Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by jsmoke, Nov 23, 2019.
The Independant eh, i'll have to look into this, because i'm extremely sceptical.
Actually compared to Germany, Norway, Finland, Sweden, and many others, it does.
Look at where we are. A sort of median position. But then look at the countries worse than us. The likes of Romania, Bulgaria, Latvia, Spain. All the countries we normally compare ourselves with (mostly on economic grounds) - they all rank better than us.
For a country of our economic strength, we are hugely unequal, and we have the worst poverty for our economic output.
But just as important is our trajectory. Poverty in this country is getting worse, not better.
It was widely reported at the time, inc the BBC et al.
Doing a few google searches, it would seem people perceptions of housing not fit for purpose is extremely high..
32m people think the house is not fit for purpose.
I do find there is a disconnect here, if the house is not fit for purpose...
1. Don't rent it, check it over thoroughly before moving in.
2. Take pictures and gather evidence as soon as you see the problems.
3. Badger the landlord/letting agency until it is fit for purpose.
4. Send legal letters until something is done, the landlord will get off his arse pretty dam quickly.
Something is not quite right with all this..
Yes i've seen that page before. But you should read this this page as well..
Poverty is much lower than the stats as they are based on surveys, there is a massive hole in what the UK give in benefits and what the lower end of poverty is.Basically people are not truthful with how much they receive from government.
@Trusty Take a look at the rental market in London and some of the craziness that's been going on there.
Like dividing a single home into 10+ (!) rooms/dwellings, putting up dividing plasterboard walls that divide a small window in two, and cramming migrant workers in. 10+ to a house.
They've been closing them down recently but stuff like that was commonplace.
Then of course you've got all the old and decaying property in the North of the country. Where there is a lot of housing but no work. The houses there are in a really shocking state, and often councils don't know what to do about it.
But they're generally not businesses, if they existed to make a profit and had shareholders etc.. then sure you'd tax them. They don't though, they use the fees generated to provide education and to fund the free places/scholarships they offer there isn't any profit to tax.
You could argue that the fees should have VAT charged - but the parents are saving the state money, seems pretty fair that this would be something that would be VAT exempt, education is mandated by law after all. You don't pay VAT on your tuition fees at university either!
That's rather convoluted - if anything it saves the state sector money - if you scrapped private schools overnight then you'd suddenly have a load more teachers salaries to pay for and a load more pupils/schools to fund etc... It isn't like the parents will suddenly advocate for higher taxes, they'll just make sure to move to wherever the best state schools are, all you'd be achieving is the trashing of some good schools and the pricing out of more people in the catchment areas of good state schools.
You'll suddenly get more lapsed Catholics attending mass again etc... to get into the local Catholic school - not because Catholics are necessarily genetically superior but those state schools have some barrier to entry and it reduces the % of scumbags attending. That's got little to do with funding and more about selectivity.
Essentially you'll just shift the selective element to other means like house prices and religion and arguably that is a less fair system.
You'll not be able to stop parents from hiring private tutors, sending their kids on study weekends or off to some easter revision intensive etc..
Yea, i don't disagree London will have places like that, there is a lot of people in London. Im in the north, options are plentiful, i can go onto any number of rental websites and pick a handful of properties to rent which look in absolutely fine condition, all within the same price range. I don't recognise that statement about the north.
It's nice to see that Labour hasn't lost its commitment to the dead hand of the state. Under no circumstances no matter how much of a sacrifice you are willing to make shall you be able to avoid the state taking responsibility for your children.
The irony is since Anthony Crosland killed the Grammar schools in the late 60's social mobility has dropped. Time was bright kids from poor backgrounds could excel at school and lift themselves into professional roles. I accept that the Grammar/Secondary Modern route was failing some but it was succeeding spectacularly for others, the Comprehensive System that has followed has actually helped restore and strengthen the link between wealth and success with the postcode catchment system allowing the better off to live near better schools.
I have relatives that went to Wolverhampton Grammar and The Girls High respectively (before Crosland) and even though they had to leave school at 16 to work it set them on paths where both ended up university lecturers. One of them was a peer of Sir Mervyn King ex head of the BoE. Both the Grammar and Girls High are now independent schools. Labour did more for the resurgence of the independent sector than anyone else with the abolishment of Grammar schools.
Quite frankly if you pay your tax, then choose to pay to send your children to an independent school then the state should keep it's nose out. Not everyone who sends their kids there is uber rich many middle class professionals make large sacrifices to do so. Career sergeants in the armed forces get independent schooling for the kids paid for by the forces. And many bursaries exist for the bright or talented.
This policy is a great example of Labour at its worst and is exactly then kind policy that ensures their crack pot ideas remain firmly out of Government. The World has moved on from their class war based on envy, many think I hope I'm successful enough to send my kids to independent school it's aspirational. But this Labour party finds aspiration an anathema.
Anyway good luck finding places and funding for 615,000 pupils if this ever goes through, working on the £5,000 a head thats only another £3Bn to find on the magic money tree.
But doesn't all that just point to a failing state education?
It wouldn't be "aspiratoinal" and middle-class professionals wouldn't be struggling to send their kids there, if state schools were worth a damn.
But we know (I've seen first hand despite not having kids of my own) the different outcomes between those kids that go to state school and those that get privately educated.
I don't disagree it's night-and-day in terms of the different outcomes. The privately educated in my family have not only gone on to have brilliant academic careers, they've also been award-winning musicians. The state-educated, whilst not poor or lacking as people, have become blue-collar workers on middling incomes. Any academic prospects are left to rot in state schools - unless you are the top 10% of pupils who they just about manage to nurture. But most state school pupils get a a conveyor-belt experience because there just isn't resources to nurture them.
So yes I agree private school is aspirational and is a better education.
That's the point. Our state schools are failing a great deal of our children.
Aspiring to raise your own kids out of the malaise is just fixing the problem for your own kids. That's obvious, no?
Yes, the UK is good but it could be better — Sorry if pointing that out offends your patriotic disposition.
I'd like to see the UK get over the ingrained class system and all of the toxic attitudes that it breeds (at all levels of society, this isn't just a pop at the rich).
I believe that having a more integrated education system would be one step towards achieving that, but it's all a bit 'chicken and egg'. As this thread shows, we would need to break down some of those attitudes before the concept of reducing or removing private schools could even be accepted, never mind implemented.
It's not going to happen overnight but let's say that by the year 2100, I'd like to see the UK look more like the Nordic/Scandinavian countries + Germany than the USA (in many ways, not just education — it's all interlinked).
How much more integrated than 93% of all pupils are in state education does it need to get? What is so different about Nordic Schools? The UK isn't the segregated South of the 1960's.
Trying to equate Nordic countries to the UK has always been false equivalency.
Finland has just over 1 million students in education, the UK 10 million. In fact all the Nordic countries added together have roughly half of the UKs school population. If the school populations of the Nordic countries doubled overnight they would have problems.
Denmark still has private schools that are heavily state funded. Sweden runs the independent school policy similar to our academies that is state funded, don't allow admission fees but allow parents to make donations.
Because it creates a disproportionate two-tier system that differentiates based on the parent’s ability to pay, rather than the child’s ability.
Your chances of gaining a place in a Russell Group university are higher if you’ve attending private school (with equal exam results). The majority of high level officials, from judges to top civil servants to high-ranking military positions are filled with ex-private school students. It perpetuates a system of reduced social mobility. Furthermore, by segregating the top 7% from the rest, it reduces the opportunity for social interaction between those groups, reducing understanding and empathy and perpetuating the class divide.
What kind of nonsense is this?
Finland Population: 5.5m, 1/5.5 = 18.2%
Uk Population 66.4m 10/ 66.4 = 15%
So Finland can afford to send a high proportion of people into education.
So could you apply the Finland model to the US covering 57 million students? Or is there a factor called scalability.
I must say, I didn't realise that having money and doing well in an aptitude test means you can't be a scumbag, my experience certainly has been at odds with that.
Well no, there are various good state schools, some of them grammar schools others simply comprehensives in wealthy areas.
Depends where they live in part - but regardless why the need to drag them down? Is it just jealousy?
How does trashing private schools help with that?
Note also that various private schools were at one point Grammar Schools - this sort of ideological jealousy ended up with various Grammar schools being scrapped and some becoming private schools.
The state sector would be better off introducing more grammar schools IMO instead of the current set up with relatively few and a better school experience available to those who can either pay the property prices or have the right religion.
No, the state sector would be better off providing a fantastic education suitable for ALL. Not based on how much Daddy earns or what your postcode is, It also needs to stop this utter failed policy of needing a degree to be worthwhile which seemingly all the little darling munchkins have been hoodwinked over again just to fund more debt from day 1.... The Tory way.
Longer time in education possible even 21 before you even think about knocking the door at university.
Of course if your child is suitably gifted then by all means have a system to jump to the front, but these are rare.
Except the abolition of Grammar schools was a Labour achievement. The extension of university education to a 50% target was a Labour achievement.
No that was New Labour.... Tory's in disguise but in all honesty it was a good idea badly implemented and wrecked by tuition fees
Separate names with a comma.