'Labour's chairman is backing a campaign to abolish all private schools, with party delegates set to consider the policy at their annual conference this month. Ian Lavery has thrown his weight behind the Labour Against Private Schools movement which wants all fee-paying schools brought into the state sector.'
Their class obsession will cost taxpayers billions, overload state schools creating huge class sizes, transfer enormous salary and pensions costs on to the exchequer, require massive building costs, and is idiotic
Exactly, this Labour party is the most leftwing, class war dominated since Foot's if not worse
'Labour's chairman is backing a campaign to abolish all private schools, with party delegates set to consider the policy at their annual conference this month. Ian Lavery has thrown his weight behind the Labour Against Private Schools movement which wants all fee-paying schools brought into the state sector.'
Their class obsession will cost taxpayers billions, overload state schools creating huge class sizes, transfer enormous salary and pensions costs on to the exchequer, require massive building costs, and is idiotic
Against that, when Jo Johnson resigned, I could post here more than a dozen Conservative MPs who went to the same school, and there were a few I missed. Is that desirable? What the cure is, I don't know, but it cannot be healthy that a small group of schools dominates entry to politics (all parties), the media, the professions and even sport.
'Labour's chairman is backing a campaign to abolish all private schools, with party delegates set to consider the policy at their annual conference this month. Ian Lavery has thrown his weight behind the Labour Against Private Schools movement which wants all fee-paying schools brought into the state sector.'
Their class obsession will cost taxpayers billions, overload state schools creating huge class sizes, transfer enormous salary and pensions costs on to the exchequer, require massive building costs, and is idiotic
Bringing fee paying schools into the state sector is highly problematic because:
1) Their classrooms tend to be too small for the numbers of children required to make the state sector viable;
2) Their salary structures are frequently radically different, in both directions. Making the necessary changes to bring them into lien with the state sector would be - complicated.
3) They are often in inconvenient locations (would Denstone or Wellington or Cokethorpe thrive in the state sector)?
4) A very large number of their pupils don't come from the immediate locality, so it might create unexpected stresses in other places.
As against that:
1) Private schools are struggling anyway due to a sluggish economy and soaring costs. Pension changes in particular are going to be brutally difficult to manage. We have already lost one local school in Staffs (the staff were sacked by text message while at a school event) for these reasons.
2) Some private schools - Bristol Cathedral and Royal Wolverhampton - have successfully transitioned recently so it clearly isn't impossible to do it in the right circumstances.
There is a really excellent article I read on this recently in the Stoke Sentinel. Well worth a read.
But equally, it's Ian Lavery, a man who thinks his resignation to take up a job as MP deserves a redundancy payment. His opinions are as worthless as his pledged word.
In Canada it looks likely Trudeau will lose his majority but as you say he is still tied with the Tories for largest party and still narrowly leads as preferred PM
Do you think Trudeau could do a deal with either the Greens or the NDP who are both polling at 12% nationally?
I expect some of the Green and NDP vote will go to the Liberals by polling day, I doubt there will be an official deal
The significance of Ontario makes the disparity in polling unhelpful. An 11 point Liberal lead would suggest Trudeau holding most of the 80 seats won last time and perhaps picking up one or two more (Liberals won Ontario by 10 points last time) but if the Conservatives are level that would suggest 25 losses for the Liberals which would slash Trudeau's majority. The other question for me is whether we will see a Conservative comeback in Quebec.
Trudeau's majority will be slashed but I expect his Liberals will scrape home with most seats just ahead of the Canadian Tories.
The Liberals are comfortably ahead in Quebec on 37% to 20% for the Tories and 19% for the Bloc Quebecois on the poll you linked to
Good for him, The Telegraph is rubbish nowadays, only the sports pages are still worth reading.
My Telegraph subscription has not long to run and I'm struggling for reasons to renew. Plato used to link there a lot, which is why I signed up in the first place (although I soon came to doubt she ever read half the stuff she linked to, and possibly none at all by the end) but its relentless, one-note, wall-to-wall Boris and Brexit coverage is wearing and not even especially insightful.
There was a time when I read Telegraph, Times, Guardian, and Independent, and I thought the Telegraph to be the best written of the four. The thing that was particularly good about The Telegraph in the old days is that even if you didn't agree with the politics of the paper there was a clear divide between the comment and news, and the news was generally very well written and serious.
Nowadays the Telegraph is a shadow of its former self, there is less news coverage, which is often poor, there is acres of drivel, and ludicrous comment pieces promoted as great insight which are laughably shallow and full of errors. The Telegraph is simply not a good newspaper anymore.
'Labour's chairman is backing a campaign to abolish all private schools, with party delegates set to consider the policy at their annual conference this month. Ian Lavery has thrown his weight behind the Labour Against Private Schools movement which wants all fee-paying schools brought into the state sector.'
Their class obsession will cost taxpayers billions, overload state schools creating huge class sizes, transfer enormous salary and pensions costs on to the exchequer, require massive building costs, and is idiotic
Bringing fee paying schools into the state sector is highly problematic because:
1) Their classrooms tend to be too small for the numbers of children required to make the state sector viable;
2) Their salary structures are frequently radically different, in both directions. Making the necessary changes to bring them into lien with the state sector would be - complicated.
3) They are often in inconvenient locations (would Denstone or Wellington or Cokethorpe thrive in the state sector)?
4) A very large number of their pupils don't come from the immediate locality, so it might create unexpected stresses in other places.
As against that:
1) Private schools are struggling anyway due to a sluggish economy and soaring costs. Pension changes in particular are going to be brutally difficult to manage. We have already lost one local school in Staffs (the staff were sacked by text message while at a school event) for these reasons.
2) Some private schools - Bristol Cathedral and Royal Wolverhampton - have successfully transitioned recently so it clearly isn't impossible to do it in the right circumstances.
There is a really excellent article I read on this recently in the Stoke Sentinel. Well worth a read.
But equally, it's Ian Lavery, a man who thinks his resignation to take up a job as MP deserves a redundancy payment. His opinions are as worthless as his pledged word.
Private Schools have their place in our education just as private health care. They both relieve the public sector of billions of pounds of extra spending and of course many private schools have dozens of foreign students
There can be no justification for abolishing them other than living under a marxist regime
Good for him, The Telegraph is rubbish nowadays, only the sports pages are still worth reading.
My Telegraph subscription has not long to run and I'm struggling for reasons to renew. Plato used to link there a lot, which is why I signed up in the first place (although I soon came to doubt she ever read half the stuff she linked to, and possibly none at all by the end) but its relentless, one-note, wall-to-wall Boris and Brexit coverage is wearing and not even especially insightful.
As a matter of interest, which columnist do you read ?
But that article, the prorogation, and everything else was intended to goad parliament into blocking no deal. Bozo wanted to be stopped. What they didn't reckon on was being trapped in power unable to play victim in an early election.
'Labour's chairman is backing a campaign to abolish all private schools, with party delegates set to consider the policy at their annual conference this month. Ian Lavery has thrown his weight behind the Labour Against Private Schools movement which wants all fee-paying schools brought into the state sector.'
Their class obsession will cost taxpayers billions, overload state schools creating huge class sizes, transfer enormous salary and pensions costs on to the exchequer, require massive building costs, and is idiotic
Bringing fee paying schools into the state sector is highly problematic because:
1) Their classrooms tend to be too small for the numbers of children required to make the state sector viable;
2) Their salary structures are frequently radically different, in both directions. Making the necessary changes to bring them into lien with the state sector would be - complicated.
3) They are often in inconvenient locations (would Denstone or Wellington or Cokethorpe thrive in the state sector)?
4) A very large number of their pupils don't come from the immediate locality, so it might create unexpected stresses in other places.
As against that:
1) Private schools are struggling anyway due to a sluggish economy and soaring costs. Pension changes in particular are going to be brutally difficult to manage. We have already lost one local school in Staffs (the staff were sacked by text message while at a school event) for these reasons.
2) Some private schools - Bristol Cathedral and Royal Wolverhampton - have successfully transitioned recently so it clearly isn't impossible to do it in the right circumstances.
There is a really excellent article I read on this recently in the Stoke Sentinel. Well worth a read.
But equally, it's Ian Lavery, a man who thinks his resignation to take up a job as MP deserves a redundancy payment. His opinions are as worthless as his pledged word.
Private Schools have their place in our education just as private health care. They both relieve the public sector of billions of pounds of extra spending and of course many private schools have dozens of foreign students
There can be no justification for abolishing them other than living under a marxist regime
If Corbyn and McDonnell get a Labour majority we would soon be a Marxist regime, thankfully that prospect is rather less likely now than it looked in summer 2017
Re: next cabinet exit. If I was going to put money on it, Nicky Morgan feels like the one.
She last tweeted (on local matters) last night about the time Rudd quit. She was in the same group as Rudd who kicked off about the 21 expulsions, and was a similarly odd choice for the BJ cabinet.
I guess Julian Smith is another possible.
I reckon Mancock thinks all his Christmases have come at once by keeping his job so far. Having tweeted his loyalty today and been a bit more obvious than Rudd & Morgan in showing his love for BJ, I’d say he’s hanging around for now. That said, he’ll probably calculate at some point that doing so does his future chances more harm than good if Bozza starts breaking laws etc.
Anyone else (I’m assuming Shapps is in the same “all my christmases” boat?)
Is there anyone in British politics who has abased themselves more abjectly than Matt Hancock?
Ross 'SNP gain' Thomson MP, he beats Hancock on the arslikhan of BJ stakes and he didn't even receive the tiniest bauble for it.
In Canada it looks likely Trudeau will lose his majority but as you say he is still tied with the Tories for largest party and still narrowly leads as preferred PM
Do you think Trudeau could do a deal with either the Greens or the NDP who are both polling at 12% nationally?
I expect some of the Green and NDP vote will go to the Liberals by polling day, I doubt there will be an official deal
The significance of Ontario makes the disparity in polling unhelpful. An 11 point Liberal lead would suggest Trudeau holding most of the 80 seats won last time and perhaps picking up one or two more (Liberals won Ontario by 10 points last time) but if the Conservatives are level that would suggest 25 losses for the Liberals which would slash Trudeau's majority. The other question for me is whether we will see a Conservative comeback in Quebec.
Trudeau's majority will be slashed but I expect his Liberals will scrape home with most seats just ahead of the Canadian Tories.
The Liberals are comfortably ahead in Quebec on 37% to 20% for the Tories and 19% for the Bloc Quebecois on the poll you linked to
I was talking to my daughter in law in Vancouver who is responsible for promoting tourism to BC and spends a lot of time in the far east. Since Canada arrested the CFO of Huawei relationship with China is in crisis and they have arrested Canadian citizens in retaliation. I asked how BC was getting over the problem and she was due to fly to Hong Kong to promote BC but that is now off the agenda
The break down in Canada-China relations is really hurting them
The Guardian now sells just 130,000 copies. That’s shocking. I can remember when it was near half a million. Wasn’t that long ago.
It’s down there with the Scottish tabloids. I had to hunt it out.
I know the guardian will point to its online readership and its new profitability - and good for them - but there comes a point when these papers will no longer be able to strut the stage as “national newspapers”. They are becoming niche products read by obsessives.
'Labour's chairman is backing a campaign to abolish all private schools, with party delegates set to consider the policy at their annual conference this month. Ian Lavery has thrown his weight behind the Labour Against Private Schools movement which wants all fee-paying schools brought into the state sector.'
Their class obsession will cost taxpayers billions, overload state schools creating huge class sizes, transfer enormous salary and pensions costs on to the exchequer, require massive building costs, and is idiotic
Against that, when Jo Johnson resigned, I could post here more than a dozen Conservative MPs who went to the same school, and there were a few I missed. Is that desirable? What the cure is, I don't know, but it cannot be healthy that a small group of schools dominates entry to politics (all parties), the media, the professions and even sport.
The abolition is pure marxism
Are you aware how much private schools save the public purse and the cost of abolishing them including new buildings, salary and pension costs, and the loss of foreign students studying in the UK
The cure is and always has been to improve state schools and work in cooperation with the private sector which does occur to some extent at present
If he is a Remainer opposed to Brexit fair enough. Meanwhile the father of someone I work with, a lifelong working class Labour voter from the North East, will vote Tory for the first time in his life at the next election as he voted Leave and wants Brexit delivered
Ironically, when the Referendum took place in June 2016, the Tories were in power with an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY. So they cannot blame anyone else.
The Guardian now sells just 130,000 copies. That’s shocking. I can remember when it was near half a million. Wasn’t that long ago.
It’s down there with the Scottish tabloids. I had to hunt it out.
I know the guardian will point to its online readership and its new profitability - and good for them - but there comes a point when these papers will no longer be able to strut the stage as “national newspapers”. They are becoming niche products read by obsessives.
I read the Times these days if anything. Telegraph is suffering from brexititis/Barclaybrothersitis. There isn't anything else anymore worth reading.
Look at his twitter line. He’s a rabid Remainer. i.e. a liar.
There are a hell of a lot of Conservative voters who voted remain but were prepared to support the outcome of the referendum through a deal. No deal and they may well be gone for ever.
Good for him, The Telegraph is rubbish nowadays, only the sports pages are still worth reading.
My Telegraph subscription has not long to run and I'm struggling for reasons to renew. Plato used to link there a lot, which is why I signed up in the first place (although I soon came to doubt she ever read half the stuff she linked to, and possibly none at all by the end) but its relentless, one-note, wall-to-wall Boris and Brexit coverage is wearing and not even especially insightful.
As a matter of interest, which columnist do you read ?
Nowadays, I tend to follow the links to whatever looks most interesting, which no doubt just encourages clickbait headlines. Often just a glance in the morning and then I'm out. The recent "mobile first" redesign of its website makes things worse and is not even very well done, with some stories being repeated.
It would be nice to know there is one man who takes responsibility for selections and is prepared to hold his hand up, but there are actually three selectors and and on the evidence of the past few years any number of others sticking their oar in. It's a messy and incoherent system, so the inconsistency and incoherence it produces is hardly surprising.
I've just finished Vic Marks's book Original Spin. It's worth a read. He's no maverick, nor is he a particularly good writer, but it rather inadvertently sheds a light on the Old Boy network that runs the game and the amateurish and cliquey way things get done at both county and international level.
I was at a family day today around 60 people there nearly all natural Tories in and around south London and also Surrey. Over 40 of them.are.now not going to vote Tory and will.vote LD. I have had this feeling for.ahile that we are in for a political.earthquake in the south and the LDs are going to make massive inroads. Unfortunately they are still no.spread most on GE seats up.. If LDs are 48-53 they are a huge buy in my opinion.
I'm gonna rock up to the Tory conference this year in the hope of seeing a security guard evicting someone saying 'you're not a Tory, you're phillip hammond with a fake moustache'
The Guardian now sells just 130,000 copies. That’s shocking. I can remember when it was near half a million. Wasn’t that long ago.
It’s down there with the Scottish tabloids. I had to hunt it out.
I know the guardian will point to its online readership and its new profitability - and good for them - but there comes a point when these papers will no longer be able to strut the stage as “national newspapers”. They are becoming niche products read by obsessives.
I read the Times these days if anything. Telegraph is suffering from brexititis/Barclaybrothersitis. There isn't anything else anymore worth reading.
Almost no-one reads a newspaper while commuting, except for the freesheets: the Metro in the morning, the Standard (in London, and edited by George Osborne) on the way home. Phones keep most passengers amused.
This in turn means newsagents close, or at least do not open early any more, so it is hard to buy a paper on the way to work even if you wanted to. It is no wonder circulations have collapsed.
Moronic. The country already had a Parliament elected in 2015 due to last until 2020. But the Tories got rid of it when they felt it might not do their bidding. Now they want another one. Be careful what you wish for.
I was at a family day today around 60 people there nearly all natural Tories in and around south London and also Surrey. Over 40 of them.are.now not going to vote Tory and will.vote LD. I have had this feeling for.ahile that we are in for a political.earthquake in the south and the LDs are going to make massive inroads. Unfortunately they are still no.spread most on GE seats up.. If LDs are 48-53 they are a huge buy in my opinion.
I am sure you are right and it will not just be conservatives taking a hit, I would expect labour to suffer greatly as well
I was at a family day today around 60 people there nearly all natural Tories in and around south London and also Surrey. Over 40 of them.are.now not going to vote Tory and will.vote LD. I have had this feeling for.ahile that we are in for a political.earthquake in the south and the LDs are going to make massive inroads. Unfortunately they are still no.spread most on GE seats up.. If LDs are 48-53 they are a huge buy in my opinion.
They need to hold their nerve, put forward a sensible manifesto, and make it clear that they aren't going to do deals with Corbyn and campaign accordingly. I can well see them taking seats from nowhere in such circumstances.
They need to be more than just a protest anti-Brexit party - it is not just Brexit that is driving voters towards them, but complete contempt and horror at the leadership of the other two parties.
I was at a family day today around 60 people there nearly all natural Tories in and around south London and also Surrey. Over 40 of them.are.now not going to vote Tory and will.vote LD. I have had this feeling for.ahile that we are in for a political.earthquake in the south and the LDs are going to make massive inroads. Unfortunately they are still no.spread most on GE seats up.. If LDs are 48-53 they are a huge buy in my opinion.
YouGov last week had the LDs second in the south on 19%, just ahead of Labour on 18% but the Tories were still well ahead on 42%.
In the North though Labour were on 33%, the Tories on 28% and the LDs on just 13% while in the Midlands and Wales the Tories were on 42%, Labour on 24% and the LDs on 15%
I was at a family day today around 60 people there nearly all natural Tories in and around south London and also Surrey. Over 40 of them.are.now not going to vote Tory and will.vote LD. I have had this feeling for.ahile that we are in for a political.earthquake in the south and the LDs are going to make massive inroads. Unfortunately they are still no.spread most on GE seats up.. If LDs are 48-53 they are a huge buy in my opinion.
They need to hold their nerve, put forward a sensible manifesto, and make it clear that they aren't going to do deals with Corbyn and campaign accordingly. I can well see them taking seats from nowhere in such circumstances.
They need to be more than just a protest anti-Brexit party - it is not just Brexit that is driving voters towards them, but complete contempt and horror at the leadership of the other two parties.
If there's no co-operation between Labour and the Liberal Democrats in those circumstances however, Brexit, possibly on the harder end, may become a reality.
David Allen Greene opined with huge authority that the court would not look into the detail of the labour party rulebook when Corbyn was having issues about nominations in 2015 odd. Then the court did look into the detail. Then DAGs authoritative tweet vanished overnight. A Marie Celeste level mystery.
Moronic. The country already had a Parliament elected in 2015 due to last until 2020. But the Tories got rid of it when they felt it might not do their bidding. Now they want another one. Be careful what you wish for.
The Country needs a new one.
I and many condemn each and every mp in our bankrupt HOC and an election will put a face on things and hopefully start to heal our wounds
'Labour's chairman is backing a campaign to abolish all private schools, with party delegates set to consider the policy at their annual conference this month. Ian Lavery has thrown his weight behind the Labour Against Private Schools movement which wants all fee-paying schools brought into the state sector.'
Their class obsession will cost taxpayers billions, overload state schools creating huge class sizes, transfer enormous salary and pensions costs on to the exchequer, require massive building costs, and is idiotic
Against that, when Jo Johnson resigned, I could post here more than a dozen Conservative MPs who went to the same school, and there were a few I missed. Is that desirable? What the cure is, I don't know, but it cannot be healthy that a small group of schools dominates entry to politics (all parties), the media, the professions and even sport.
The abolition is pure marxism
Are you aware how much private schools save the public purse and the cost of abolishing them including new buildings, salary and pension costs, and the loss of foreign students studying in the UK
The cure is and always has been to improve state schools and work in cooperation with the private sector which does occur to some extent at present
There is not one advantage by abolishing them
Surely if we make state schools as good as private schools, the private schools will go out of business, with the same cost to the public purse
The Guardian now sells just 130,000 copies. That’s shocking. I can remember when it was near half a million. Wasn’t that long ago.
It’s down there with the Scottish tabloids. I had to hunt it out.
I know the guardian will point to its online readership and its new profitability - and good for them - but there comes a point when these papers will no longer be able to strut the stage as “national newspapers”. They are becoming niche products read by obsessives.
I read the Times these days if anything. Telegraph is suffering from brexititis/Barclaybrothersitis. There isn't anything else anymore worth reading.
I have to occasionally put up with the Telegraph when the mother-in-law comes to stay (Saturday paper - she likes the crossword). Yesterday's headline on the front of the personal money section: "How to keep your money safe if Corbyn comes for it".
'Labour's chairman is backing a campaign to abolish all private schools, with party delegates set to consider the policy at their annual conference this month. Ian Lavery has thrown his weight behind the Labour Against Private Schools movement which wants all fee-paying schools brought into the state sector. 'The on-going existence of private schools is incompatible with Labour’s pledge to promote social justice, not social mobility in education,' the motion says. 'Private schools reflect and reinforce class inequality in wider society.'
'Labour's chairman is backing a campaign to abolish all private schools, with party delegates set to consider the policy at their annual conference this month. Ian Lavery has thrown his weight behind the Labour Against Private Schools movement which wants all fee-paying schools brought into the state sector.'
Their class obsession will cost taxpayers billions, overload state schools creating huge class sizes, transfer enormous salary and pensions costs on to the exchequer, require massive building costs, and is idiotic
Against that, when Jo Johnson resigned, I could post here more than a dozen Conservative MPs who went to the same school, and there were a few I missed. Is that desirable? What the cure is, I don't know, but it cannot be healthy that a small group of schools dominates entry to politics (all parties), the media, the professions and even sport.
The abolition is pure marxism
Are you aware how much private schools save the public purse and the cost of abolishing them including new buildings, salary and pension costs, and the loss of foreign students studying in the UK
The cure is and always has been to improve state schools and work in cooperation with the private sector which does occur to some extent at present
There is not one advantage by abolishing them
Surely if we make state schools as good as private schools, the private schools will go out of business, with the same cost to the public purse
How much do you think it will cost to prohibit private schools
Ten of billions of new money from the taxpayer just to satisfy marxist dogma
'Labour's chairman is backing a campaign to abolish all private schools, with party delegates set to consider the policy at their annual conference this month. Ian Lavery has thrown his weight behind the Labour Against Private Schools movement which wants all fee-paying schools brought into the state sector.'
Their class obsession will cost taxpayers billions, overload state schools creating huge class sizes, transfer enormous salary and pensions costs on to the exchequer, require massive building costs, and is idiotic
Against that, when Jo Johnson resigned, I could post here more than a dozen Conservative MPs who went to the same school, and there were a few I missed. Is that desirable? What the cure is, I don't know, but it cannot be healthy that a small group of schools dominates entry to politics (all parties), the media, the professions and even sport.
The abolition is pure marxism
Are you aware how much private schools save the public purse and the cost of abolishing them including new buildings, salary and pension costs, and the loss of foreign students studying in the UK
The cure is and always has been to improve state schools and work in cooperation with the private sector which does occur to some extent at present
There is not one advantage by abolishing them
Surely if we make state schools as good as private schools, the private schools will go out of business, with the same cost to the public purse
Yes, but it wouldn't be an immediate process. If private schools were banned overnight, it would bankrupt the state sector. If it happened over five years, it could be managed.
However, short of trebling the amount of money spent per pupil in the state sector, there is no realistic way of bringing them up to the same level.
I was at a family day today around 60 people there nearly all natural Tories in and around south London and also Surrey. Over 40 of them.are.now not going to vote Tory and will.vote LD. I have had this feeling for.ahile that we are in for a political.earthquake in the south and the LDs are going to make massive inroads. Unfortunately they are still no.spread most on GE seats up.. If LDs are 48-53 they are a huge buy in my opinion.
YouGov last week had the LDs second in the south on 19%, just ahead of Labour on 18% but the Tories were still well ahead on 42%.
In the North though Labour were on 33%, the Tories on 28% and the LDs on just 13% while in the Midlands and Wales the Tories were on 42%, Labour on 24% and the LDs on 15%
'Labour's chairman is backing a campaign to abolish all private schools, with party delegates set to consider the policy at their annual conference this month. Ian Lavery has thrown his weight behind the Labour Against Private Schools movement which wants all fee-paying schools brought into the state sector. 'The on-going existence of private schools is incompatible with Labour’s pledge to promote social justice, not social mobility in education,' the motion says. 'Private schools reflect and reinforce class inequality in wider society.'
This makes me wonder if women politicians are more likely to have science backgrounds than their male colleagues. Probably not but there are certainly high-profile examples like Angela Merkel, Margaret Thatcher and Margaret Beckett.
The Telegraph has a problem that the Guardian doesn't have - its website isn't nearly as globally read. At the same time it's gradually relinquished some of its enjoyably flowery and self-indulgent, more eccentric writers over the decades, in favour of a tabloidisation of tone mixed with lifestyle journalism, and now is also a relentless propaganda sheet for Brexit.
It was often hypocritical and blustering in the past, but now it's lost some of its dignity too.
'Labour's chairman is backing a campaign to abolish all private schools, with party delegates set to consider the policy at their annual conference this month. Ian Lavery has thrown his weight behind the Labour Against Private Schools movement which wants all fee-paying schools brought into the state sector.'
Their class obsession will cost taxpayers billions, overload state schools creating huge class sizes, transfer enormous salary and pensions costs on to the exchequer, require massive building costs, and is idiotic
Against that, when Jo Johnson resigned, I could post here more than a dozen Conservative MPs who went to the same school, and there were a few I missed. Is that desirable? What the cure is, I don't know, but it cannot be healthy that a small group of schools dominates entry to politics (all parties), the media, the professions and even sport.
The abolition is pure marxism
Are you aware how much private schools save the public purse and the cost of abolishing them including new buildings, salary and pension costs, and the loss of foreign students studying in the UK
The cure is and always has been to improve state schools and work in cooperation with the private sector which does occur to some extent at present
There is not one advantage by abolishing them
Surely if we make state schools as good as private schools, the private schools will go out of business, with the same cost to the public purse
How much do you think it will cost to prohibit private schools
Ten of billions of new money from the taxpayer just to satisfy marxist dogma
Much less than your suggestion of raising the quality of state schools to match private schools, is my point
'Labour's chairman is backing a campaign to abolish all private schools, with party delegates set to consider the policy at their annual conference this month. Ian Lavery has thrown his weight behind the Labour Against Private Schools movement which wants all fee-paying schools brought into the state sector.'
Their class obsession will cost taxpayers billions, overload state schools creating huge class sizes, transfer enormous salary and pensions costs on to the exchequer, require massive building costs, and is idiotic
Against that, when Jo Johnson resigned, I could post here more than a dozen Conservative MPs who went to the same school, and there were a few I missed. Is that desirable? What the cure is, I don't know, but it cannot be healthy that a small group of schools dominates entry to politics (all parties), the media, the professions and even sport.
The abolition is pure marxism
Are you aware how much private schools save the public purse and the cost of abolishing them including new buildings, salary and pension costs, and the loss of foreign students studying in the UK
The cure is and always has been to improve state schools and work in cooperation with the private sector which does occur to some extent at present
There is not one advantage by abolishing them
Surely if we make state schools as good as private schools, the private schools will go out of business, with the same cost to the public purse
How much do you think it will cost to prohibit private schools
Ten of billions of new money from the taxpayer just to satisfy marxist dogma
Abolishing them is absurd and punitive. There is, however, a good case to be made for stripping private schools of their charitable status, and giving the proceeds to the state sector. I can certainly see a Labour govt doing THAT.
David Allen Greene opined with huge authority that the court would not look into the detail of the labour party rulebook when Corbyn was having issues about nominations in 2015 odd. Then the court did look into the detail. Then DAGs authoritative tweet vanished overnight. A Marie Celeste level mystery.
He’s right about this one though. The act allows for temporary amendments to primary legislation through Order in Council (which are reviewable by the courts) in the event of an emergency. An emergency is exhaustively defined as being -
“19Meaning of “emergency”
(1)In this Part “emergency” means—
(a)an event or situation which threatens serious damage to human welfare in the United Kingdom or in a Part or region,
(b)an event or situation which threatens serious damage to the environment of the United Kingdom or of a Part or region, or
(c)war, or terrorism, which threatens serious damage to the security of the United Kingdom.
(2)For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) an event or situation threatens damage to human welfare only if it involves, causes or may cause—
(a)loss of human life,
(b)human illness or injury,
(c)homelessness,
(d)damage to property,
(e)disruption of a supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel,
(f)disruption of a system of communication,
(g)disruption of facilities for transport, or
(h)disruption of services relating to health.
(3)For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) an event or situation threatens damage to the environment only if it involves, causes or may cause—
(a)contamination of land, water or air with biological, chemical or radio-active matter, or
(b)disruption or destruction of plant life or animal life.”
Unless the so called “Project Fear” is correct, something Brexiteers deny, then it will be very difficult for the Government to establish that one of the above applies. The only way they could use it is if they could persuasively argue that leaving with a deal would result in an emergency, as defined above.
'Labour's chairman is backing a campaign to abolish all private schools, with party delegates set to consider the policy at their annual conference this month. Ian Lavery has thrown his weight behind the Labour Against Private Schools movement which wants all fee-paying schools brought into the state sector.'
Their class obsession will cost taxpayers billions, overload state schools creating huge class sizes, transfer enormous salary and pensions costs on to the exchequer, require massive building costs, and is idiotic
Against that, when Jo Johnson resigned, I could post here more than a dozen Conservative MPs who went to the same school, and there were a few I missed. Is that desirable? What the cure is, I don't know, but it cannot be healthy that a small group of schools dominates entry to politics (all parties), the media, the professions and even sport.
The abolition is pure marxism
Are you aware how much private schools save the public purse and the cost of abolishing them including new buildings, salary and pension costs, and the loss of foreign students studying in the UK
The cure is and always has been to improve state schools and work in cooperation with the private sector which does occur to some extent at present
There is not one advantage by abolishing them
Surely if we make state schools as good as private schools, the private schools will go out of business, with the same cost to the public purse
How much do you think it will cost to prohibit private schools
Ten of billions of new money from the taxpayer just to satisfy marxist dogma
Much less than your suggestion of raising the quality of state schools to match private schools, is my point
Yes, let's close our private schools, some of the best schools in the world with pupils from across the world providing scholarships and bursaries too just as Labour closed most of the grammar schools so as per usual Labour can drag everybody down to the lowest common denominator.
'Labour's chairman is backing a campaign to abolish all private schools, with party delegates set to consider the policy at their annual conference this month. Ian Lavery has thrown his weight behind the Labour Against Private Schools movement which wants all fee-paying schools brought into the state sector.'
Their class obsession will cost taxpayers billions, overload state schools creating huge class sizes, transfer enormous salary and pensions costs on to the exchequer, require massive building costs, and is idiotic
Against that, when Jo Johnson resigned, I could post here more than a dozen Conservative MPs who went to the same school, and there were a few I missed. Is that desirable? What the cure is, I don't know, but it cannot be healthy that a small group of schools dominates entry to politics (all parties), the media, the professions and even sport.
The abolition is pure marxism
Are you aware how much private schools save the public purse and the cost of abolishing them including new buildings, salary and pension costs, and the loss of foreign students studying in the UK
The cure is and always has been to improve state schools and work in cooperation with the private sector which does occur to some extent at present
There is not one advantage by abolishing them
Surely if we make state schools as good as private schools, the private schools will go out of business, with the same cost to the public purse
How much do you think it will cost to prohibit private schools
Ten of billions of new money from the taxpayer just to satisfy marxist dogma
Abolishing them is absurd and punitive. There is, however, a good case to be made for stripping private schools of their charitable status, and giving the proceeds to the state sector. I can certainly see a Labour govt doing THAT.
Although as less than half of private schools are charities and most of the ones that are are moving towards becoming private limited companies for financial reasons, it's not likely to have quite the impact their detractors expect it to have.
I think there are three charitable foundations left in Staffs: Lichfield Cathedral, Stafford Grammar and Newcastle under Lyme. The others are all companies.
Statistical draw for Swinson really, but you'd think she'd be romping ahead with les femmes, especially since Ruth the hearthrob of the centrists is wiv da angels now.
The Telegraph has a problem that the Guardian doesn't have - its website isn't nearly as globally read. At the same time it's gradually relinquished some of its enjoyably flowery and self-indulgent, more eccentric writers over the decades, in favour of a tabloidisation of tone mixed with lifestyle journalism, and now is also a relentless propaganda sheet for Brexit.
It was often hypocritical and blustering in the past, but now it's lost some of its dignity too.
The Guardian has also cleverly moved into Australia and America, filling a niche for international, liberal minded journalism that isn't the New York Times.
The Telegraph has no such obvious selling point. It lacks the gravitas of The Times and the ruthless hunger of the Mail.
It still makes a decent profit - no mean thing - but its long term future must be in grave doubt unless it finds a USP
There is problem with the opposition's bill re NO DEAL. How is a deal defined? Even with apparently no deal the government will be able to claim that there is a deal, for example on air travel, lorry regulations etc.
'Labour's chairman is backing a campaign to abolish all private schools, with party delegates set to consider the policy at their annual conference this month. Ian Lavery has thrown his weight behind the Labour Against Private Schools movement which wants all fee-paying schools brought into the state sector.'
Their class obsession will cost taxpayers billions, overload state schools creating huge class sizes, transfer enormous salary and pensions costs on to the exchequer, require massive building costs, and is idiotic
Against that, when Jo Johnson resigned, I could post here more than a dozen Conservative MPs who went to the same school, and there were a few I missed. Is that desirable? What the cure is, I don't know, but it cannot be healthy that a small group of schools dominates entry to politics (all parties), the media, the professions and even sport.
The abolition is pure marxism
Are you aware how much private schools save the public purse and the cost of abolishing them including new buildings, salary and pension costs, and the loss of foreign students studying in the UK
The cure is and always has been to improve state schools and work in cooperation with the private sector which does occur to some extent at present
There is not one advantage by abolishing them
Surely if we make state schools as good as private schools, the private schools will go out of business, with the same cost to the public purse
How much do you think it will cost to prohibit private schools
Ten of billions of new money from the taxpayer just to satisfy marxist dogma
Much less than your suggestion of raising the quality of state schools to match private schools, is my point
There are many existing state schools competing well with the privvate sector
Raising standards does not require absorbing 620,000 pupils into the sector
'Labour's chairman is backing a campaign to abolish all private schools, with party delegates set to consider the policy at their annual conference this month. Ian Lavery has thrown his weight behind the Labour Against Private Schools movement which wants all fee-paying schools brought into the state sector.'
Their class obsession will cost taxpayers billions, overload state schools creating huge class sizes, transfer enormous salary and pensions costs on to the exchequer, require massive building costs, and is idiotic
Against that, when Jo Johnson resigned, I could post here more than a dozen Conservative MPs who went to the same school, and there were a few I missed. Is that desirable? What the cure is, I don't know, but it cannot be healthy that a small group of schools dominates entry to politics (all parties), the media, the professions and even sport.
The abolition is pure marxism
Are you aware how much private schools save the public purse and the cost of abolishing them including new buildings, salary and pension costs, and the loss of foreign students studying in the UK
The cure is and always has been to improve state schools and work in cooperation with the private sector which does occur to some extent at present
There is not one advantage by abolishing them
Surely if we make state schools as good as private schools, the private schools will go out of business, with the same cost to the public purse
How much do you think it will cost to prohibit private schools
Ten of billions of new money from the taxpayer just to satisfy marxist dogma
Abolishing them is absurd and punitive. There is, however, a good case to be made for stripping private schools of their charitable status, and giving the proceeds to the state sector. I can certainly see a Labour govt doing THAT.
Why? Those who pay for private education are already paying twice - once for the state system they never use and then again for the private system they do.
Making it more expensive will just drive more people into the state system at greater cost to the tax payer. Post codes will then become the driver of quality. And the middle classes are brilliant at gaming that.
I was at a family day today around 60 people there nearly all natural Tories in and around south London and also Surrey. Over 40 of them.are.now not going to vote Tory and will.vote LD. I have had this feeling for.ahile that we are in for a political.earthquake in the south and the LDs are going to make massive inroads. Unfortunately they are still no.spread most on GE seats up.. If LDs are 48-53 they are a huge buy in my opinion.
YouGov last week had the LDs second in the south on 19%, just ahead of Labour on 18% but the Tories were still well ahead on 42%.
In the North though Labour were on 33%, the Tories on 28% and the LDs on just 13% while in the Midlands and Wales the Tories were on 42%, Labour on 24% and the LDs on 15%
We could go by the European election results from May too (the highest LD vote in a national election since 2010).
The LDs got 25.8% in the South East, 23.1% in the South West and 27.2% in London (beating Labour and second behind the Brexit Party in the South and 1st in London).
However the LDs got just 16.8% in the North East, 17.2% in the North West, 15.5% in Yorkshire and the Humber, 17.2% in the East Midlands and 16.3% in the West Midlands and 13.6% in Wales, trailing the Brexit Party and Labour in all those regions.
The Telegraph has a problem that the Guardian doesn't have - its website isn't nearly as globally read. At the same time it's gradually relinquished some of its enjoyably flowery and self-indulgent, more eccentric writers over the decades, in favour of a tabloidisation of tone mixed with lifestyle journalism, and now is also a relentless propaganda sheet for Brexit.
It was often hypocritical and blustering in the past, but now it's lost some of its dignity too.
The Guardian has also cleverly moved into Australia and America, filling a niche for international, liberal minded journalism that isn't the New York Times.
The Telegraph has no such obvious selling point. It lacks the gravitas of The Times and the ruthless hunger of the Mail.
It still makes a decent profit - no mean thing - but its long term future must be in grave doubt unless it finds a USP
'Labour's chairman is backing a campaign to abolish all private schools, with party delegates set to consider the policy at their annual conference this month. Ian Lavery has thrown his weight behind the Labour Against Private Schools movement which wants all fee-paying schools brought into the state sector.'
Their class obsession will cost taxpayers billions, overload state schools creating huge class sizes, transfer enormous salary and pensions costs on to the exchequer, require massive building costs, and is idiotic
Against theven sport.
The There is not one advantage by abolishing them
Surely if we make state schools as good as private schools, the private schools will go out of business, with the same cost to the public purse
How much do you think it will cost to prohibit private schools
Ten of billions of new money from the taxpayer just to satisfy marxist dogma
Abolishing them is absurd and punitive. There is, however, a good case to be made for stripping private schools of their charitable status, and giving the proceeds to the state sector. I can certainly see a Labour govt doing THAT.
Although as less than half of private schools are charities and most of the ones that are are moving towards becoming private limited companies for financial reasons, it's not likely to have quite the impact their detractors expect it to have.
I think there are three charitable foundations left in Staffs: Lichfield Cathedral, Stafford Grammar and Newcastle under Lyme. The others are all companies.
Citation?
This report, from 2018, says 75% of private schools are charities. Down from 77%.
'Labour's chairman is backing a campaign to abolish all private schools, with party delegates set to consider the policy at their annual conference this month. Ian Lavery has thrown his weight behind the Labour Against Private Schools movement which wants all fee-paying schools brought into the state sector.'
Their class obsession will cost taxpayers billions, overload state schools creating huge class sizes, transfer enormous salary and pensions costs on to the exchequer, require massive building costs, and is idiotic
Against that, when Jo Johnson resigned, I could post here more than a dozen Conservative MPs who went to the same school, and there were a few I missed. Is that desirable? What the cure is, I don't know, but it cannot be healthy that a small group of schools dominates entry to politics (all parties), the media, the professions and even sport.
The abolition is pure marxism
Are you aware how much private schools save the public purse and the cost of abolishing them including new buildings, salary and pension costs, and the loss of foreign students studying in the UK
The cure is and always has been to improve state schools and work in cooperation with the private sector which does occur to some extent at present
There is not one advantage by abolishing them
Surely if we make state schools as good as private schools, the private schools will go out of business, with the same cost to the public purse
How much do you think it will cost to prohibit private schools
Ten of billions of new money from the taxpayer just to satisfy marxist dogma
Much less than your suggestion of raising the quality of state schools to match private schools, is my point
Yes, let's close our private schools, some of the best schools in the world with pupils from across the world providing scholarships and bursaries too just as Labour closed most of the grammar schools so as per usual Labour can drag everybody down to the lowest common denominator.
'Labour's chairman is backing a campaign to abolish all private schools, with party delegates set to consider the policy at their annual conference this month. Ian Lavery has thrown his weight behind the Labour Against Private Schools movement which wants all fee-paying schools brought into the state sector.'
Their class obsession will cost taxpayers billions, overload state schools creating huge class sizes, transfer enormous salary and pensions costs on to the exchequer, require massive building costs, and is idiotic
Against that, when Jo Johnson resigned, I could post here more than a dozen Conservative MPs who went to the same school, and there were a few I missed. Is that desirable? What the cure is, I don't know, but it cannot be healthy that a small group of schools dominates entry to politics (all parties), the media, the professions and even sport.
The abolition is pure marxism
Are you aware how much private schools save the public purse and the cost of abolishing them including new buildings, salary and pension costs, and the loss of foreign students studying in the UK
The cure is and always has been to improve state schools and work in cooperation with the private sector which does occur to some extent at present
There is not one advantage by abolishing them
Surely if we make state schools as good as private schools, the private schools will go out of business, with the same cost to the public purse
How much do you think it will cost to prohibit private schools
Ten of billions of new money from the taxpayer just to satisfy marxist dogma
Abolishing them is absurd and punitive. There is, however, a good case to be made for stripping private schools of their charitable status, and giving the proceeds to the state sector. I can certainly see a Labour govt doing THAT.
That is very different to abolishing the education of 620,000 students and enrolling them in state schools
'Labour's chairman is backing a campaign to abolish all private schools, with party delegates set to consider the policy at their annual conference this month. Ian Lavery has thrown his weight behind the Labour Against Private Schools movement which wants all fee-paying schools brought into the state sector.'
Their class obsession will cost taxpayers billions, overload state schools creating huge class sizes, transfer enormous salary and pensions costs on to the exchequer, require massive building costs, and is idiotic
Bringing fee paying schools into the state sector is highly problematic because:
1) Their classrooms tend to be too small for the numbers of children required to make the state sector viable;
2) Their salary structures are frequently radically different, in both directions. Making the necessary changes to bring them into lien with the state sector would be - complicated.
3) They are often in inconvenient locations (would Denstone or Wellington or Cokethorpe thrive in the state sector)?
4) A very large number of their pupils don't come from the immediate locality, so it might create unexpected stresses in other places.
As against that:
1) Private schools are struggling anyway due to a sluggish economy and soaring costs. Pension changes in particular are going to be brutally difficult to manage. We have already lost one local school in Staffs (the staff were sacked by text message while at a school event) for these reasons.
2) Some private schools - Bristol Cathedral and Royal Wolverhampton - have successfully transitioned recently so it clearly isn't impossible to do it in the right circumstances.
There is a really excellent article I read on this recently in the Stoke Sentinel. Well worth a read.
But equally, it's Ian Lavery, a man who thinks his resignation to take up a job as MP deserves a redundancy payment. His opinions are as worthless as his pledged word.
Point 1 tens of thousands of struggling middle class families will silently rejoice their bollocks off at being freed from the obligation to choose between having a life, and paying school fees. Point 2 the unintended consequence s of abolition will be huge and are guaranteed to shaft the poor.
Moronic. The country already had a Parliament elected in 2015 due to last until 2020. But the Tories got rid of it when they felt it might not do their bidding. Now they want another one. Be careful what you wish for.
Seems on the button to me....
And it seems to be what the public increasingly are thinking.
'Labour's chairman is backing a campaign to abolish all private schools, with party delegates set to consider the policy at their annual conference this month. Ian Lavery has thrown his weight behind the Labour Against Private Schools movement which wants all fee-paying schools brought into the state sector.'
Their class obsession will cost taxpayers billions, overload state schools creating huge class sizes, transfer enormous salary and pensions costs on to the exchequer, require massive building costs, and is idiotic
Against that, when Jo Johnson resigned, I could post here more than a dozen Conservative MPs who went to the same school, and there were a few I missed. Is that desirable? What the cure is, I don't know, but it cannot be healthy that a small group of schools dominates entry to politics (all parties), the media, the professions and even sport.
The abolition is pure marxism
Are you aware how much private schools save the public purse and the cost of abolishing them including new buildings, salary and pension costs, and the loss of foreign students studying in the UK
The cure is and always has been to improve state schools and work in cooperation with the private sector which does occur to some extent at present
There is not one advantage by abolishing them
Surely if we make state schools as good as private schools, the private schools will go out of business, with the same cost to the public purse
How much do you think it will cost to prohibit private schools
Ten of billions of new money from the taxpayer just to satisfy marxist dogma
Abolishing them is absurd and punitive. There is, however, a good case to be made for stripping private schools of their charitable status, and giving the proceeds to the state sector. I can certainly see a Labour govt doing THAT.
Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.
However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status
'Labour's chairman is backing a campaign to abolish all private schools, with party delegates set to consider the policy at their annual conference this month. Ian Lavery has thrown his weight behind the Labour Against Private Schools movement which wants all fee-paying schools brought into the state sector.'
Againstols dominates entry to politics (all parties), the media, the professions and even sport.
The abolition is pure marxism
Are you aware how much private schools save the public purse and the cost of abolishing them including new buildings, salary and pension costs, and the loss of foreign students studying in the UK
The cure is and always has been to improve state schools and work in cooperation with the private sector which does occur to some extent at present
There is not one advantage by abolishing them
Surely if we make state schools as good as private schools, the private schools will go out of business, with the same cost to the public purse
How much do you think it will cost to prohibit private schools
Ten of billions of new money from the taxpayer just to satisfy marxist dogma
Abolishing them is absurd and punitive. There is, however, a good case to be made for stripping private schools of their charitable status, and giving the proceeds to the state sector. I can certainly see a Labour govt doing THAT.
Why? Those who pay for private education are already paying twice - once for the state system they never use and then again for the private system they do.
Making it more expensive will just drive more people into the state system at greater cost to the tax payer. Post codes will then become the driver of quality. And the middle classes are brilliant at gaming that.
Net result for the taxpayer and society? Zero.
Driving rich pushy parents into the state sector is inherently a good thing. They will raise the game of state schools. Do it.
I also see no reason why I, as a taxpayer, should subsidise Eton, Westminster and Harrow.
There is problem with the opposition's bill re NO DEAL. How is a deal defined? Even with apparently no deal the government will be able to claim that there is a deal, for example on air travel, lorry regulations etc.
No there isn’t. Section 1 of Benn’s bill defines a deal as being an “...agreement with the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union...” which is a withdrawal agreement.
'Labour's chairman is backing a campaign to abolish all private schools, with party delegates set to consider the policy at their annual conference this month. Ian Lavery has thrown his weight behind the Labour Against Private Schools movement which wants all fee-paying schools brought into the state sector.'
Their class obsession will cost taxpayers billions, overload state schools creating huge class sizes, transfer enormous salary and pensions costs on to the exchequer, require massive building costs, and is idiotic
Against theven sport.
The There is not one advantage by abolishing them
Surely if we make state schools as good as private schools, the private schools will go out of business, with the same cost to the public purse
How much do you think it will cost to prohibit private schools
Ten of billions of new money from the taxpayer just to satisfy marxist dogma
Abolishing them is absurd and punitive. There is, however, a good case to be made for stripping private schools of their charitable status, and giving the proceeds to the state sector. I can certainly see a Labour govt doing THAT.
Although as less than half of private schools are charities and most of the ones that are are moving towards becoming private limited companies for financial reasons, it's not likely to have quite the impact their detractors expect it to have.
I think there are three charitable foundations left in Staffs: Lichfield Cathedral, Stafford Grammar and Newcastle under Lyme. The others are all companies.
Citation?
This report, from 2018, says 75% of private schools are charities. Down from 77%.
That's ISC schools only, not all schools. In fact I think they cover about 45% of all private schools although I could be wrong.
Of course, it depends on what you mean by a school. I would have thought most secondary independent schools are ISC members, for example. Most prep schools and international language schools are not, however, and in terms of raw numbers there are more of them although they are often very small.
'Labour's chairman is backing a campaign to abolish all private schools, with party delegates set to consider the policy at their annual conference this month. Ian Lavery has thrown his weight behind the Labour Against Private Schools movement which wants all fee-paying schools brought into the state sector.'
Their class obsession will cost taxpayers billions, overload state schools creating huge class sizes, transfer enormous salary and pensions costs on to the exchequer, require massive building costs, and is idiotic
Against that, when Jo Johnson resigned, I could post here more than a dozen Conservative MPs who went to the same school, and there were a few I missed. Is that desirable? What the cure is, I don't know, but it cannot be healthy that a small group of schools dominates entry to politics (all parties), the media, the professions and even sport.
The abolition is pure marxism
Are you aware how much private schools save the public purse and the cost of abolishing them including new buildings, salary and pension costs, and the loss of foreign students studying in the UK
The cure is and always has been to improve state schools and work in cooperation with the private sector which does occur to some extent at present
There is not one advantage by abolishing them
Surely if we make state schools as good as private schools, the private schools will go out of business, with the same cost to the public purse
How much do you think it will cost to prohibit private schools
Ten of billions of new money from the taxpayer just to satisfy marxist dogma
Much less than your suggestion of raising the quality of state schools to match private schools, is my point
Yes, let's close our private schools, some of the best schools in the world with pupils from across the world providing scholarships and bursaries too just as Labour closed most of the grammar schools so as per usual Labour can drag everybody down to the lowest common denominator.
Mrs Thatcher closed most grammar schools.
The Wilson and Callaghan and Heath governments closed most actually, Thatcher as PM closed fewer than they did and grammar school attendance increased at the end of her premiership and under Major
'Labour's chairman is backing a campaign to abolish all private schools, with party delegates set to consider the policy at their annual conference this month. Ian Lavery has thrown his weight behind the Labour Against Private Schools movement which wants all fee-paying schools brought into the state sector.'
Their class obsession will cost taxpayers billions, overload state schools creating huge class sizes, transfer enormous salary and pensions costs on to the exchequer, require massive building costs, and is idiotic
Against that, when Jo Johnson resigned, I could post here more than a dozen Conservative MPs who went to the same school, and there were a few I missed. Is that desirable? What the cure is, I don't know, but it cannot be healthy that a small group of schools dominates entry to politics (all parties), the media, the professions and even sport.
The abolition is pure marxism
Are you aware how much private schools save the public purse and the cost of abolishing them including new buildings, salary and pension costs, and the loss of foreign students studying in the UK
The cure is and always has been to improve state schools and work in cooperation with the private sector which does occur to some extent at present
There is not one advantage by abolishing them
Surely if we make state schools as good as private schools, the private schools will go out of business, with the same cost to the public purse
How much do you think it will cost to prohibit private schools
Ten of billions of new money from the taxpayer just to satisfy marxist dogma
Abolishing them is absurd and punitive. There is, however, a good case to be made for stripping private schools of their charitable status, and giving the proceeds to the state sector. I can certainly see a Labour govt doing THAT.
That is very different to abolishing the education of 620,000 students and enrolling them in state schools
I agree. Do not abolish. But strip them of their charitable status. Why should a tax paying nurse in Swansea subsidise billionaire parents who send their kids to Eton?
'Labour's chairman is backing a campaign to abolish all private schools, with party delegates set to consider the policy at their annual conference this month. Ian Lavery has thrown his weight behind the Labour Against Private Schools movement which wants all fee-paying schools brought into the state sector.'
Againstols dominates entry to politics (all parties), the media, the professions and even sport.
The abolition is pure marxism
Are you aware how much private schools save the public purse and the cost of abolishing them including new buildings, salary and pension costs, and the loss of foreign students studying in the UK
The cure is and always has been to improve state schools and work in cooperation with the private sector which does occur to some extent at present
There is not one advantage by abolishing them
Surely if we make state schools as good as private schools, the private schools will go out of business, with the same cost to the public purse
How much do you think it will cost to prohibit private schools
Ten of billions of new money from the taxpayer just to satisfy marxist dogma
Abolishing them is absurd and punitive. There is, however, a good case to be made for stripping private schools of their charitable status, and giving the proceeds to the state sector. I can certainly see a Labour govt doing THAT.
Why? Those who pay for private education are already paying twice - once for the state system they never use and then again for the private system they do.
Making it more expensive will just drive more people into the state system at greater cost to the tax payer. Post codes will then become the driver of quality. And the middle classes are brilliant at gaming that.
Net result for the taxpayer and society? Zero.
Driving rich pushy parents into the state sector is inherently a good thing. They will raise the game of state schools. Do it.
I also see no reason why I, as a taxpayer, should subsidise Eton, Westminster and Harrow.
So now I understand. The wealthy only send Tarquin and Jemima to private schools out of the kindness of their hearts, so as to save the taxpayer the cost of educating the little darlings.
I was at a family day today around 60 people there nearly all natural Tories in and around south London and also Surrey. Over 40 of them.are.now not going to vote Tory and will.vote LD. I have had this feeling for.ahile that we are in for a political.earthquake in the south and the LDs are going to make massive inroads. Unfortunately they are still no.spread most on GE seats up.. If LDs are 48-53 they are a huge buy in my opinion.
YouGov last week had the LDs second in the south on 19%, just ahead of Labour on 18% but the Tories were still well ahead on 42%.
In the North though Labour were on 33%, the Tories on 28% and the LDs on just 13% while in the Midlands and Wales the Tories were on 42%, Labour on 24% and the LDs on 15%
This makes me wonder if women politicians are more likely to have science backgrounds than their male colleagues. Probably not but there are certainly high-profile examples like Angela Merkel, Margaret Thatcher and Margaret Beckett.
It may be more that women with science backgrounds are likely to have considerable experience of male dominated environments, and are therefore far more prepared for and/or willing to enter the political arena.
'Labour's chairman is backing a campaign to abolish all private schools, with party delegates set to consider the policy at their annual conference this month. Ian Lavery has thrown his weight behind the Labour Against Private Schools movement which wants all fee-paying schools brought into the state sector.'
Againstols dominates entry to politics (all parties), the media, the professions and even sport.
The abolition is pure marxism
Are you aware how much private schools save the public purse and the cost of abolishing them including new buildings, salary and pension costs, and the loss of foreign students studying in the UK
The cure is and always has been to improve state schools and work in cooperation with the private sector which does occur to some extent at present
There is not one advantage by abolishing them
Surely if we make state schools as good as private schools, the private schools will go out of business, with the same cost to the public purse
How much do you think it will cost to prohibit private schools
Ten of billions of new money from the taxpayer just to satisfy marxist dogma
Abolishing them is absurd and punitive. There is, however, a good case to be made for stripping private schools of their charitable status, and giving the proceeds to the state sector. I can certainly see a Labour govt doing THAT.
Why? Those who pay for private education are already paying twice - once for the state system they never use and then again for the private system they do.
Making it more expensive will just drive more people into the state system at greater cost to the tax payer. Post codes will then become the driver of quality. And the middle classes are brilliant at gaming that.
Net result for the taxpayer and society? Zero.
Driving rich pushy parents into the state sector is inherently a good thing. They will raise the game of state schools. Do it.
I also see no reason why I, as a taxpayer, should subsidise Eton, Westminster and Harrow.
I'm intrigued. How do you subsidise them?
Because I have to pay more tax to make up for the tax not paid by Eton College
'Labour's chairman is backing a campaign to abolish all private schools, with party delegates set to consider the policy at their annual conference this month. Ian Lavery has thrown his weight behind the Labour Against Private Schools movement which wants all fee-paying schools brought into the state sector.'
Their class obsession will cost taxpayers billions, overload state schools creating huge class sizes, transfer enormous salary and pensions costs on to the exchequer, require massive building costs, and is idiotic
Against that, when Jo Johnson resigned, I could post here more than a dozen Conservative MPs who went to the same school, and there were a few I missed. Is that desirable? What the cure is, I don't know, but it cannot be healthy that a small group of schools dominates entry to politics (all parties), the media, the professions and even sport.
The abolition is pure marxism
Are you aware how much private schools save the public purse and the cost of abolishing them including new buildings, salary and pension costs, and the loss of foreign students studying in the UK
The cure is and always has been to improve state schools and work in cooperation with the private sector which does occur to some extent at present
There is not one advantage by abolishing them
Surely if we make state schools as good as private schools, the private schools will go out of business, with the same cost to the public purse
How much do you think it will cost to prohibit private schools
Ten of billions of new money from the taxpayer just to satisfy marxist dogma
Much less than your suggestion of raising the quality of state schools to match private schools, is my point
Yes, let's close our private schools, some of the best schools in the world with pupils from across the world providing scholarships and bursaries too just as Labour closed most of the grammar schools so as per usual Labour can drag everybody down to the lowest common denominator.
Mrs Thatcher closed most grammar schools.
The Wilson and Callaghan and Heath governments closed most actually, Thatcher as PM closed fewer than they did and grammar school attendance increased at the end of her premiership and under Major
Mrs Thatcher was the Education Secretary in Heath's government.
Congratulation Keiran on your new son. I wonder if future generations will take the name 'Boris' to their hearts or whether it'll become verboten like "Adolf"?
'Labour's chairman is backing a campaign to abolish all private schools, with party delegates set to consider the policy at their annual conference this month. Ian Lavery has thrown his weight behind the Labour Against Private Schools movement which wants all fee-paying schools brought into the state sector.'
Their class obsession will cost taxpayers billions, overload state schools creating huge class sizes, transfer enormous salary and pensions costs on to the exchequer, require massive building costs, and is idiotic
Against that, when Jo Johnson resigned, I could post here more than a dozen Conservative MPs who went to the same school, and there were a few I missed. Is that desirable? What the cure is, I don't know, but it cannot be healthy that a small group of schools dominates entry to politics (all parties), the media, the professions and even sport.
The abolition is pure marxism
Are you aware how much private schools save the public purse and the cost of abolishing them including new buildings, salary and pension costs, and the loss of foreign students studying in the UK
The cure is and always has been to improve state schools and work in cooperation with the private sector which does occur to some extent at present
There is not one advantage by abolishing them
Surely if we make state schools as good as private schools, the private schools will go out of business, with the same cost to the public purse
How much do you think it will cost to prohibit private schools
Ten of billions of new money from the taxpayer just to satisfy marxist dogma
Abolishing them is absurd and punitive. There is, however, a good case to be made for stripping private schools of their charitable status, and giving the proceeds to the state sector. I can certainly see a Labour govt doing THAT.
Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.
However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status
You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
Comments
Congrats to the Aussies , by far the better team overall.
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1170748780288905218
McDonnell thinks the answer is to appoint Corbyn head of a temporary government
Yes McDonnell, hold the GE and let the nation decide
1) Their classrooms tend to be too small for the numbers of children required to make the state sector viable;
2) Their salary structures are frequently radically different, in both directions. Making the necessary changes to bring them into lien with the state sector would be - complicated.
3) They are often in inconvenient locations (would Denstone or Wellington or Cokethorpe thrive in the state sector)?
4) A very large number of their pupils don't come from the immediate locality, so it might create unexpected stresses in other places.
As against that:
1) Private schools are struggling anyway due to a sluggish economy and soaring costs. Pension changes in particular are going to be brutally difficult to manage. We have already lost one local school in Staffs (the staff were sacked by text message while at a school event) for these reasons.
2) Some private schools - Bristol Cathedral and Royal Wolverhampton - have successfully transitioned recently so it clearly isn't impossible to do it in the right circumstances.
There is a really excellent article I read on this recently in the Stoke Sentinel. Well worth a read.
https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/local-news/what-future-hold-private-schools-3061326
But equally, it's Ian Lavery, a man who thinks his resignation to take up a job as MP deserves a redundancy payment. His opinions are as worthless as his pledged word.
England have won 4 or more tests in an ashes series 4 times since the ashes began
Australia have done that 4 times since the millennium
The Liberals are comfortably ahead in Quebec on 37% to 20% for the Tories and 19% for the Bloc Quebecois on the poll you linked to
Nowadays the Telegraph is a shadow of its former self, there is less news coverage, which is often poor, there is acres of drivel, and ludicrous comment pieces promoted as great insight which are laughably shallow and full of errors. The Telegraph is simply not a good newspaper anymore.
Ted Heath saw England win every Ashes series when he was PM, as did Churchill, Eden and Callaghan
There can be no justification for abolishing them other than living under a marxist regime
If this is the plan - which it may not be.
The break down in Canada-China relations is really hurting them
It’s down there with the Scottish tabloids. I had to hunt it out.
I know the guardian will point to its online readership and its new profitability - and good for them - but there comes a point when these papers will no longer be able to strut the stage as “national newspapers”. They are becoming niche products read by obsessives.
Are you aware how much private schools save the public purse and the cost of abolishing them including new buildings, salary and pension costs, and the loss of foreign students studying in the UK
The cure is and always has been to improve state schools and work in cooperation with the private sector which does occur to some extent at present
There is not one advantage by abolishing them
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thérèse_Coffey
I've just finished Vic Marks's book Original Spin. It's worth a read. He's no maverick, nor is he a particularly good writer, but it rather inadvertently sheds a light on the Old Boy network that runs the game and the amateurish and cliquey way things get done at both county and international level.
Section errors are only part of the problem.
Over 40 of them.are.now not going to vote Tory and will.vote LD.
I have had this feeling for.ahile that we are in for a political.earthquake in the south and the LDs are going to make massive inroads.
Unfortunately they are still no.spread most on GE seats up..
If LDs are 48-53 they are a huge buy in my opinion.
https://twitter.com/JamesKelly/status/1170756744282169344?s=20
This in turn means newsagents close, or at least do not open early any more, so it is hard to buy a paper on the way to work even if you wanted to. It is no wonder circulations have collapsed.
They need to be more than just a protest anti-Brexit party - it is not just Brexit that is driving voters towards them, but complete contempt and horror at the leadership of the other two parties.
In the North though Labour were on 33%, the Tories on 28% and the LDs on just 13% while in the Midlands and Wales the Tories were on 42%, Labour on 24% and the LDs on 15%
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/c68uv1jm1d/TheTimes_190903_VI_Trackers_w.pdf
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/08/it-can-kill-you-in-seconds-the-deadly-algae-on-brittanys-beaches?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
I and many condemn each and every mp in our bankrupt HOC and an election will put a face on things and hopefully start to heal our wounds
And if Corbyn is elected so be it
I shit ye not...
Ten of billions of new money from the taxpayer just to satisfy marxist dogma
However, short of trebling the amount of money spent per pupil in the state sector, there is no realistic way of bringing them up to the same level.
https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.286225
This makes me wonder if women politicians are more likely to have science backgrounds than their male colleagues. Probably not but there are certainly high-profile examples like Angela Merkel, Margaret Thatcher and Margaret Beckett.
It was often hypocritical and blustering in the past, but now it's lost some of its dignity too.
“19Meaning of “emergency”
(1)In this Part “emergency” means—
(a)an event or situation which threatens serious damage to human welfare in the United Kingdom or in a Part or region,
(b)an event or situation which threatens serious damage to the environment of the United Kingdom or of a Part or region, or
(c)war, or terrorism, which threatens serious damage to the security of the United Kingdom.
(2)For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) an event or situation threatens damage to human welfare only if it involves, causes or may cause—
(a)loss of human life,
(b)human illness or injury,
(c)homelessness,
(d)damage to property,
(e)disruption of a supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel,
(f)disruption of a system of communication,
(g)disruption of facilities for transport, or
(h)disruption of services relating to health.
(3)For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) an event or situation threatens damage to the environment only if it involves, causes or may cause—
(a)contamination of land, water or air with biological, chemical or radio-active matter, or
(b)disruption or destruction of plant life or animal life.”
Unless the so called “Project Fear” is correct, something Brexiteers deny, then it will be very difficult for the Government to establish that one of the above applies. The only way they could use it is if they could persuasively argue that leaving with a deal would result in an emergency, as defined above.
I think there are three charitable foundations left in Staffs: Lichfield Cathedral, Stafford Grammar and Newcastle under Lyme. The others are all companies.
https://twitter.com/KennyFarq/status/1170744021544833024?s=20
The Telegraph has no such obvious selling point. It lacks the gravitas of The Times and the ruthless hunger of the Mail.
It still makes a decent profit - no mean thing - but its long term future must be in grave doubt unless it finds a USP
Raising standards does not require absorbing 620,000 pupils into the sector
Making it more expensive will just drive more people into the state system at greater cost to the tax payer. Post codes will then become the driver of quality. And the middle classes are brilliant at gaming that.
Net result for the taxpayer and society? Zero.
The LDs got 25.8% in the South East, 23.1% in the South West and 27.2% in London (beating Labour and second behind the Brexit Party in the South and 1st in London).
However the LDs got just 16.8% in the North East, 17.2% in the North West, 15.5% in Yorkshire and the Humber, 17.2% in the East Midlands and 16.3% in the West Midlands and 13.6% in Wales, trailing the Brexit Party and Labour in all those regions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_European_Parliament_election_in_the_United_Kingdom
This report, from 2018, says 75% of private schools are charities. Down from 77%.
https://www.tes.com/news/independent-schools-drop-charitable-status-following-cranked-government-threats
And it seems to be what the public increasingly are thinking.
However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status
I also see no reason why I, as a taxpayer, should subsidise Eton, Westminster and Harrow.
Of course, it depends on what you mean by a school. I would have thought most secondary independent schools are ISC members, for example. Most prep schools and international language schools are not, however, and in terms of raw numbers there are more of them although they are often very small.