and pragmatism. Ideologically I would loathe to go private as the NHS should be able to provide what’s needed in a timely fashion, and it’s Tory mismanagement that’s lead to it failing in that regard. But, if my daughter is ill and it’s a choice between waiting 6mths for a referral via a GP, or paying…whatever…and having her seen tomorrow, we’ll find a way of getting that money.
Re: my wife's argument against private eduction. As a state-school teacher herself they're mostly ideological, along the lines of "Should we pay for the privilage of smaller classes, better funded support etc, or should we fight to make the local state schools better?". There are also social factors to consider such as, with the nearest option being quite a distance away it would potentially impact on her circle of friends. We also have a clear pathway from nursery -> primary school, and so if she continued that she'd be staying with a decent cohort of kids she already knows, helping her to bed in to the new environment as and when she progresses.
This is an excellent point. People don't realize that when the media say middle class, that is far far away from the average family in the UK.
That is a fair argument for a family.
But the fact that the government, who is in charge of state schools and responsible for making them better, is more concerned about private schools is what has led to this situation in the first place.
A small percentage is going to state schools, IFS assumed an additional 300m would be required from students moving from private to state. Nursery provisions is only costed at 140 million.
I'm not sure why 11101 seems not to understand that 1.6bn can be allocated to multiple things at once.
A lot of schools cannot afford to do that. They are run as charites. Others do keep the prices down as much as they can in order to boost admissions.
Our school is looking into providing a fee discount on the extra 20% increase from VAT by off-setting it against the VAT they will claim back for VATable services which they currently do not claim back on.
This policy will have no effect on the elites, they will just rinse the government for even more VAT by doing massive infrastructure and development projects, it will hurt the little independents.
#
I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment but until such time that the fight is won for state schools my children will have missed out therefore I would say choice is to do both, fight for better state education while at the same time provide children with the best education if possible. This inadvertently also helps state schools as it reduced the amount of children in their classes.
Some data to help perspective of the Percentage in private school at each rung of the income ladder, taken from https://www.pepf.co.uk/fact-finder/facts-and-figures/
The average is increased from elite schools, international students and London schools.
I have just looked at the independent schools close to our area, ours charged £3.8k per term (will increase this year for sure), another charges £5.3k per term another £5.2k another £4.1k, per term and another £4.3k per term. We are fairly close to London as well so prices are expected to be higher.
While the mean average may be what you said before, I would say the mode average is about £15k a year.
I don't think it's meant to hurt the elite, it is there to provide funding for nursery provisions in state schools and therefore help the less fortunate. The guys in the middle get stung a little.
Some data to help perspective of the Percentage in private school at each rung of the income ladder, taken from https://www.pepf.co.uk/fact-finder/facts-and-figures/
All you're going to see is the chart skewed even further to the right as the top earners pull further ahead from the rest.
The education budget is over 100 billion. It's going to require orders of magnitude more than 300m to cater for the additional pupils and bring state schools up to standard. Otherwise all you do is take kids out of good schools and chuck them all into bad ones. If that's the equality the government is going for then we're truly fecked.
The IFS study is obsolete as the landscape has changed significantly since it was done.
Incorrect the schools budget is about 55 billion, so only 45 billion out. A significant chunk of that is non-standard pupil funding so actually much less is applicable. The kids moving from private are on the lower end of the budget cost. The 300 million is just to cover increased pupil overheard (which will still be less than the reduced class sizes predicted in coming years).
You keep making false claims whilst claiming the actual analysis is incorrect. Do you have an alternative source to substantiate anything you're saying?
It's an easy mistake to make if you just google education budget uk, but that includes adult education, student loans, early years and higher education amongst loads of other things. The schools budget for the 24/25 year is 60 billion and that's split into revenue funding, teachers salaries, pensions and day to day running of the school and capital funding, new buildings and fixing dodgy concrete etc. So the only bit really effected is revenue funding.
What if we charged more for university education with the extra money being earned used to supplement primary/secondary education?
Currently students should be being charged around 12k a year for universities to break even. The plan was for those fees to keep increasing so that institutions are not undermined by inflation. You would need a very large increase to fees to make this possible, and then some way for fees to be administered centrally, rather than at each institution at present. The extra administration would cost money too.
Personally, I think we could follow Piketty et al and start taxing wealth more.
I think most people would love nothing more than this, but I don't see how it's possible as long as we're obsessed with free movement of capital etc. As far as I remember only Switzerland and Norway do this in Europe, and then only to a small degree.
Maybe there are some creative solutions for it though, I'm no expert on.
I should know that because I work at a university (non-academic) but I didn't so thanks for explaining.
Ironically the UK government can exercise more control than most, considering the amount of British Overseas Territories involved in facilitating that movement of capital. Your point stands though.
True, and I suppose their immediate reply to a reigning it in would be that it would deprive Britain of much needed tax revenue as it would just allow similar territories not under British control to do exactly the same. I think it would have to be a massive collective effort on all fronts from a large group of countries, making it impossible to dodge. Would probably have to involve pretty radical measures, so unfortunately I think it will remain a dream.
I said education budget.
And you are talking like 60 billion isn't much now. The 300m is just what was estimated to provide the current standard of schooling for the number of private school kids transferring over. Now the policy is becoming real we realise many more kids than previously thought will move, so up that number for starters.
Then, the policy is not just about penalising 'the rich' is it? Or more accurately penalising kids because their parents made some money. Supposedly its about using the money to improve education for all but thats clearly bollocks too. Potentially 6000 new teachers so thats another 200m or so to find on an average of 30k. But then hold on they can't recruit the 2000 they already have budget for so where are the 6000 going to come from? And what happens to the kids who are in hugely oversubscribed classes in the years it takes to find and train them all?
Then the really expensive bit, building the additional facilities and classrooms to put all these new teachers and kids in.
They're already rowing back on it and it wouldn't surprise me to see it watered down by the time it's implemented. We talk about evil Tory policies but feck me, holding kids back to score political points is as evil as anything Sunak & Co have dreamt up. There's a reason this shit is outlawed in the EU.
The 6000 teachers are presumably in addition to the around 44000 that leave every year and need to be replaced - making 50000 in total?
"Holding kids back" = potentially putting them through state education. "As evil as anything Sunak and Co have dreamt up".
Get a grip.
They're additional teaching positions. But as I say they can't fill the ones they already have.
My kids have a state education, it’s fine, the school’s good, they love it and are doing well. There’s nothing ‘evil’ about kids getting a state education.
This is genuinely the most ridiculous thing I’ve read in this thread, you made me laugh out loud!
"Holding kids back" by Labour is worse than pushing hundreds of thousands of kids into poverty. Cool.
That's hyperbole at best.
Great, I'm glad for you that your kids are getting a good state education. Thousands of kids do not and with this policy thousands more will not.
A little break from the normal opinion polls.
Arsonist unhappy that building is on fire.
- Status