1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Labour propose to abolish fee paying schools

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by jsmoke, Nov 23, 2019.

  1. efish

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jan 11, 2014

    Posts: 1,636

    I don't think anything that is not resolved by negotiation, compromise and consent is a good thing.

    The issues are clear. Tax situation is controversial. Perceived issue with social cohesion shared by both Labour the Conservatives in regard to private schools.

    The message has been clear. Increase the 1% receiving scholarships and bursaries, ensure the mix here is more social inclusive: wider partnership with state schools, shared use of resources etc. This is in areas like sports facilities, music, drama, an area where public schools excel and actual also receive specific state subsidy.

    Movement on the first issue has been non-existent. Movement on the second painfully slow and I think schools have only really moved when they have received relatively generous funding and have been paid by the state for outreach work.

    Not all independent schools are the same boat, some are endowment rich and have significant resources not all are in that position. Its also the nature of old institutions to be slow moving and change resistant. This may down to a small number of schools an 'old school big beast issue' causing significant issues for the rest.

    They have been asked to alter behavior. They have not. Scottish government has steeped in with a medium sized stick.

    Long tradition with the U.K. government to use Scotland as a test case. If the government increases its tax take and some unpredictable issue does not occur (mass bankruptcy/ public discontent) what do you think will happen next?

    I suspect Scotland changed the law through the rates as it may have no power in regard to legislating the charity law. I don't know but it seems clear that more could happen.

    Whatever schools are being asked to reform they are not, this is the result. When government spending is tight and public spending is under-strain bad things happen, public services are gutted people are left high and dry.

    That's never a good thing.

    If you are sanctioned by social security and have to use a food bank to feed you're kids or if you have to remove you're kids from a top fee paying school as you can no longer pay. That's a traumatic event in the lives of children.

    When is that ever a good thing or the right thing to do?

    Horrifying decisions are made everyday in the name of the economy.

    In our socially divided bitter and twisted world we can sleep comfortable with some decisions and get angry about others.

    We have grown apart and we have become comfortable with it.

    Things need to change on all sides. Our institutions need to alter, we have to alter and we have to ensure the well-being of the next generation who cannot yet stand and fend for itself.
     
  2. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 46,826

    I wasn't asking to reiterate general points about private schools but rather your views on the changes to the rates they pay? AFAIK this is a bit of a red herring as state schools receive a rebate.

    IMO if there is a stark difference between the amount paid then surely it would be better to address the rebate situation on the state side than to levy additional tax institutions that provide education services and ultimately save the state money.
     
  3. efish

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jan 11, 2014

    Posts: 1,636

    I don't know the issues you clearly haven't read them as the state school thing is a red herring. The initial report this is based on two recommendations. One in regard to private schools one in regard to university (someone made a general point here earlier in the thread in regard to this).

    Uni continues to get the break. Independent schools are exclusively loosing here.

    The response to the report (I linked to) detailed the response to this. I did not read it, don't have time to digest it so did not mention it.

    Both you and I don't know how the Scottish government is limited in what road it can go down here. I am not aware of the degree its free to act and where its constricted both in negotiation with the independent sector and in regard to legislation.

    But it will be constrained to a degree as it does not have the same legislative range or freedom as Westminster.

    Economic detail is not my strong point. This is also not simply economic matter as the courts, have already dealt with this extensively and have made very clear, the issue is a political one and the issue is in regard to (a) the nature of charitable status and (b.) a perceived link between the educational system and social cohesion.

    Here the S.N.P seem to have side stepped the issue and presented it so far as a case of economic rationalization.

    I can understand the legal and political argument to a degree, I am used to dealing and evaluating legal texts, the economic one is beyond my scope I am not a former chairman of the Royal bank of Scotland.

    I don't think a discussion of economics is a red herring I just don't have the background or education to say very much about it or reach an informed conclusion.

    Primarily the matter has been and will be a legal matter and if its disputed (it clearly will as it has been in the past) it will be resolved here. The legal conclusion is clear, before the courts can move further the politic issues need to be resolved by legislation.

    As the Scottish parliament does not have full legislative powers its difficult to call but no reason to think this may be something of a fudge or placeholder in what will end up being wider U.K. legislative change.

    Again this is not simply going to be resolved by presenting an economic argument as its an educational and social issue.
     
  4. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 46,826

    I didn't ask you to present an economic argument I asked you for your views.

    I'm not really sure why holding a position as Chairman of a Bank necessarily makes someone an economics expert either.

    So do you not have an opinion yourself here?
     
  5. efish

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jan 11, 2014

    Posts: 1,636

    You asked a specific question about rates. I can't answer that as I don't know the detail so can't form an opinion. I can however make perfectly valid points where I do have some understanding and you are free to disagree if you want.

    You are also free to entirely ignore and dismiss the points I am making as you are doing.

    I would suggest however that while you are free to express an opinion about what is relevant or not I am also free to consider you're question to be irrelevant, based on over- generalization and not related to the evidence, I am also at liberty to offer a differing perspective and use a different evidence base to do so.

    That's the nature of debate you don't get to dictate the terms and I would suggest that asking a question when you cannot find the time to even read the material you are seeking to comment on or properly frame the question is less than helpful in regard to serious discussion of the matter, in my opinion.

    p.s Dowie I suspect we may not agree on much but I am not ignoring what you are saying and I am trying to answer in the best way I can by giving an opinion on what I do know which you may disagree with (I have no idea you seek to always change the subject to the economics) but is certainly relevant and central to this issue.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2019
  6. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 46,826

    Again I've not changed the subject to economics - you seemed to want to divert into a whole load of stuff rather than answering the question, some of which was just repeating what you'd already said on the topic in general when you could have just said you don't hold an opinion either way. All I did was ask a question and then try again after I didn't get an answer to it. That isn't me dictating terms, I'm not sure your comment about "cannot find the time to even read or properly frame the question" is warranted - I've simply asked for your views.
     
  7. efish

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jan 11, 2014

    Posts: 1,636




    I can't read you're mind only what you had originally written and I would respectfully suggest that this is why you perceived the reply to be unrelated to you're specific concern.

    You're question was general to start with and I responded to it. It then got detailed when you did not like the response and you then suggested I had not answered the specific question about rates you did not specifically ask in the first place.

    You're criticism

    Its actually Universities that are receiving a rebate that the report suggested should also be revoked.That's an issue with the report

    You expressed criticism. Rejected the views I did express based on you're opinion that I was presenting an irrelevant topic. With posts discussion is often terse I could perhaps have framed it better. My perception here was pot kettle black.

    I would suggest both of us have misread and misunderstood where we are both coming from.

    You thought I was trying to deflect and change the subject. I thought you were constantly shifting the goal posts.
     
  8. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 46,826


    I was just trying to get an answer/opinion on a specific point and your posts gave a lengthy reply that didn't seem to address it and repeated views on the topic in general that's all :)
     
  9. efish

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jan 11, 2014

    Posts: 1,636

    I think that was the place to leave things and agree rather than further attempts at justification. If you want an answer to a very specific question then ask it first time rather than deploying the detail you require retrospectively and overly critically.

    Clearly its not want you deliberately intend but if you are on the receiving end of it its how it comes across.
     
  10. efish

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jan 11, 2014

    Posts: 1,636

    p.s in regard to you're specific point. I think such moves wither right or wrong are going to happen if internal reform is not made and gave the wider detail as to why I think that is the case.

    As you note I have stated that view more than once.

    I have also clearly stated that I view direct government intervention as the worst case option and self regulation as the preferred option, again more than once.

    My own conclusion is that independent schools have not been swift to respond to concerns of both Labour, Conservative & S.N.P.

    The schools have under regulated and the danger is the state will step in and over- regulate.

    I would further note that my opinion is shared across the political perspective although its framed slightly differently by right wing conservatives who present the political spin that reform is needed or else envy driven Labour will burn everything down.

    That's a nakedly political spin as past proposed Conservative policy to remove tax advantage demonstrates here. Its the attempt to frame Conservative proposals as the lesser of two evils.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2019
  11. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 46,826

    I'm sorry but you were the one waffling on with a wall of text, twice, which seemed to mostly deal with the topic in general rather than simply replying to the question. Like I said already if you didn't actually have a view or didn't want to share it then you could have said so.